Jump to content

Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

Third paragraph

Can we get back to LexCorp's propose edit to the third paragraph? I agreed with his intent, but suggested replacing the text he proposed and instead add to the end of the parpagraph: "To justify its use of waterboarding, the George W. Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew." I'd include the Goldberg cite as a reference, along with [1] for the narrow definition claim. I'd be happy to make the edits if we can agree on a wording.--agr (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

as I stated before I agree with this edit.--LexCorp (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Does that paragraph have to be there at all? I'm not sure the lede should contain anything about any specific country's policy regarding waterboarding, since the article is about waterboarding itself, not its legal status in the United States. I'd rather see those details in the subsection specifically devoted to U.S. policy. What's the argument for its presence? I'll drop any objections to it if there is a good argument for it. --GoodDamon 00:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
In general, the lede should be a stand-alone summary of the article per WP:LEAD. The US use and controversy is a major topic of the article, so it should be reflected in the lede. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The problem we are having here is a recurrent one in Wikipedia. Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia but every day articles are edited not with their encyclopedic content as their prime editorial drive but instead with their current affairs contextual content in mind thus the result is articles like this one distorted beyond any recognition. The article should just describe what is waterboarding and review in passing its historical perspective. Instead we find ourselves with an article with 80% current events examples and their implications in our times, 10% historical perspective and 10% for the actual description that in turn is being challenged every nanosecond to bring it into line with the latest possible info no matter how menial and contemporary it turn out to be. The funny thing is that this is the result of WP + the age of information and there is little to be done to prevent it apart from creating an endless string of content forks, which undoubtedly is what is going to happen to this article. As for now WP:LEAD requires a summary of every section in the article.--LexCorp (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Ughh... My goodness, you're right. Well, I'm open to suggestions on how to deal with it. --GoodDamon 01:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
There is really no solution. This article will continue growing with every possible menial current info and so will the lead due to WP:LEAD. At some point in the future consensus will determine that the article is too long and that splitting the article is the solution. Wikipedia is quite imperfect and Wikipedia Policy lacks the tools to prevent this from happening but don't get me wrong I prefer an imperfect Wikipedia than no Wikipedia. In order to save my sanity I no longer think of Wikipedia as a free encyclopedia but more like a free encyclopedia buried within an ever increasing number of unencyclopedic articles--LexCorp (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is true in the long term. Eventually, the fuzz will die down and we will get a better historical perspective. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As WP:Recentism says at the end "Editors writing today do not have an historical perspective on events that are going on today, and should not pretend to. It is perfectly fine to write about ongoing events with an eye towards benefiting future readers, but without attempting to prejudge what will be regarded as historically important ten (or 100) years from now." Now, does anyone object to the edit I proposed?--agr (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the edit I proposed.--agr (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some right-wing U.S. politicians vs Some U.S. politicians

"Some right-wing U.S. politicians and political commentators have unequivocally stated that it is their belief that waterboarding is not torture" vs "Some U.S. politicians and political commentators have unequivocally stated that it is their belief that waterboarding is not torture"

QueenofBattle is edit warring, attempting to remove the words "right-wing". I believe they are highly relevant here, and not designed to inflame. The socio-political leanings of those that have RECENTLY (see recentism above) been trying to redefine torture is highly relevant to the reader, for many reasons, not least that it shows that these people have a vested interest in decriminalizing acts they were complicit in. I am staying away from this item for a bit, as thsi user has stalked me, and seems to have decided that IP editors are not welcome contrary to WP philosophy. User has gone as far as alleging sock-pupperty. I have now created an account to make this easier. Mwalshie (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The words "right wing" have no purpose in the article and only seek to disparage those referenced in the article, as Mwalshie admits above. It is best if we avoid charges of POV by, well, infusing POV. Any reader can easily see the political leanings of the individuals referenced: political leanings that have little to do with waterboarding or their views of it. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Claiming that people on the Right of the American political spectrum is no more disparaging of those people than claiming I am a socialist. It's just a simple truth. :p Simonm223 (talk) 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I said why it was relevant, I DID NOT SAY otherwise, so please don't misconstrue my words "as Mwalshie admits above". You should have come here to talk FIRST, before beginning your edit war. This article is on probabtion, and the talk specifically requests that things be talked about before editing to avoid inflaming the situation. Instead you choose to just edit away, and I reverted to deal with this here in a group discussion - and not via a 1 vs 1 edit war. Mwalshie (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt many people outside the U.S.A. have ever heard of Ted Poe or Jim Meyers. It is incorrect to state "Any reader can easily see the political leanings of the individuals ". This is not a US only, or US centric encylopedia. "Any reader" is not familiar with the in's and out's of political views in one particular country. There are lots of other countries out there (with their own laws too, re your stalking at Salt Pit), so we should not assume they know the political leanings of such people. I sincerely doubt many people outside the U.S.A. have ever heard of Ted Poe or Jim Meyers (though thanks to a long series of war crimes around the world everyone is aquainted with Cheney). I doubt most people in the U.S.A. have heard of these two either. As such, descriving their political leanings is very relevant to the reader. I for one have no idea who that pair are, though I am going to read up on it now. Mwalshie (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Mwalshie, your comment above "...not least that it shows that these people have a vested interest in decriminalizing acts they were complicit in" is clearly POV that I take as your admission that you seek to disparage Dick Cheney, Ted Poe and others. An assertion that you have confirmed by accusing Dick Cheney of "war crimes." Any reader can easily follow the wikilinks provided to learn everything Wikipedia has to say about these individuals. Plus, you really should have some kind of a reliable source to refer to these folks as "right-wing". QueenofBattle (talk) 06:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
No, here we go again... It shows that those are my opinions, which I can freely give in talk pages. Ones I do not put on articles as THAT WOULD BE POV. Your declaration that you are a current or past member of the US armed forced would be a similar case. Some would say that means you are POV on issues where said forces are accused of involvement crimes - however so long as that status is not used in articles for POV pushing then of course it is fine. You implying I can't edit, becuase i have an opinion is like someone saying you can't edit as you have/are involved. I sincerley belive no source is neccessary to descrive them as right wing, unless we are back to wiki lawyering. No one that I have every heard of has said Cheney is not right wing. It's common knowledge. It is not common knowledge about the two other not-so-notable people, so it is being said to aid readers. It is brief, two words, and as such appropiate. Mwalshie (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, where is the reliable source that says they are right wing? They are Republicans, that much is clear from the reliable sources, but that is all that is clear. As to the rest of your rant, I'm having trouble following it. But, it's not your POV I am questioning, but the application of your POV to the article. QueenofBattle (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I did not begin an accusation that Dick Cheney committed war crimes. I merely repeated what is commonly said throughout most of the world. Repeating common knowledge is not POV. Even in the US now, did you happen to notice the front cover of Time Magazine, "Cheney's torture problem" (or something to that effect). Mwalshie (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
A suggestion for a compromise edit:
Some right-wing U.S. politicians and political commentators have unequivocally stated that it is their belief that waterboarding is not torture including Republicans Dick Cheney, Ted Poe, and Jim Meyers.
any taker?--LexCorp (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Support - This is almost exactly what I was trying to accomplish yesterday, before I somehow found myself in a POV-based edit war. QueenofBattle (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, we should not be hanging epethets like "right wing" on people in articles where we would not do so in their biography, per WP:BLP. In addition, doing so only invites more POV edit warring here. Someone else might try to replace "right wing" with "patriotic" citing other opinions in the press. Calling them "Republican" is only a little better. It implies that Republicans in general take this position. The real problem I see is mentioning Dick Cheney, Ted Poe, and Jim Meyers as a triple in the same sentence. Normally when one says "A, B and C take position X" one is suggesting that A, B and C are typical members of some class. I don't think that is appropriate here. Cheney, of course, was a principal advocate for the use of the water board in the Bush administration. Poe is a 3 term congressman from Texas, just one of 435 members of the House, and I have no idea who Meyers is or why he is notable enough to mention at all. On the other hand, we should mention John Ashcroft, another former member of the Bush Administration.[2]. Perhaps a better sentence might be "Former Bush administration officials Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft, both of whom played a role in approving the use of waterboarding, have stated since leaving office that they do not consider waterboarding to be torture. At least one member of Congress, Ted Poe, has taken a similar position." If we can find some other notable figures, and citable sources that they take this position, we might add them as well, with appropriate identification. --agr (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: Jim Meyers seems to be James H. Meyer--LexCorp (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I can support agr's proposal. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As for Meyers, I think we'd need some reliable source that connects James H to the Jim Meyers column, otherwise we might be slandering James H. In any case, I'm not convinced a retired state senator's opinion is notable enough to mention here. Surely, there must be some more prominent Republican commentators who are on record saying it isn't torture???--agr (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe Alberto Gonzales and John Ashcroft have said they think it's not torture. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking for people who were not part of the GW Bush administration. I think most observers would agree that a segment of the Republican party supports waterboarding, but it seems hard to find anyone notable outside the previous administration who is on record saying it isn't torture. Do you have a cite for Alberto Gonzales?--agr (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Ashcroft has said that waterboarding, as outlined by the cia's request, is not torture. Of course, to be NPOV we might want to mention that the CIA did not follow its own request and performed a much more intense form of waterboarding, and the memos that authorized those actions were all withdrawn. Gonzales has said similar things. After reading a few transcripts they speak in heavy legal terminology to cover their backsides, but they were both lawyers/judges to that's to be expected I suppose. Realizing that 'not torture' is really 'not always torture' is one of the key planks here. 'Not torture based on how the CIA was authorized to be performing it' would be more accurate but there are an assortment of 'not torture' viewpoints an only the fringe of the fringe hold it as an absolute. RTRimmel (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I edited the sentence in question as proposed. feel free to add Alberto Gonzales if you can find a source that clearly says he views waterboarding as not being torture.--agr (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dangerous precedent

Stephan Shultz set a dangerous precedent with his rollback of a good faith edit (in my view) by an IP address. Is it now vandalism to label waterboarding as "interrogation" rather than "torture"? Or did Stephan Shultz misuse his tool? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that edit looks like socking by a banned editor. Various IPs and throw away accounts have been trying to deny torture for quite a while. I don't see a huge difference between rollback and undue. Your complaint seems very nit picky and not really helpful. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You are making bad faith accusations about an IP address and denying the misuse of rollback, and I'm the one not being helpful? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the correct way to revert these particular edits, in my opinion. If others consider it vandalism or automatically suspect sockpuppetry, maybe you should step back and ask yourself if you are contributing constructively to the collaborative atmosphere, or if you are hoping to characterize an opposing viewpoint as vandalism in order to silence discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually a quick glance at both IP's talk pages demonstrate them to have been blocked for vandalism, which is the reason we have rollback tool. One ip has 1 edit, the other 4, all 5 were reverted or rolled back already. A good faith edit would have first been discussed on this talk page prior. Not researching anonymous IP addresses who make controversial changes prior to accusing other editors of misusing resources is not helpful. If anyone wants to discuss this, they can bring up the discussion here first, and some reliable sources that back their claims, and then it can be discussed as opposed to making a unilateral change that is not supported by sources. If you have some other sources that do not qualify as WP:Fringe to support the not-torture viewpoint, please include them so they can be reviewed, again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.29.223.49 (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could tone this down a bit. I think William S. Saturn's suggestion of an edit summary explaining such reverts is appropriate. Better to err on the side of civility. On the other hand, claiming it's dangerous precedent to rollback the nth reinsertion of a point of view that has been discussed to death and rejected seems a bit overreacting. We all get tired and take shortcuts sometimes.--agr (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

U.S Military Survival Training

"to psychologically prepare soldiers for the eventuality of being captured by the enemy forces."

This should be changed to possibility Alec92 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I read the source and it doesn't use the term eventuality, so I changd it to possibility. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is not torture, shame on Wiki for allowing it to be called that.

You can't call a technique torture with zero documentation! Just because CNN and MSNBC tell you waterboarding is torture, that doesn't make it torture. They are news organizations, a middle man, to feed you information. They don't have legislative and judicial authortiy. Therefore, without having a judicial or legislative body legally defining the term "waterboarding" as torture, you cannot state that "Waterboarding is a form of torture" on Wikipedia.

-Ry 11/13/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tillerm (talk • contribs) 20:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to read prior discussions on this topic (but please don't add to the discussions there - it is an archive), read this: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. For a better understanding of how reliable sources are used to build articles, read: WP:Verifiability. Finally, if you haven't already, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have any questions about the 3 suggested editing guidelines, feel free to come to my talk page (as the article's talk page is not the place for that kind of discussion). Regarding the archived discussion, if you have an article change to propose (with some specificity), here's the place to discuss it - but if covered already in prior discussions, it may not gain traction with other editors. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
It is clear to me that my comments, above, are based on facts no longer true - there does not appear to be consensus regarding Waterboarding being torture. Perhaps the FAQ on this issue needs to be changed, at some point, to reflect the lack of consensus. I also think the lede does need to be updated to reflect this lack of consensus. Regards, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Torture

As a reminder to anyone new to editing this article (e.g., [3],[4]), please respect WP:CONSENSUS, as documented in the embedded comments in the article and as documented at Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself points out that Consensus is not set in stone WP:CCC. It is intuitively obvious to me at least upon reading the discussions there is zero consensus on whether the interrogation technique is "torture" or not and therefore should not be referenced as such in the article. To lead off the article with this biased claim is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Malvenue (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • THere were extensive prior discussions on the topic, and the FAQ documents the conclusion. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd suggest you do not read not only the discussion, but the reliable sources collected e.g. in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. There is strong consensus in the relevant reliable sources, from medical to legal, military and human-rights. There is reasonably consensus even on Wikipedia, although it is a bit harder to see due to several loud-mouthed sock-masters and their socks. The "claim" is not simply a claim nor biased - it's a simple, self-evident application of the definition of torture, and the conclusion is widely recognized as such by all but very few politically motivated fringers even in the US. Heck, it's portrayed as torture in 1970 WIP flicks.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course it's torture when used in military training. That's the point of the exercise, to prepare soldiers for the possibility they may be tortured if they are taken prisoner. So they expose them to the real thing.--agr (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as a former interrogation resistance instructor in the USAF, I can categorically state that we do not "torture" our own people, training or otherwise. Malvenue (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
That is technically true. Military training is a "simulation" of a torture session with the full authorisation and willingness of the trainee and with many safeguards in place to avoid harm to the said trainee. So the military do not torture their own people, they just train them to cope better with torture. The point here is that the military "passively" acknowledges that waterboarding is a form of torture by training their soldiers on how to best cope with it in the case they are subjected to said torture while in deployment.--LexCorp (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Consider reading WP:DBF. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Namecalling now seems to be the only answer to the question. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
No, please WP:AGF. To be very clear, WP:DBF describes editing behavior to be avoided. Remember, WP:NOTAFORUM. Is there an article change you are suggesting? If so, please be specific, but please do take into account the referenced discussions and FAQ. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll wait for Stephan Schultz to answer my question above. He is well aware of the change I want in the article, it has already been demonstrated. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not changing the subject, you are missing the point. A hammer can be used for many different things, but remains a tool, even if not used as a tool in every given instance. Waterboarding (the abstract concept) remains a form of torture even if there are some concrete instances of its use that are not. What do you think those soldiers are being trained for? Is the rack less of a torture device because sometimes they only apply a little bit of pull? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point. I assume the common usage should remain dominant, but is there any evidence that suggests it is used so infrequently in military training that it should be disregarded? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not a question of frequency or "common usage". Torture is the primary use. Use in military training is a secondary, derived application to prepare the soldiers for the kind of torture they might experience. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, you've convinced me on this aspect, but I am still uncertain about its classification as torture given the multiple reliable sources that regard it as interrogation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not a conflict. Do you have multiple reliable source that claim that it is not torture? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That misses the point. "Enhanced interrogation technique" is a political euphemism. There is no conflict between something being an "enhanced interrogation technique" and something being torture. I was asking for reliable sources explicitly calling it "not torture", not for sources not calling it torture (Runciman's A History of the Crusades fits that bill, for example, as do the the Feynman Lectures on Physics). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious about these sources, for example, the LA times describes it as an extreme interrogation technique, not an enhanced one so you are misquoting your first source. Websters describes it as an interrogation technique, which is one of its purposes, and doesn't preclude it being torture. Stormingmedia describes it, to paraphrase, as a forceful interrogation method or a method to punish prisoners which are two uses for torture, or on another line says that the US should stop using it as an interrogation technique because it is a form of torture. Many news articles also describe it as a form of torture, enhanced interrogation is generally reserved for opinion pieces to describe the act. Enhanced Interrogation is particularly bad here because it no longer exists. It was a relic of the Bush administration, so we can't even use it in the present tense in the article. And the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques wiki describes it as a term for torture. So nothing you have here says that it is not torture. And then, even if you find it, can you make a valid WP:Weight argument that those opinions outweigh the opinions of so many other sources that say otherwise. RTRimmel (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


(ec)I'm not "aware of the change " - perhaps if you specified it, your comments would seem less forum-like. In the interim, recall that this article is under probation, to which you were a party. Also, please do not vandalize my talk page anymore (pardon, but editing again when you've been asked not to do so is not constructive, so seems to fit the intent of WP:VANDALISM). --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


To add my two cents (which I have said before but which I think are worth re-stating):

1. When we say "waterboarding is a form of torture" we are not making a legal conclusion under any country's law and instead we are simply using 'torture' as it is defined commonly (usually something along the lines of experiencing intense physical or mental pain).
2. Even those in the Bush administration that defended the use of waterboarding as not qualifying as torture legally still acknowledge the following: (1) those subjected to it experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning ("the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning...although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain"),(2) those subjected to waterboarding as a method of interrogation have a reasonable belief that they are in fact being put to death by waterboarding or will die as a result of waterboarding ("We find the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death… Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject's mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute.")
3. The Bush administration's legal conclusions that waterboarding is not torture (which were later withdrawn by subsequent legal analysis) depended upon two conclusions, which in fact are disputed by experts: (1) waterboarding does not inflict pain ("Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain"), and (2) that the threat of immediate death would not cause prolonged mental harm ("Although the waterboard constitutes the real threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering… We have previously concluded that prolonged mental harm is mental harm of some lasting duration, eg, mental harm lasting months or years.Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard… In the absense of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.") If you disagree with either of these conclusions (which it appears almost all experts on torture disagree with), then even under the Bush adminsitration's analysis you would have to consider waterboarding torture as defined under the law.

That is all. Remember (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious to me that while many people can quote sources on one side of the argument, many others can quote just as many sources on the other side. You cannot point to lengthy prior debates and claim the argument is "settled" thus shutting down debate, at least according to my own understanding of Wikipedia policy. Frankly to insist it IS torture when others can make a fair argument that it's not seems to smack of political bias and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's intuitively obvious to me that people on both sides of the debate can make good faith arguments ad infinitum. To me the obvious solution is to change the wording to simply be something along the lines of "Waterboarding is a form enhanced interrogation which many consider torture". That's neutral, encyclopedic, should be acceptable to all and has the added benefit of actually being TRUE. Malvenue (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you have more sources to add to our list of sources that have taken a stance on whether or not waterboarding is torture? If so, please add them, and then we can discuss how those new sources might change the current consensus. That would be useful in making this page comprehensive. Remember (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that someone who suggests "enhanced interrogation" is a neutral term already has drunk the Kool-Aid. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd further say that someone who suggests "enhanced interrogation" is proper for a Wikipedia Article needs to read WP:NEO. "Enhanced interrogation" = "torture" so why not call it torture.--LexCorp (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
We can all agree that waterboarding is an "act," "widely considered torture." What is the issue with this language? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Because "Waterboarding is a form of torture which few consider an enhanced interrogation technique" is equally valid. We already discussed this ad nauseam. There is a group of editors that want to bring up the prominence of a current localised political controversy into the forefront of this article. Any moron will understand said controversy by reading the whole or even part of the article. There is not need to change long standing definitions because of this controversy. Words may change but meaning remains intact. From Toca -> spanish water torture -> Waterboarding (already a neologism to avoid the use of the word torture) -> enhanced interrogation technique (a new neologism to justify the use of torture by the Bush administration) = TORTURE.--LexCorp (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You didn't address my question. And I apologize because I had the wrong word in my above post, but it's been corrected. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
See WP:WEASEL. --John (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
That link is meaningless unless you explain how it applies in this context. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Well I clearly state that your suggestion is a change of definition of waterboarding motivated by a current localised political controversy of which you and I and many other editor have already discussed ad nauseam. I direct you to the archives of the talk page for all the well sourced information and reasoned arguments.--LexCorp (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Webster's identifies the act as an "interrogation technique." No mention of it as torture. Interrogate is distinct from Torture in the dictionary's definitions. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You already mentioned this in the archives. Do not claim ignorance. It has been explained to you by many editors at large why it is not a valid argument to change the wording of the article. I am trying to WP:AGF here really hard but it sounds to me as if you are simply no abiding by the consensus and you are in a state of continually testing the waters to see if consensus can be shifted to your views. This without providing new arguments is very tiresome to the rest of the editors and quite disingenuous of you. Again I redirect you the archives where this has been answered to you directly and I also recommend other editor to do the same and not engage with you in a discussion without previously checking the archives to see if you have already been answered your queries in a satisfactory manner.--LexCorp (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Sorry, I thought it was obvious. We don't, for example, have at our article on the Holocaust "the holocaust was an enhanced ethnic population management program, considered by many to be genocide". As the guideline puts it, we avoid "evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution". Hope that makes more sense now. --John (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read above I do not use the language "enhanced interrogation" I use "act" "widely identified as torture." --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
You didn't address my answer to your question.--LexCorp (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What does it matter if it has changed because of a "current localised political controversy"? The fact is, RS's such as Websters are in no way fringe. It cannot be a definitive "is," when these sources counter the claim and label it as "interrogation techinques." All sources agree that it is an "act," and it is "widely held" but not definitively held, that it is "torture." --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I answered you above.--LexCorp (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
In light of Webster's, how can it be labeled a definitive "is" instead of the language I favor? I don't believe this has been answered in the archives. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I redirect you to the archives where this has already been discussed with you.--LexCorp (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I see no such redirect. If it's so simple to answer, why don't you just answer the question. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
[5] Section "On another note". There are plenty more examples with you in them too. It is also very simple to use the search function of the archives at the top of this very page.--LexCorp (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be nearly exatly the same argument that you had last time William with many of the same and a few new editors involved and you being firmly locked on the side against overwhelming concensus. You brought up your Websters reference again, so I'll admit I'm curious. Websters says waterboarding is an interrogation technique, which therefore means it is not torture because torture is not stated. Websters does not mention an elephant having an anus, so I am also to presume that it lacks one? If your logic is sound, that must be the case. Do you need help editing the elephant article to reflect this? If that is not the case, then your logic must be flawed and you could stop bringing up Websters rather poor definition again as some sort of golden bullet. You did stop bringing up the earth is flat in 1942 thing finally, and thank heavens for that. 161.150.2.55 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
But, the ANON editor's logic is flawed. Because Webster's does not mention that an elephant has no anus does not mean that an elephant, in fact, has no anus. It merely means that Webster's did not see fit to mention the anus (or lack of it). The fallacy of trying to establish a fact by pointing out an omission is, well, just that: a fallacy. Webster's defines waterboarding as an "interrogation technique," which I think is William's point (rather clearly stated). Webster's is equally silent about whether waterboarding is or is not torture. We'll have to look to other RS for that, of which they are not all in agreement. And, as we know, Wiki requires us to “fairly [represent] all majority and significant-minority viewpoints.” A fact is a fact, and it is indisputable. It is not widely-held, but rather universally-held. 100% of the subjects must recognize the fact for it to be so. Not most of them save a few fringy types, but 100%. This, my friends, is why there are very few facts in life, and why we should avoid presenting non-facts as such. I don't think the debate is fostered by using faulty logic to claim faulty logic, or by appealing to the "we've already discussed this" argument, as obviously having already discussed it did not produce a compelling collaboration. QueenofBattle (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Your 100% agreement test for facts is not shared by most of the world, nor Wikipedia in particular. Per WP:NPOV, a core policy, "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred." The notion that waterboarding is anything but torture falls squarely in that category. It is overwhelming rejected by experts on the subject--many cited in our article. Both major party candidates in the last U.S. presidential election rejected it. It flies in the face of common sense. Even the infamous Bush administration memos that attempted to justify its use, which we mention in the body of the article, do not argue waterboarding isn't torture in the ordinary sense, but only in a narrow reading of the federal statute (18 USC 2340) that makes torture a crime and even there they were forced to torture logic, claiming that "pain or suffering" in the language of the statute requires both to be present. There is no reason to reopen this settled question now. --agr (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC) #

AEB

[Outdent]But, giving equal weight to something and determining what stuff is a fact are two very different things that don't necessarily mix well. Also, that "...torture falls squarely in that category" is your opinion. The question is not how do I feel about it, nor what do you perceive to be "common sense." The plain and simple crux of the matter is that we go with what reliable sources say about a thing. Most RS say it is torture, but some RS say it is not (or claim it is an "enhanced interrogation technique"). So, we don't chose sides here. We play it neutrally (as did Webster's) and say it is "widely-held" to be torture or an "enhanced interrogation technique." We are choosing words here that have substantial impact and weight. Hell, even the president recognizes such when he unilaterally decides to refer to enemy combatant terrorists as "detainees." Words mean things, so we should let all RS sources speak for themselves. And, respectfully, there is every reason to keep this question open as it is clearly not settled, premature declarations of victory, aside. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Where are your reliable sources that dispute the "torture" classification? As pointed out above, to dispute the literally 100s of reliable sources that conclude that it is torture you cannot use sources that fail to call it torture - you need sources that claim that it is not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
How many would you like to satisfy you? It'd be helpful to know how many you'd like to see before I spend time finding them and posting them. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Any that you find would be very helpful (and make it more likely that you would be able to change consensus). If you have sources, please state them. Remember (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There are a few here: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. How many more are needed? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We already know about those and those were discussed when coming up with the current consensus. Do you have any new information? Remember (talk) 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Consensus changes with time. Is it the quantity or the perceived reliability of the existing sources that bothers? What other new information would you like? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You are asking me questions as if I am the consensus. Simply provide evidence and then we can discuss. If you have no new evidence and wish to argue based on old evidence, go ahead, but I don't think you will get very far. Remember (talk) 18:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
All I can find are two politicians and two opinion writers, none of them an expert. Do you hava a real RS? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Umm, reliable sources are the publications, not the people. And, when do politicians not represent a reliable viewpoint on a political policy matter?? First, I ask how many RS will satisfy you, and no response. Now you say that the sourcing I give are no good? You don't get to decide between those that are "real" and those that are not. So, back to my question: How many reliable sources will satisfy you? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course I (or rather we) do decide which sources are good, and we do that all the time. Wikipedia represents the informed opinion of experts, not the random rants of politicians. Looking over the 4 sources, two links seem to be no longer useful (they end at a generic Glenn Beck page), one is to an AOL video that is dead, but possibly can be found here, and the last is on Newsmax. The Newsmax thing is an opinion piece (and Newsmax is not an RS, anyways), and the Tancredo video is only showing Tancredo, i.e. its only a source for his opinions (or claimed opinions, to be particular). For Tancredo to have any weight he would have to be an expert. He is not. Whether waterboarding is torture is no more a political question than whether a hammer is a tool. The answer may have political implications, but that has nothing to do with the definition. And the number of sources needed depends on the quality, of course. If you insist on numbers, 100 Rush Limbaughs are about one Hitchens, and 100 Hitchens are about one Law professor or JAG. The overall weight has to be sufficient to lift it out of WP:FRINGE territory. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
In whose estimation? You deem them unreliable because you don't agree with those that profer the view. I think that's the classic definition of a POV. And, I might suggest we avoid the red herring "a hammer is a tool" thread. I'm not sure where it got it's start, but it's dumb and adds nothing to the discourse. So, back to my question, which I am taking as seriously as your point, which I assume was made in good faith. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
What? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
QueenofBattle please do post any reliable source you think apropiate and then the editorial community here will draw opinions on their expertise in the subject matter, relevance on this article and appropiateness in supporting any change in the article. Then we will have to weight if there are of sufficient quality and number to sway previous consensus. Those that you mentioned before where already taken into account in the previous consensus building stage.--LexCorp (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I hope that I (and all other interested editors) get to be part of this "evaluation of the new information" process? I kind of remember that I, too, am part of the editorial community here. Yes, I'm sure I've read that somewhere and at sometime in the last five years I've been editing here. Let's remember folks, consensus changes with time. The process of building a collaborative encyclopedia never ends... QueenofBattle (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That is exactly what we are doing here. Every wikipedia user is a wikipedia editor entitled to participate in the development of consensus including anonymous IPs. Do you have new arguments or reliable sources for us (including you) to consider?--LexCorp (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I typed in the words "waterboarding is not torture" into google and got about 857,000 hits. I could post them all here and we can start anew the process of arguing over which ones are "good" reliable sources and which ones are fringy, or not "expert" (as if that really matters), or opinion. But, this process of putting forth reliable sources and then refuting the quality of the reliable sources profered is wearing folks out. A neutral reading of the sources already provided (both pro and con) would leave a prudent person with only one conclusion, namely that most but not all think it is torture. But, the earlier considerations have become too personal to be productive or fair. We seem to all be yelling so loudly that we are missing the others' forest for the proverbial trees. So, below, I have proposed an alternative resolution that may have a chance to see the light of day. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument is undisputedly torture. Forcing terrorists to read through it would be more effective than waterboarding.--Louiedog (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Only because some editors don't know when to quit and contantly bring up the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS again and again when its obvious that concensus has not changed after the first 5 posts. 161.150.2.55 (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The suffocation (i.e., the cutting off of air) of a bound, inclined prisoner is, by definition, torture. Interrogation is only one of its uses (another being punishment, as formerly done in Cambodia). This has been covered again and again and I am beginning to think that the editors wishing that it not be described as a form of torture (presumably because they believe it can't possibly be torture if done by "good" people like Americans against "bad" people like Muslims) have not read through all the archives of this discussion page. Please do that before commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, your presumption is wrong. I have read through all the archives, and the article, and the definitions, and the RfCs. My desire is that the article be presented in a neutral manner, which currently the first sentence of the article makes impossible. Most of the remainder of the article seems reasonable, but the first sentence is where I and other editor's have a continuing issue. Also, please assume good faith before proceeding further. Thank you. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However a consensus formed in the past for the current lede. I see no sign that consensus has changed. Altering the lede to give weight to claims that waterboarding is not torture, given the huge number of high quality sources that say it is torture and absent high quality reliable sources to the contrary, as WP:NPOV puts it, "would be to legitimize and even promote such claims." Also note that opinion writers are not considered reliable sources for questions of fact. See WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion. --agr (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AEB2

My proposal is actually contrary to promoting the "it's not torture" view. The lede (and the article for that matter) already discusses all the people who think it is torture and all the reasons why they think so. My proposal is the "NPR approach" that is currently discussed later in the article. Namely, why not just describe the procedure in the lede and then continue with the current text of all the people who think it is torture? It's not giving weight to another viewpoint, it's just removing the declarative statement in the lede that I and others find offensive and POV. I'm hoping we can find something here that will work. The current environment is pretty unbending to consider any alternatives. As we know, in life there are always alternatives. So, here's a try at it:
Waterboarding is used as an interrogation technique a form of torture and which consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6] medical experts in the treatment of torture victims,[7][8] intelligence officials,[9] military judges[10] and human rights organizations.[11][12]
No changes other than adding six words and deleting five. It is still very clear that most everyone agrees it is torture, but still leaves room for the discussion later in the article about "classification as torture." QueenofBattle (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not enough... You'll need to add in international treaties, leagal opinions, the laws of various nations, and we should probably list the dozens of recognized experts from the various diciplins to properly intone the sheer overwhelming weight of sources that state that waterboarding is torture ... heck, it would be easier to say "while considered to be torture by most, the Bush administration had argued in the past that waterboarding was not torture when applied to 3 terrorist detainees." That covers it. Can we get a concensus for that? Further, waterboarding is also used for coersion, punishment, blackmail and a host of other unsavory practices, so simply calling it an interrogation technique is a bit... weak. There needs to be word that encompases all of that... a short work, torture comes to mind. Or we could just leave the concensus lead. Did you ever find any sources to back you up on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.88.102 (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Multiple reasons why QueenofBattle proposal fails:
1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that do not cater for the sensibilities of a particular group.
2. What you suggest is also considered by a large body of editors to be "offensive and POV" and anyone reading the whole article will understand and appreciate the nature of the "enhance interrogation technique" bullshit.
3. The large majority of reliable sources from experts in the political, medical, human right and even military fields agree that waterboarding is a form of torture.
4. The same argument by the preceding IP and put very well by user John further above. We don't, for example, have at our article on the Holocaust "the holocaust was an enhanced ethnic population management program, considered by many to be genocide". As the guideline puts it, we avoid "evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution". The examples here can be endless. Why not "Waterboarding is the pastime of sadistic ass-holes, and a form of torture which consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and ..."
5. WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV and WP:NEO support the current version of the lead.
6. Anyone that abstracts himself from current events will see that defining waterboarding as a interrogation technique is absurd. Imagine yourself in medieval Europe and trying to defend the use of the Toca by the Spanish inquisition as an interrogation technique. Ridiculous!!
There are many more arguments against your suggestion in the archives but these ones I think are enough. Consensus has been reached and the only thing that editors that abide by the current consensus are asking from the ones that want to review and change of consensus is that they put forward new arguments or reliable sources that counter those reliable sources that define waterboarding as torture.--LexCorp (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, first, thanks for the civil and open-minded consideration of my proposal, which I might remind you is not to change the definition, but rather remove the point of contention from the article. There is not "only [one] thing that editors..." can do. Nothing is cast in stone around here. The consensus that you hold so dearly does not exist; it is merely the declaration of victory by exhausting the other side. The ArbCom decision was to place the article on probation because of the actions of various editors; they clearly refused to weigh-in on the matter. The RfC also met with no consensus, and the FA candidacy failed largely because of a perception of POV drawn from the very sentence I am seeking to change. Now, to my proposal and your counterarguments: Nothing is my proposal says that "waterboarding is not torture." In fact it changes precisely 0.001 percent of all the stuff already in the article and more closely matches the rest of the body text, where there is a discussion of the classification of waterboarding as torture.
  • As to the editor's point number 1 above. I have no idea what that means; when did I ever claim otherwise?
  • As to the editor's point 2, I never said anything about using the euphemistic "enhanced" term.
  • As to point 3, thank you for making my point. Most, but not all say it is torture.
  • As to point 4, one has nothing to do with the other. We are debating the universal classification of waterboarding as torture, not some hypothetical assertion about the Holocaust.
  • As to point 5, to the contrary. The current lede is in direct violation of NPOV by choosing one view over another. Wiki cautions us to avoid doing this very thing. My proposal is to remove the contention over either view.
  • And, as to point 6, you seem to be trying to make a distinction between torture and interrogation techniques, where no distinction need be made. Something can be an interrogation technique and can also be torture as easily the two can be delinked. Plus, my proposal is not to say that waterboarding is merely an interrogation technique, but rather that it is used as an interrogation technique. It is also used as a punishment, for training, etc.
There are also many discussion points supporting my proposal, if one cares to read them... QueenofBattle (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
1. You stated as motivation for change "removing the declarative statement in the lede that I and others find offensive and POV". I point out that wikipedia does not cater to your sensibilities and further counter as an example in 2. that what you propose with or without "enhanced" is also offensive and POV. 3. So if you agree on the minority view then clearly the article as currently stands follows both WP:NPOV an WP:FRINGE in its treatment of the minority view. What you suggest is exactly the opposite of what WP policy states is normal practice when dealing with minority views. Point 4 illustrates that until now all alternatives put forward to waterboarding as torture are just replacements that are "evasive, ambiguous or misleading attribution" with the only intent of removing "torture" from the lead. 5. NPOV is not, contrary of what you think, equal treatment of views. I suggest you re-read WP:Fringe and WP:NPOV. 6. No they are not exclusive but one is a well established definition and the other is a neologism and an euphemism to avoid the word torture and to justify torture by the Bush administration in recent times. WP:NEO is quite clear on the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
You seem to be trying to twist my words to win the argument. Wikipedia is also about collaboration devoid of e-bullying by the majority. My point on 3 is that there are two points of view here, although me thinks you get my point and are just trying to score another debating tally. 4 doesn't make your intended point very well, as analogies rarely do. As to 5, NPOV requires a neutral presentation (yes, I'm sure that's what the "N" stand for) of differing views. And, please don't try to lecture me on Wikipedia's tenants, lest we are not going to get very far with this. Has anyone else objections to the compromise proposal I have put forth before this discussion, once again, falls into personal attacks? QueenofBattle (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Enhanced interrogation technique" is NOT a euphemism for torture. Other EITs include belly-slaps, grabbing the face, and basically anything other than talking across a table. Aubri (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
"Enhanced interrogation technique" IS an euphemism when the Bush administration used it to describe the form of torture that is waterboarding.--LexCorp (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a euphemism when it's accurate. Waterboarding is definitely an enhanced interrogation technique -- that is, a technique that was available to interrogators that went beyond simple interview. It can ALSO be torture if you believe that to be the case.153.2.246.35 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) From WP:NPOV "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." Could you explain to me how the omission of the majority view and the inclusion of the minority view in the lead tallies with the above policy statement?. We are talking about the sources' views (not the editors' views) here of which ONLY 4 are available to represent the minority view (or shall we say fringe view)and of those, one is from a media commentators, and one is from a political pundit, both without any expertise in the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Could you explain to me how the omission of the majority view and the inclusion of the minority view in the lead tallies with the above policy statement?" Well, it doesn't, but that's not what I am proposing. What I am proposing in no way states that "waterboarding is not torture," hence it doesn't represent the minority view. The lede also already contains the sentence "Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts, politicians [oops, I thought politicians weren't "reliable" on this subject?], war veterans, medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, intelligence officials, and human rights organizations," so my proposal in no way excludes the majority's view. What it does is present the clearly contentious matter in a neutral manner and let's the reader decide after they have digested the entire article, which is what I expect to be able to do when I read an encyclopedia. The readers aren't idiots and don't need the "truth" force-fed to them. Just lay out the facts without passion or prejudice, and let the reader decide. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - However, the suffocation (that is, the cutting off of air) by water of a bound, inclined prisoner is, by definition, torture. Sources from the four U.S. individuals who have publicly stated their belief that it is not a form of torture are already given in the article. Badagnani (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Then should not the views of the four presented in the article also be summarized (with appropriate weighting) in the lede (or at least not be contradicted by the lede)? That is part of what I am trying to accomplish with the proposal on the table. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
We could find many opinions that evolution is false, that Barak Obama isn't a natural born citizen, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that Apollo 11 was faked, that the World Trade Center attacks were staged by the CIA, etc. We do not include those views in those articles' ledes. Again see WP:GEVAL.--agr (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[OD]But what do those hypotheticals have to do with anything? Again, analogies don't advance your claim any. Stick to this one discussion, please. And, what does WP:GEVAL have to do with my proposal? Not once are the words "waterboarding is not torture" used, while the "waterboarding is considered torture by" wording is prominently displayed in the proposed lede (and the existing one for that matter). You seem to want no weight, not proportional weight. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV requires that we give information based on its prominence, do you honestly consider the opinions of these four as signifigant as the opposing viewpoint? RTRimmel (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[OD]It's not just about significance. It's about existence of differing viewpoints (i.e., the minority viewpoint). And, there are more than four. Hell, there's at least two more in the article itself (e.g., the former VPOTUS and the former AG). Surely, you are not going to try to argue that the Attorney General of the United States is not credible on matters of law? Or maybe it's just the two AGs under Bush that aren't credible, but the one under Obama is? QueenofBattle (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As agr clearly exemplifies you have a flawed understanding of the WP:NPOV policy and as thus perceive a POV issue in "Waterboarding is a form of torture" statement when in fact there isn't any. Your position that because there is a minority/fringe view, we somehow have to be evasive and ambiguous on the well sourced definition of waterboarding is not sustantiated in WP:NPOV. Let me ask you in the other way. Given from WP:NPOV "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." Could you explain to me how the inclusion of the majority view and the omission of the minority view in the lead tallies with the above policy statement?--LexCorp (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you have a flawed ability to read the written word. I don't need another lecture from you on what NPOV requires. This editor thinks the current wording is POV, as does this one, and this one. I mean, presumably even this editor will like my proposal, as will this admin. You might take a peek here to see if this looks a bit, umm, familiar. Now, to your question. The inclusion of the majority view and the omission of the minority view in the lead does not meet the requirments of NPOV, so I am at a loss as to why you are insisting on it. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Look this is getting too hot and we are on probation here. My opinion is that the minority/fringe view is well covered in the article as per WP:NPOV. If fact I make a clear distinction of the well established definition of waterboarding as opposed to the current localised political controversy sparked by actions of the Bush administration. The statement that "waterboarding is a form of torture" is well sourced and in not way controversial or POV. That consensus was reached at some point and the current version of the lead reflects that consensus and that I cannot see any evidence of change either in material evidence/sources or consensus to accept the change you propose. I will leave it at that for the moment.--LexCorp (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I disagree. It is POV, is clearly controversial (or there wouldn't have been a neeed for all this talk page chatter, an RfC on the definition, an ArbCom ruling, and deliberations over a failed FA election), and the lede should reflect what the article says. We don't pick and choose, even if we don't agree with the actions of the Bush administration. There is no consensus that I can find, but we don't have to solve all of this today. I'll leave it be for a bit to let others weigh in. QueenofBattle (talk) 04:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you given up on the reliable sources thing? The "is" definition is incredibly well supported in the literature - and, btw, in public opinion everywhere but in the US, where it was used as election fodder. And even in the US, the majority agrees, as do prominent republicans like McCain. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[OD]Nope, but you haven't told me how many of them will satisfy you. But, Stephen I'd like to refocus you on my proposal, which is not to represent anew the minority's view, rather than arguing over the quality or quantity of RS. We already have enough RS of the minority viewpoint to support my proposal, which again is not to represent the minority's viewpoint in the lede, but merely to de-escalate the language. The majority view is still fully presented in my proposed lede, while nowhere do the words "waterboarding is not torture" appear in the lede. So, majority still well-represented; minority not even discussed. Information is still factual, namely that waterboarding is used an an interrogation technique (which historically has been its primary use). QueenofBattle (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Historically Waterboardings primary use has been interrogation is a bit off. It has been historically used for torture and does so through a form of interrogation. So would ripping off someone's fingernails while asking them questions. A quick glance though our historical references demonstrate that to be accurate. The two are linked, to be sure, but the torture part seems to override the interrogation part as waterboarding has also been used for blackmail, coersion, and just plain punishment. All forms of torture. And seeing as waterboarding is a form of torture is a simple factual explination of the term, deescelating the the language results in whitewashing the lede pushing the controversy in the other direction. To be clear we need to be editors who call a spade a spade, telling readers otherwise does nothing for anyone. The article will not be any more likly to get FA status with your proposal and if that is the thrust of your argument it fails. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, by looking here one can see that the primary reason the FA candidacy failed was this very POV issue in the lede.QueenofBattle (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you don't read it through a set of preconcieved notions you'll notice that a signifigant amount of the support for the FA status were from editors for it being called torture. So, again, my point stands. Your edit will not achive a FA and therefor using that as the thrust of your argument fails. You can certainly argue that based on your flawed interpretation of NPOV that you have enough, 6 or so sources against the 230 or so sources, but again you've seen fit to not look for more sources while decrying other editors to provide you some guidelines to work with. Try WP:RS and go find some reliable 3rd party sources, you know... not people who would get accused of warcrimes if it is torture like your AGs, VP, PotUS and the like. If you honestly have some sort of meaningful position here, you should not have any trouble finding reliable 3rd party sources that say otherwise. This is not the George W Bush article where you can fall back on BLP rules to whitewash it. You need to find actual sources to support your not torture viewpoint. Seeing as even Bush's viewpoint was torture in all but 3 cases, and the three cases where waterboarding was not torture are mentioned in the lede I just don't see where you are comming from. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Three terms for you to ponder: 1) WP:AGF. I am not looking through some preconceived lens here. There were six editors that disliked the POV, four that disliked other aspects, and three that were unclear, so it failed primarily (as I said before) due to POV push on the part of the "it must be torture" crowd. 2) WP:WIN This is not some contest to try to win, and arguements don't win or fail because you unilaterally decide. My logic is sound and my approach is collaborative and looking for compromise. 3) WP:RS. There are enough of them to support the minority view, but you and others have attempted to discredit them because of your bias. This is not about GWB and this is not about whitwashing. This is about preventing some from highjacking WP to make some point about their person views of torture and waterboarding. I am asking for editors to be open minded and not assume that their view "just has to be right"; enough with the knee jerking. Let's try to find the common ground here without dismissing my views and those of others out-of-hand. The quest for fairness and truth continues... QueenofBattle (talk) 21:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
AS for 1, your position is a whitewash. I would not personally support it as being anything other than a pov push, and given the general opinions of several other editors here I'd suspect they would as well meaning that your lede is not going to make this into a FA. 2: You love playing the victem, but heck I'll bite. Your compromise whitewashes the lede and minimizes waterboarding in an effort to do what? As has been stated before, by many editors, your position on NPOV is incorrect. Until someone properly demonstrates that your viewpoint on NPOV is correct, I cannot see this going any further. Again, as was pointed out to you repeatedly as you argue to stay on topic, if your standard of basically anything is allowed then you get to put stuff up about the supposed holocaust and the controvertail theory of evolution. 3. There are barly enough to support it as a [[WP:Fringe] viewpoint. They are all form the same small group of American politicians and their pet journalists. If you could get some more wide ranging sources to support your argument it might actually carry some weight, but as is there just isn't anything there to debate. So, to be clear, lets examine this. Because waterboarding is a form of torture, it HAS to be in the lead. Period. It has to be up in the first sentence because that is what waterboarding is. After that, there is some wiggle room as to what else can go in there, but that's the short of it. Anything else is an appologist position trying to dumb down the encyclopedia for some pov purpose. 'Waterboarding is a form of torture typically used for interrogation' would be acceptable. RTRimmel (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, aside from the name calling and the generally rude behavior, let me try to respond to as much of this as I can. You have no monopoly on understanding and applying Wikipedia's rules and tenant. Am I to believe that my reading of NPOV is incorrect solely because you say so?! Solely because two other like-minded editors think so? Funny, but there are several editors listed above (and in the failed FA candidacy) that think my reading of NPOV is just fine, gracias. Play with me here: perhaps your reading of NPOV is incorrect and filtered through a bias to get the big bad e-e-e-v-i-l Bush guys and their lunatic ilk who mercilessly tortured "misunderstood" goat herding detainees for their own shits and grins? Of course, the politicians that think it clearly is torture are smarter than the other evil politicians complicit in some mass sadistic conspiracy, and so we should place our trust in them? We should believe that the newbie AG under President Obama is more credible than the two AGs under Bush? Am I and the other editors here to understand your point correctly that a "small group of American politicians and their pet journalists" who think waterboarding may not necessirily be torture are just flat wrong, but a group of politicians and their pet journalists that think waterboarding clearly is torture are always right, with no questions asked? Me smells the ripe and delightful stench of partisan politics here. Not possible that your compass may be off, you say? Some of the guys who think it may not be torture were elected by more people than I suspect the rest of us know. And in the case of the former POTUS and VPOTUS, it happened twice. Unless you are a president, or a governor, or a member of congress, I trust the collective wisdom and judgment of the chief law enforcement officer of the United States (two of them) before I trust that of some Wikpedia editors plopped comfortable behind our PCs. The members of the cabal can pout and throw a tantrum as much as they like, but nothing will change the fact that universally declaring something as a fact, when there is an opposing viewpoint from reasonable and reliable other folks, is and always will be a POV push. It doesn't matter how the cabal tries to redefine "fringe" or lunatic" or "expert" or waxes about "whitewashing" or "it just has to be torture," it is still a POV push. The cabal has banded together to block every one of the attempts to insert neutrality into the lede, but they are on the wrong side of this issue. Eventually, the right side always stands with an article we can all be proud of. The quest continues (although it gets more difficult)... QueenofBattle (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It's alright, I'm used to your general attitudes when you post. I try to take your opinions with a grain of salt and don't let them get under my skin. I even pay attention to them when you aren't so far off you can't even see the marker. First off, I'm the 3-4th editor on this page to state your opinion on NPOV policy is incorrect. And I do remember that a few more said so on the George W Bush page so... you know, one voice of many, but again, misrepersent facts like you do policy. Its not like anyone can read the discussion above here and point out that several other editors make the same point about your view of NPOV policy. But please continue. I call waterboarding torture because it is, it always has been, common sense says forceful suffocation for the purposes of interrogation always has to be. Then there is the size of the groups... you continue to make out this mistaken opinion that there are some sort of roughly proportional sides here. Bush and his boys on one side and the liberal media or whatever on the other... but you clearly aren't paying attention to the overwhelming difference in the sides. Its not two groups of even remotly even size even in the US. Bush couldn't even pull his whole administration behind him, let alone everyone else. And you continue to play the victem. Yes everyone else BUT YOU is trying to adopt the highly partisan approach of using the majority of reliable sources to declare it torture while you, Queen, are fighting a one man battle against us using the secret memos of the Bush administration, we'll not mention that they were withdrawn, to balance out the opinions of the rest of the world. You can attempt to continue to WP:WIN the argument if you choose. You can continue to tell everyone about how, despite waterboarding being torture for hundreds of years, despite it being torture in every legal precident in the US, despite everything... there is enough out there that somehow your viewpoint is correct and everyone else is wrong. Last time you got into one of these debates you went into a fit and 'quit' wikipedia for like a week. You seek compromise but almost all of your posts indicate that is not your goal. You are looking for a FA status, but your lead will not provide that. You are seeking NPOV language, by applying a WP:Fringe viewpoint to the lede. You are acting in good faith and we are being mean... and you call the editors on this page a cabal. Nice. Please continue insulting everyone on this page and accusing us of bad faith. I do believe that is the strongest position in your argument. RTRimmel (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I can't recall ever (read: never ever ever) suggesting that the two schools of thought here were in any way proportional. Please show me where you think I've said that, and in the process, please reconcile your mistaken view with my consistent use of words like "majority" and minority" before you attempt to suggest that I am misrepresenting facts or policy. And, no one is a victim here, your wobbly suggestions aside. There are a number of editors on one side of this content dispute and a number on the other (and a few uncommitteds), which is plain for anyone to see. No, I feel quite comfortable with the company I keep related to this issue, who include some liberal friends (what, I can't believe what he just said?!). Hide from it, if you please, while you try to not let my comments get under your skin (I hadn't realized we were dealing with so much sensitivity here). But, back to the article, please tell my why you think the previous FA candidacy failed? Please include support for your take on it. Please also direct me, and the other editors here, to the words in my proposed lede above that state "waterboarding is not torture" (or anything to that effect). Lastly, please point me and the other editors to where you perceive I have insulted everyone here. Specific diffs to where I have insulted each and every editor would be helpful. Danke. And the quest continues... QueenofBattle (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Quoting back to you your ENTIRE argument would be a bit boring, don't you think? RTRimmel (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Five simple requests. Either back up your rants or retract them so we can get on with discussing the article. We are waiting... QueenofBattle (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll get to them after you dig up those reliable sources we've been asking for. Or are you still questinging the WP:RS guidelines as well? RTRimmel (talk) 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
No, not good enough. The RS are already there enough to support the minority. You saw fit to make the accusations, now you need to back them up to retain credibility. We are still waiting... QueenofBattle (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

undent Okay, I'm sorry. I forgotten about the double standard here. I'll attempt to read through that mish mash of a paragraph and find the five simple(really?) questions you asked. Lets see...

  • Two schools are equal:
    • Of course, the politicians that think it clearly is torture are smarter than the other evil politicians complicit in some mass sadistic conspiracy, and so we should place our trust in them? We should believe that the newbie AG under President Obama is more credible than the two AGs under Bush? Am I and the other editors here to understand your point correctly that a "small group of American politicians and their pet journalists" who think waterboarding may not necessirily be torture are just flat wrong, but a group of politicians and their pet journalists that think waterboarding clearly is torture are Always right, with no questions asked? Me smells the ripe and delightful stench of partisan politics here.
      • I left in the personal attack as well. I can get more, if you'd like. I don't think its helping much.
  • FA Failure: Crystal ball there man. The lede certainly didn't help. However the supports and strong supports point out to a general cocensus that despite the controversy the lede was acceptable. The lede you proposed doesn't fix that. Given the giant debate still going on over it. See the talk page... its above this for several thousand characters.
  • Waterboarding not torture, "waterboarding is used an an interrogation technique (which historically has been its primary use)" is attempting to downplay the majority position by using one of its potential applications instead of calling it by what it is. You know, call a spade, a spade. (a wp link that I still steal off of your userpage whenever I need it)
  • I'm sorry, I overspoke, the cabal of editors (I know the secret handshake) and I were busy off ruining the quest of truth all over the wiki by using facts and reliable sources to back our arguments. Plus, I was so busy off being partisan I obviously wasn't watching the far right to see you. Thank goodness you are questing for "fairness and truth" while I obviously am attempting to promote socialism or whatever you seem to think. If I have one small grace its that I don't follow the philosophy of being a biased editor, who is in fact very POV editor" But you know, go socialism and partisan politics. Yee ha.

I might have missed some in that garble of text you wrote. Please enlighten me if so. You have your 6 WP:RS which of course easily matches the 188 other ones, and I'll assume that the ratio is acceptable to you so no more are needed. RTRimmel (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Okey, dokey. Now, we're getting somewhere, albeit slowly. As to my simple question #1 and your response: BZZZ. Try again. I have always acknowledged a "majority" position and a "minority" position. You seem to be making my point for me, namely that a double standard exists in that the politicians of the Bush crowd don't know what they are talking about, but the other politicians are some kind of experts on the matter. You didn't do so good on your response to that one. As to my simple question #2: OK, I guess. I'll take your response at face value. As to my simple question #3: I assume you are just ignoring that one because you can't find the mystery words? As to my simple question #4: Oops, there you go again. My proposal doesn't downplay anything. There is still a long list of folks that think waterboarding is torture and they are all listed there. If that's downplaying, it's not a very good attempt at it. It'd be the first attempt at downplaying something where the majority got their say. And, as to my last simple question and your response: Well, at least you had the decency to retract your overzealous false claim, I guess. I think we are done with this string; my points have been well made with your help (as I predicted they would). QueenofBattle (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I congradulate you Queen. Its infrequent that anyone can interpret everything going his way so consistantly as you. I suppose you'll appologize for your personal attacks now and we can go on improving the article. Or not. RTRimmel (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What personal attacks? QueenofBattle (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. You are faultless, of course. And highly credible in your own right. RTRimmel (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
What personal attack? Once again, you pop off with these claims, but then don't provide support. What did you percive to be a personal attack? If there is one, I am happy to appologize. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when you said I was... lets see here when you said "Me smells the ripe and delightful stench of partisan politics here" I, who was not writing in a partisan viewpoing and simply quoting off the majority of reliable sources felt somewhat personally offended. And you insulted my cabal of editors, which was, of course, very upsetting. There is more, of course, but I would not want to force you to read through your arguments to find others, it might offend your sensibilities. I appologize for being offended by your personal attacks and snide comments. I relize that when dealing with an editor such as yourself I should expect no less. RTRimmel (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm very wery sorry, then, that you took the "partisan" comment so personally. I intended it to be a general comment about the hypocrisy of overt partisans who are blinded by their single-minded desire to promote their partisan causes at the expense of all reasonable discourse and consideration. I hadn't realized you identified as one. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't, however given your impeccable read of everything its hard to really know what you think. I know your stance on biased editing and I attempt to remain NPOV. Since you haven't responded to the cabal comment 2 times now, I'll assume that have already mentally apologized for it and move on as well. RTRimmel (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Cabals are counterproductive to the editing environment here. If you identify yourself as a member of a cabal, and are therefore waiting for an apology from me for my comments about cabals, you'll be waiting a long time. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
So is WP:Dis (You are constantly quoting policy and then, for example your read of WP:NPOV is disputed by at least 4 editors and I loved it when you shot down someone using an example on the NPOV page as being inapplicable here, on this page but you've done nothing to show any evidence that your opinion is correct) and WP:GAME (there is a controversy on this page about waterboarding being torture but the overwhelming number of RS we have indicate that this is not the case) but you seem to spend a great deal of time fixating on those two. My favorite, despite chastising several users for it, you go and make this giant WP:WIN[[6]] statement patting yourself on the back and you've chastised 2 other editors for the same tactic. You seem to be able to accuse other editors of a great deal of things, cabals and partisan agendas for example, but when the flip side occurs you are quick to change the subject. I apologize for that rude comment as well, but if you want to maintain some of this credibility that you speak, you might want to note that accusing someone of these tactics while doing them yourself is not a good way to achieve this. But you constantly demand I back myself up, so back to your odd stance on NPOV. Find an article in this great wiki, any FA will do, that actually uses your interpretation of NPOV or drop it. If you wish to have credibility yourself, you have to eventually back up your position. I can find several FA articles that back the NPOV interpretation that is being used in the existing lede. RTRimmel (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not suite sure what all that babbling means. But, it is clear to me that there is no FA I could show you that would convince you about my "odd stance" on NPOV. You don't like me, and seem intent on continuing this pissing match here, but I no longer have the time to waste on this. Go back and read your last post. I mean, WTF does it even mean?! If you want to discuss the article, I am willing. If you want to continue whining about your perception of my views of NPOV, or trying to quote policy, or pushing your math problem, or trying to defend the cabal, have at it. Happy Thanksgiving. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Queen, ah, your I don't understand english when I can't come up with a better response. It means you are a whiney hack who went on wikibreak last time someone challenged your worldview. Get over yourself. Enjoy your turkey. RTRimmel (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree somewhat with Stephan here. The is-waterboarding-torture question was not a significant issue in the election. Both major candidates in the 2008 U.S. presidential election agreed that waterboarding is torture. Even in the Republican primary election, the issue was not whether waterboarding is torture, but whether it should be used on terrorism suspects. In one of the primary debates Rudy Giuliani responded to a question on using waterboarding to prevent an attack by saying that he would allow “every method [interrogators] could think of and I would support them in doing it.” Mitt Romney refused to answer whether waterboarding was torture but said, “I want to make sure that what happened to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists.” Tancredo's position on the subject was “I’m looking for Jack Bauer,” a character in a TV show who regularly uses a variety of torture techniques to foil terrorist plots.--agr (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AEB3

On a completely separate note, while everyone is arguing ad naseum over the first sentence in the article, the rest of the article still needs a lot of clean-up. To anyone that is interested in making this article better, I would suggest you focus your work on improving the other 99% of the article rather than focus on the first sentence, which appears to be difficult to change in any way given the current position of all of the editors involved. Remember (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll help with that. The first sentence needs changing, as it is the primary thing keeping the article from FA status. But, the are several other places that need grammatical help. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Fill in the blank

Lets's try something else. In the sentence "Waterboarding is a form of X that has been used for interrogation, punishment, and extortion", what, except "torture", would you suggest for X? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is an act, widely considered to be torture. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you really claim that the most specific generalization of "waterboarding" available in English is "an act", i.e. that it is sui generis? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That seems quite reasonable. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Such wording would be equivocation, in favor of those wishing to redefine this act, for political reasons (since "it can't possibly be a form of torture if "good" people like Americans are doing it against "bad" people, like Muslims). The suffocation (that is, the cutting off of air) of a bound, inclined prisoner is a form of torture, by definition, thus the current wording is eminently descriptive and accurate. Badagnani (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Stephen, I think yours is a very good, thought-provoking question. But, I might suggest that it is not quite the right one. While the response given above seems reasonable to me, I might suggest that my proposal is another option. It describes the act and its primary usage currently. We could also add that it has also historically been used for punishment, etc. as other editors have noted. With all respect to Badagnani, this is the second time he/she has pushed this unsupported notion that there is some political motivation for debating the appropriate description. I think there are editors who believe waterboarding is torture, and think it is wrong, but whom still find a problem with the language in the current lede. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is "torture" ban from the lead and definition when the overwhelming majority of the sources agree it is torture? A better suggestion will be: "Waterboarding is a form of torture that a few consider merely a enhanced interrogation technique"--LexCorp (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
"Torture" is not all all banned from the lede. To the contrary, there is a long sentence discussing all the folk who think waterboarding is "torture." QueenofBattle (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a prisoner on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] Forced suffocation and water inhalation cause the subject to experience the sensation of drowning.[2] Waterboarding is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[3][4] politicians, war veterans,[5][6]..."--agr (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Arnold, me thinks we may be getting somewhere with your elegant suggestion. So long as the current wording related to the few US government officials that don't think waterboarding necessarily amounts to torture, remains, I can support your suggestion. QueenofBattle (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be a light opening sentences. The sun is a star, the hammer is a tool, the rack is a torture device, waterboaring ........ consists of. Needs something after waterboarding to match most of the other ledes unless you think we need a special lede here? RTRimmel (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I do think we need a special lede here if we want to find a version that meets the objections being raised while being acceptable to the previous consensus. I, in particular, find any "is a form of" construction that does not include "torture" or, my real preference, "water torture," to be intellectually dishonest and unacceptable. However, I have no problem with just describing what is involved in waterboarding as the lede. If others find this acceptable, then maybe we can end this long running editorial controversy. I am suggesting something like "Waterboarding consists of [description]. It is widely considered a form of torture [lots of cites], including by the United States Government [Holder cite]. However the George W. Bush administration secretly used waterboarding on three terrorist suspects and wrote secret memos asserting waterboarding was not torture as defined by U.S. law. These memos were subsequently withdrawn by the Bush administration and the use of waterboarding banned, however some former officials of the Bush Administration and their supporters continue to maintain that waterboarding is not torture.[more cites inserted as needed]" I think that describes the situation without granting credence to the attempt to redefine torture.--agr (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
The objections raised are without justification. I have not been given yet a good reason as to why "waterboaring is a form of torture" statement is against policy. Further more, editors of both "sides" agree that it is a well supported statement and those that are against its inclusion or format in the lead do so by claiming it is some kind of POV. In my mind they have consistently failed to support this claim in light of the WP:NPOV policy. Any change made to the lead under the premise of a compromise with said editors that modifies "waterboaring is a form of torture" without previously justificating why it is deemed POV and which policy supports this POV status will undoubtedly water down the definition of waterboarding and thus severely affect the quality of the article. The overwhelming majority of sources agree with the current version and only a minority/fringe disagree. Yet the article as a whole plus the lead take considerable steps to explain the current controversy in so vocal a manner that editors perceive as if the views of 6 RS must be equally valid to those of 188. This is against WP:NPOV. There seem to be a large body of editors that do not understand the difference between controversy (or difference of opinion) between the editorial body here in wikipedia and the same between the reliable sources. The former guides the consensus building of the article and the later guides the proper content of the article. It will be terrible for this article and wikipedia if we started to modify articles because a consensus controversy completely ignoring the fact that no controversy reproduces itself in the reliable sources. It will in fact mean free game for all, zero consideration to sources or policy. Majority and even dissenting small numbers of editor would take over articles even when not supported by RS. Chaos will ensue. This is easily avoidable if we remain objective and follow WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABLE. Multiple editors and I have consistently pointed out that in order to even entertain a change in the well supported lead first we need RS that balance the issue with the current RS. Editors promoting the change still dodge this issue. In my view RS should be central to any change.--LexCorp (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
All good points, we could aslo point out that WP:Recentism is out there as well. Remove the last 10 years and there is no controversy whatsoever that waterboarding is a form of torture. Further the lede should be an introduction to the article, and due to the overwhelming number of WP:RS saying that waterboarding is torture, the article has a definate waterboarding is torture slant as editors have pointed out. Its similar to the sun being a star slant in the Sun article. Unless a signifigant number of cites on the page are changed, the article is always going to reflect this. RTRimmel (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
My main argument has been and still is WP:Recentism. Anyone abstracting himself logically and objectively to any period of time between the middle ages to 10 years ago will conclude waterboarding to be a form of torture. Any self-respecting Encyclopaedia should reflect this.--LexCorp (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Not the Slippery slope arguement?! I didn't think folks still used those. QueenofBattle (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, since you've disallowed virtually every other style of argument, its bound to pop up. We can't argue policy, common sense or by using examples in other articles. All we have left is dry rhetorical devices. RTRimmel (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't disallowed anything here; I don't have that kind of authority around Wikipedia. I just found the use of the logical fallacy to be interested. All are free to argue policy, but quote it correctly. Common sense is fine, too, so long as it is common. And examples are good, but meaningless analogies are worthless. Somebody is getting a bit upset... QueenofBattle (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I am so sorry we are upsetting you with out comments on NPOV and the rest of policy. I, personally, will try to be nicer in the future as to not upset your sensibilities, such as they are, any more. RTRimmel (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The proposed lead "Waterboarding consists of..." is not acceptable, and was earlier found to be unacceptable because the practice (the suffocation [cutting off of air] of a bound, inclined prisoner) is a form of torture, by definition. The current lead, thus, is completely accurate and not in need of revision, except presumably by those who find it impossible to believe that "good" people (Americans) could engage in torture, and hence wish to redefine the term. We've been through this many times. I don't believe all those commenting here have read the discussion page archives straight through; please do that before commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Badagnani this is now the third time you have made the accusation that some of us are proposing things in a cavalier nature to push some anti-muslim agenda, and it really needs to stop. I, for one, have read the prior discussions, and the RfC, and the FA candidacy, and the ArbCom consideration, and the archives. You'll need to assume a bit more good faith if we are going to make any progress here. Of course, maybe that's not what you seek? QueenofBattle (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of an anti-muslim agenda in Badagnani's comment. Please refrain from personal attacks. Note that this page is still under probation and disruptive editing can get one banned. Let's stick to the arguments. --agr (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to this comment implying some sort of anti-muslim agenda on the part of those of use who are seeking to have the wording reflect both points of view proportionally. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as the main voice of the four percenters, how do you feel that the four percent of sources that indicate that it waterboarding may not be torture when applied to 3 people should be weighed against the 96% of sources that say it is unequivocally torture when applied to everyone? Wouldn't proportional representation be one word per 25 opposing? Your recommended lede suggested giving interrogation priority over torture, ie it is a form of interrogation that could be used for torture, when in fact our reliable sources indicate that its primary a form of torture with an application for interrogation? Further, I don't see the anti-muslim agenda either, but you seem far more intelligent than the rest of us and able to interpret everything in a way successful to your own viewpoint so you must be correct, as always. RTRimmel (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts on this topic:
  1. My opinion is that waterboarding is torture,but so what? Opinion from non-reliable sources, such as individual editors, shouldn't effect the article. (grin!)
  2. There are ample reliable sources stating that waterboarding is torture (e.g., [7])
  3. However, there are those, including some who are quite notable, who assert that waterboarding is not torture (e.g., [8],[9]). These assertions do not seem to be a fringe belief, although they are disputed by many.
  4. Claims that there is a political motivation to one position or another on this issue, while possibly true, does not seem to be verifiable.
  5. My concern is that there does not seem to be a clear consensus among editors as to whether it is torture or not.
Given 3, 4 and 5, it seems the lede and body of the article should present a balanced view of the controversy, and not state either position unequivocally. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Given 2,3 and 4, it seems the lead and body represent the minority/fringe view proportionally and in line with WP:NPOV. Agree on 1. On 5. policy states that if no new consensus is formed then previous consensus is valid NOT that we have to somehow edit the article to meet halfway between previous consensus and the failed new consensus. I still believe that the article tackles the minority view more than amply and those editors that suggest that because there is a minority/fringe view we have to somehow demote the majority view from the lead have a flawed understanding of the WP:NPOV. As an example many (around 50% I believe) of Americans and a sizeable number of religious fundamentalist institutions do not believe in evolution and yet we do not modify the evolution article or equalise any creationist or intelligent design ideas to the level of science just so that NPOV is preserved nor do we redefine evolution as "just a theory".--LexCorp (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
My major beef is with number 3. Your first "notable" opinion only reports on claims by the Bush government that was committing waterboarding. Allowing them to define torture is like allowing a burglar to define breaking and entering. The second does not even show the claim for me, but, moreover, Joseph Farah may be notable, but he is in no way an expert on the topic. Wikipedia reflects the informed opinion of experts, not the loudest pundits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
That is also my most signifigant problem with the issue. If the 4 percenter argument is valid, then they should be able to dig up sources from a broader selection of experts than just the Bush administration. That would be akin to altering the lede of the theory of evolution in the wiki based exclusivly on the writings of the Discovery Institute, though actually evolution at least has a broader overall range of critics than waterboarding does. But without any more reliable sources, or a desire to look up any more appearntly, the 4 percenter argument just doesn't have legs to force a change of the lede. RTRimmel (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - The assertion/belief that waterboarding (the suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner by obstructing his/her breathing with the use of water) is not a form of torture certainly is very much a fringe position, one that is politically motivated by the belief that if Americans (as "good" people) are doing it against "bad" people, it can't possibly be a form of torture. Since waterboarding is a form of torture by definition, such fringe opinions cannot serve to change its definition in order to make it more palatable, or to protect past, present, and future U.S. use of the technique. Badagnani (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Do any of us really think that the next time just before someone decides to waterboard another, they are going to come to Wikipedia, find this article and related talk pages, and decide against it because we, the editors of Wikipedia, have universally and definitively declared it torture?! QueenofBattle (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems clear that many of those commenting here have not actually read the definition of torture before commenting here. I will reproduce it here:

Badagnani (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

But, Badagnani, you are trying to make a legal arguement with the above. This is not a competant court of legal opinion, but rather merely an encyclopedia. QueenofBattle (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I somehow doubt just because waterboarding obviously falls under any definition of torture will change the 4 percenter's argument all that signifigantly, but good effort. RTRimmel (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
As Reliable Sources go this one is hard to beat given that the majority of the world's nations are members of the UN. That they have convened for the special purpose to draw a common understanding of what is torture. That they have defined torture as stated above and that said definition fits nicely to what the act of waterboarding, with or without interrogation, entails. To answer QueenofBattle, this is the kind of RS you need to show in order to support your suggested changes.--LexCorp (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks LexCorp, but the question is not about RS, but rather the quantity that are needed to satisfy some folks here. I mean, what with all the advanced math and percentages, and other scary calculations. QueenofBattle (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The answer to your question is clearly unknown as it very much depends on the quality of the proposed new RS. The point is that so far with the current RS and your arguments until now you will never convince me personally of changing the wording of the lead. But I am very much open-minded to new sources.--LexCorp (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the 6 / 188 equation. Its actually 3.19%, but I gave myself some wiggle room figuring you might eventually find a few more sources. Since you keep dodging the subject, I'll assume you looked and couldn't find any. I mean, I can understand your need that a vice president defending a secret legal memo that was later withdrawn be held in higher steed than the UNCAT, but that's not how NPOV works. RTRimmel (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the N in NPOV means neutrality. That means we don't choose sides, so that means I don't hold either in higher steed. This is at the core of what I'm trying to get you to understand. Neutral means neutral. It means without passion or prejudice for either viewpoint. QueenofBattle (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Neutrality is indeed an important core value for an encyclopedia such as this one. An adherence to neutrality makes it imperative to resist the redefinition of well understood terms, such as torture, for political purposes. The suffocation of a bound prisoner using water is clearly a form of torture, by definition. Badagnani (talk) 03:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The article does not choose sides. It reports fairly on the subject matter based on the prevalence and relevance of the reliable sources. When said sources are in conflict then the article explains the views of the different sources according to their proportionality. Could you be more precise as to what part of the lead breaches the WP:NPOV?. Not to belittle you or anything but if the depth of your argument is that the N in the NPOV policy stands for Neutrality then I am convinced that you do not understand the WP:NPOV policy and I implore you to re-read it again.--LexCorp (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV's brother here at Wikipedia is collaboration and compromise (when it doesn't harm the encyclopedia). By adopting my proposal, we in no way violate NPOV. So, I am at a loss as to why some are resisting it. If my proposal was something like, "Waterboarding is a method used to gather intelligence from terrorists..." or "Waterboarding, while not torture, consists of..." I could understand the opposition. But my proposal (or agr's, which I actually like better) simply describes the procedure in the first sentence, while the third sentence says it is widely considered torture by [insert all the folks]. Why is this so toxic, such that it garners such determined opposition? QueenofBattle (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Well because the current version also in no way violates NPOV, it is very well sourced and also simply describes the procedure in the first sentence but even in a fuller sense than your proposal by adding the most used definition of the reliable sources. The result a much richer and sourced lead. Thus an improvement over your suggestion. It is equally puzzling to me as to why you persist on advocating change when WP policy and the RS and common sense, as exemplified by Badagnani comment below, are very much against your views.--LexCorp (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - For the reason that we don't say in the lead of Violin that "The violin is a rounded, hollow wooden box..."; we say that it is a musical instrument, then go on to describe its construction and use. In the same way, as the suffocation by water of a bound, inclined prisoner by pouring water over the breathing passages is a form of torture by definition, we describe it as such in the lead. It would be greatly appreciated if all editors posting here first familiarize themselves with the definition of the word torture before commenting further here. Badagnani (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. Could not agree more.--LexCorp (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that waterboarding fits squarely in the definition of torture. However this is a matter of controversy in the U.S. By starting out saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." we appear to be taking sides in that controversy and that diminishes our credibility. Those who support waterboarding's use have spread a great deal of confusion, Dick Cheney's remarks calling it a little dunk in the water, for example. Our article would be more effective if we describe what waterboarding entails first, before the reader says "Oh, I know what side Wikipedia is on" and tunes out. A better analogy would be our article evolution which begins "In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next." It doesn't start "Evolution is the scientific law that explains the diversity of life on earth" although I think there are ample sources that support such a lede. By describing the concept first and then getting to its explanatory power, it makes the case more effectively. A similar approach is worth considering here.--agr (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. By clearly stating what it is, we make clear that we don't fall for propaganda and don't weasel around. That increases our credibility with the large majority of people in the world. The biology example gives the textbook definition of evolution - your alternative suggestion would be plain wrong (evolution is not a "law", if anything its a scientific theory, i.e. a coherent and predictive set of statements describing a field). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how starting with a description of waterboarding is in any way weaseling, while loss of credibility in the United States, where the debate rages and Wikipedia has a wide audience, hurts those fighting the propaganda. And evolution does fit the definition of a scientific law "a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science." In any case, as the creator of the straw man, I get to pick the straw. :) --agr (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is already a section that deals with the current US controversy. No need to change a long well established definition. --LexCorp (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The difference here between Evolution and Waterboarding is that the evolution article covers what amounts to an entire, and broad, range of scientific endevors while waterboarding covers an individual form of torture. So in one side we have the entire straw man and the other we just have one of the straws even if someone gets to pick it :P. A discussion was had on the evolution talk page concerning their lede sentence what I took from it was that it was not alright to call something as broad as evolution a scientific theory(law), because its so broad that this would be hard to verify absolutly. If you go down to the sub fields such as Ecological_genetics then they start to get more specific with the lede. Its not percise, mind you as many of the fields that evolution utilizes to prove itself are more or less independent branchs of science that are not exclusivly used for evolution but the argument sticks. So I suppose the question we should ask is "Is waterboarding used so much for torture as to describe it as the primary use and therefor it should be in our first sentence or are any of its sub uses for coersion, blackmail, punishment, training or interrogation such a dominating force that we should broaden the opening sentence and cover them in the following sentences?" 161.150.2.58 (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
If I supported our credibility over factual accuracy, I'd start by demanding the removal of the "edit this page" button. As long as that's there, we'll never have credibility... --Kizor 19:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to update after June 2009

In section "Controversy over classification as torture in the United States" it says "The OPR is set to conclude its investigation in June 2009 and reportedly will recommend ..."

Can someone please update this with what they actually recommended (or not), with citations of course. Thanks, -- Bricaniwi (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The report is not out yet. There is some leakage going on but we can't use that in the article.--LexCorp (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
update: Still not out yet.--LexCorp (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the dictionary considered to be a reliable source?

Due to the controversy of the topic, I suppose it would be best to discuss a proposed change to the lead sentence of the article before simply doing it, regardless of what common sense tells me. The current lead reads, "Waterboarding is a method of torture", and while it's widely considered to be so, is it not in the best interest of WP:NPOV to use the most neutral term possible when defining the word in the lead sentence? What better way to do this than use the dictionary definition? No, not Safire's Political Dictionary, which was found from a google books search for "waterboard torture and death" (try clicking the reference--real neutral), but the Merriam-Webster dictionary, perhaps? It defines waterboarding as "an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning". This is the lead sentence, and such a change would make no difference to the actual content of the article, it just seems like a common sense step towards neutrality. Based on the discussions above, it's clear that there is currently no solid consensus regarding this. Frankly, the attempts of the community to decide whether or not waterboarding is torture is ridiculous, as that's not the purpose of WP:CONSENSUS.SwarmTalk 12:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The best WP:NPOV practice is to use the majority view of the RS, thus the explicit use of torture in the lead. Also notice that there is little to non controversy outside of the USA on this topic.--LexCorp (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The notion that the controversy in the United States is somehow irrelevant is ridiculous. I'm not proposing to change any of the reliable sources, I'm proposing to change the first sentence to the dictionary definition of the word. In this particular sentence, which simply defines waterboarding, we don't need to interpret its definition based on the RS, since it's defined in a dictionary.
Changing the sentence that defines the word to actually match the dictionary definition, rather than matching a controversial (albeit widespread) opinion clearly seems to be in the best interest of neutrality. This isn't some fringe theory that should be disregarded, it's a mainstream, ongoing debate. SwarmTalk 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's complete fringe among reliable academic sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
At what point do I state the controversy to be irrelevant? More than half the article is dedicated to the controversy. Now that IS what is really ridiculous according to WP:NPOV.--LexCorp (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You're both very outspoken about your opinions, but frankly I'm talking about a dictionary definition, here, not an opinion. SwarmTalk 03:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This has been addressed before in the archives. Look it up.--LexCorp (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
What has been addressed? If there was a consensus against this in the past, it's clearly changed (to no consensus) based on the more recent discussions. The repetition that this is issue has long been addressed, resolved by consensus and is archived isn't helpful to the current discussion. SwarmTalk
The very specific argument that we should change the lead because the Merriam-Webster dictionary omits the term torture. That very specific argument has been discussed ad nauseam in the archives. I would not repeat the counter-arguments as they are in the archives for anyone to see.--LexCorp (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't be a consensus zombie. Also, there is no argument that we should change the lead. The argument is that we should change one sentence, the sentence that defines the term, to reflect the dictionary definition. Don't accuse me of proposing this simply because it omits the term "torture". I'm proposing it because, well, it's a dictionary. And again, do not attempt to argue that the dictionary definition is wrong in any way. SwarmTalk 06:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Your consensus zombie accusation is misplaced. Your suggestion is not new and without bringing something new to the discussion I point you to the archives for the counter-arguments, This isn't an appeal to consensus. It is me not wanting to reproduce those counter-arguments here again. Changing the first sentence of the article is changing the lead. I am clueless as to what you are saying with respect to this. I never said the Merriam-Webster dictionary was or is wrong. I merely say that it is incomplete and neutral as to the classification of waterboarding as torture. The fact is that 188 RS support that waterboarding is torture and 6 RS do not support that it is torture. The lead reflects the majority view as per NPOV. Futhermore the article goes at great length to explain the minority/fringe view. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is but one among many RS. There are far more authoritative RS in those 188 supporting the lead than the Merriam-Webster dictionary--LexCorp (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

From Swarm's suggestion: Dictionaries are extremely conservative in what they recognize, and are descriptive of an existing definition, not creators of it. More immediate sources, like books, academic writings, or others are often more direct and accurate, especially when they are responsible for the definition in the first place. Stephen Colbert is a much better source for a definition of truthiness than Webster's. Or in our context, 188 RS are a much better source for a definition of waterboarding than Websters. Given that this is right in the article that Swarm is using, I think the existing definition stands quite well. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I quote: "I merely say that it is incomplete and neutral as to the classification of waterboarding as torture". Erm... that's the point. SwarmTalk

Yes I know. Ignore the RS. Ditch WP:GEVAL and WP:UNDUE and simplify the WP:NPOV policy to the word neutral. But guess what with that criteria the Webster definition fails also NPOV because now we have those 188 RS not stating either way as to whether waterboarding is an interrogation technique or not thus I guess they are NEUTRAL on the issue. Thus clearly we cannot use the Webster definition given the all those RS are more neutral on the "interrogation technique". As per NPOV we cannot take sides. Shocking!!. And ultimately pointless. That is why there are more things in WP:NPOV than the word neutral.--LexCorp (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Other problem with the first sentence

"dying"

Shouldn't this read "drowning"? Both more precise and more vivid. THF (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

A threat of imminent death is specifically recognized as torture under US law. --agr (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether the lede says "Waterboarding is method of torture..." or "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates drowning, causing the victim to experience the intense physical and mental anguish of imminent death" does not matter to me. Both statements mean essentially the same thing. The second is longer and more descriptive, but an extended description is provided in the next paragraph. In the past I argued extensively for the second version, but that was shot down, and I have accepted the consensus version. Rather than quibbling over this one sentence, why don't we edit this very bloated article? It is much too long. There are many accounts of famous and semi-famous people who have engaged in waterboarding publicity stunts. These should be removed. A shorter, crisper article might pass WP:FAC. That should be our goal, irrespective of personal political beliefs. Jehochman Brrr 12:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The first sentence in the lead is entirely inappropriate given the existence of Section 4 of this article. NPOV requires that Wikipedia not take sides, but Wikipedia has taken a side. THF (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Read the archives. Read the article. Restrict your future contributions here to making useful suggestions towards improving the article. Do you have any? --John (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Adhere to NPOV and be more WP:CIVIL. THF (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the tag. The lead is less than neutral. I've tried to explain this numerous times but nobody listens. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This has been debated endlessly. There is a very clear consensus among reliable (non-political) sources that waterboarding is torture. We don't need well-known, tendentious pro-Bush editors trying to whitewash this article. Jehochman Brrr 01:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Unless THF or William S. Saturn have new sources to bring up, this is a non-starter. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not pro-Bush, I'm not even pro-waterboarding, I'm just pro-NPOV. The article acknowledges that there is a controversy, and Wikipedia should not take sides in the controversy. It's ridiculous that liberal NPR, far from a neutral source, is somehow more neutral on this than Wikipedia. The sources in Section 4 make it more than clear that this is not a cut-and-dried issue. THF (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This edit summary is an offensive violation of WP:CIVIL. NPR and the United States government are not "fringe" sources. THF (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I further note that if center-right editors treated left editors the way that the left editors are treating the center-right editors, there would be blocks issued. An admin should know better, and if he doesn't, he shouldn't be an admin. THF (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is not neutral. There is absolutely a controversy; I have brought it up above, but at the time the talk page seemed stagnant. The fact that an admin is blatantly assuming bad faith, insulting other editors, and dismissing multiple editors' concerns as politically motivated "whitewashing" is completely inappropriate, by the way. Any established editor should know better. Swarm(Talk) 02:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Read the rest of the article talk page above. The matter has been extensively debated fairly recently, and consensus has been reached. The article has been placed under probation too. The concurrence of these two facts makes it difficult to fully extend an assumption of good faith. Hope that helps. --John (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad it was debated fairly recently. I don't see how that precludes a new debate with new editors who were made aware of the problems on this page. I didn't participate in that debate. I did participate in the debate at WP:NPOVN, where the only justification for the language was treating mainstream sources as "fringe," which I find offensive and a violent misapplication of the NPOV rules. Can we stop with the meta-discussion? Why is NPR and the American government "fringe"? THF (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
NPR and the United States government are not experts on the matter and there are plenty of sources from experts that classify waterboarding as torture. There is a clear distinction between the concept of waterboarding and the current localised political controversy as to its status as torture is the USA and therefore its legality. The article covers the controversy extensively. As a source on this subject the United States government is not very reliable given that different branches and members of the United States government have stated at different times that Waterboarding is torture, thus there is not an unified position within the United States government on the issue (or more likely there is a minority within the US government that challenges the status of waterboarding as torture). Anyway that makes the US Government not reliable on this matter until it presents an unified clear position statement of whether waterboarding is or is not torture. There is even legal precedent of the judicial branch classifying waterboarding as torture.--LexCorp (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break 1

No one disputes that there exist experts that classify waterboarding as torture. That's necessary, but not sufficient for the current lead. As you note "The article covers the controversy extensively." There is a controversy, with different experts on different sides. That ends the discussion, as far as NPOV is concerned: the lead should spell out the controversy, but it most certainly should not resolve it. And, yes, the position of the US government ca. 2003 is a notable one, not a fringe one. THF (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Show me the RS from the experts on torture that do not agree that waterboarding is torture. "the current localised political controversy" is a clue. It denotes that on no account it is on the interest of Wikipedia and its quality to change a long standing definition on grounds of a very localised political controversy. To do so is what is POV given WP:undue and WP:GEVAL. Also search for my WP:recentism argument and my WP:neologism argument. Is all there in the archives.--LexCorp (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No one is making a WP:GEVAL argument. No one, to my knowledge, is claiming that the article definitively state that waterboarding is not torture. No one, to my knowledge, is arguing that Mukasey and Yoo and Bybee and Ashcroft, who all qualify as experts, be given more space in the article than they already have. The argument is that the minority position is sufficiently notable and non-fringe that the lead sentence, and any other firm stance that waterboarding is indisputably torture, violates NPOV. THF (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If the article stated "indisputably torture", you would have a point. It doesn't. There are people who dispute that the Earth is round. As I recall, they get a mention in the article Earth, but not in the lede. That this is the consensus here for now seems very firmly established. If you want to change consensus, I suggest waiting a few weeks, then coming back here with some new sources. --John (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I find it offensive when mainstream American positions are treated as the equivalent of flat-earthers. No one is disputing the WP:FRINGE policy. The argument is that the minority position is not a fringe position, and that WP:FRINGE does not apply. Since the question of whether waterboarding is torture is inherently a political-legal question, the fact that notable politicians and legal scholars within the mainstream dispute it means that the opening phrase "Waterboarding is a method of torture" violates NPOV. The US government position is not a fringe position. Period. THF (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I understood the USG currently classifies the practice as torture. The articles says so. Have you read the (whole) article? --John (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the current US government position. I've been interviewed on the radio about the dispute. In 2003, the government position was different. Moreover, the Bush administration attorneys who wrote the memo were recently cleared of wrongdoing by the Obama administration. THF (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid to say that the legal advice of 4 people to the Bush administration and its political repercussions on the US is quite a fringe matter. You are equating the position of some fringe elements of the US Government to that of the whole US Government. This is evidently only relevant to inform the section of the article that deals with the current localised political controversy. In fact the issue has no bearing at all on whether waterboarding is or is not torture given the fact that the United States government is not an expert RS on the matter.--LexCorp (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
You continue to misrepresent the state of affairs, and I won't repeat the refutation. Your lede reflects the POV that the majority position is correct and the minority position, once held by the US government, is incorrect. This violates NPOV. THF (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
While that argument is both against WP:GEVAL and WP:Weight, I will remind the editor again that his argument that the position was once held by the US government is not a very strong one. While certain prominent members certainly held this belief, the official policy of retracting statements and forging no new legal precidents to support the position coupled with large numbers of internal documents from the same administration demonstrating signifigant internal questioning of administration's secret policy do not repersent an official 'US goverment position'. A more accuract statement would be 'once held by some members of the Bush administration.' And then the question is 'how much WP:Weight do we put on some members of the Bush administration's opinions?' 161.150.2.58 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

break 2

(outdent) Your position is that official US government policy is fringe and not RS. You further state that two attorneys general are "fringe elements of the US government," which is simply offensive. Your position is simply an untenable misapplication of NPOV on political-legal topics. And therein resides the dispute. That you dislike the Bush administration does not make it fringe. But this is a systematic problem in Wikipedia: There is no hesitation to include the opinions of far-left politicians in articles about Bush administration officials, even in the lede, despite the BLP policy, but the Bush administration itself is "fringe." The attempt to marginalize the Bush administration is itself a violation of NPOV. It's a minority position, but it's not a fringe position, by definition. THF (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again you are equating the position of some elements of the Bush administration to that of the whole US Government. Anyone can see why this is wrong. Among the experts on torture the opinion of the USG is a fringe opinion, more so if you concede that the USG is not an expert on the matter and that among experts the overwhelming majority states waterboarding to be torture. But this is not even my argument. My argument is that there is no clear position on whether waterboarding is torture by the USG and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.--LexCorp (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
John Yoo has stated that his opinions took a narrow view of torture as defined by under US law 18 USC 2340. His torture memo were later repudiated by the Bush administration. The current position of the US Government is that waterboarding is torture. The lede does and should reflect the current state of affairs. --agr (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As well it should. But the lead also states that John Yoo was wrong, which violates NPOV. Again, we don't have any disagreements on the facts of what various reliable sources say. We have a dispute over how to apply Wikipedia policies to those facts. THF (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Where does in the lead state that John Yoo was wrong? I cannot see it.--LexCorp (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
"Waterboarding is a method of torture." I have no objection to rephrasing this neutrally as "Waterboarding consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying drowning. It is widely considered to be a method of torture." But I object to Wikipedia taking sides on the question. THF (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a perfectly neutral statement, would anyone disagree? It doesn't take sides one way or another, which is what "neutral" means. A statement that takes sides on a mainstream debate, inherently cannot be considered neutral. Swarm(Talk) 05:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
'widely considered' violates WP:Weasel?
Could somebody tell me what is wrong with this wording? This is the most neutral presentation of the subject taking into account the controversy and yet it is reverted on sight. This is simply a legal matter, and to dispute that waterboarding is torture is not a fringe legal view. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
'widely considered' violates WP:Weasel?
I don't think it violates WEASEL in the lead when the rest of the article answers the question "who?", but it can be rephrased as "Most countries view" or some other such. THF (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn, you have been warned and blocked previously. You should know by now that Wikipedia is not for importing outside battles, political or otherwise. The matter of the lede has been discussed many times at great length. You're engaging in circular debate, battle tactics, and tendentious editing. Please stop wasting other editors' time. Jehochman Brrr 12:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why this warning is so often given to center-right editors who correctly point out NPOV violations, and so rarely to left-wing editors who actually edit tendentiously against consensus. It's part of a systematic problem at Wikipedia that contributes to its failing to comply with its own NPOV standards. WSS has the right to participate in talk-page discussion and hasn't done anything wrong in this instance. Hochman's criticism violates WP:NPA; even if WSS was doing something wrong, the place to raise it is on his talk page, not here, where it is disruptive. THF (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to point out that an editor who's being disruptive, has a history of disruption. False accusations of personal attacks are a classic [WP:BATTLE|battle]] tactic. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, please go write a blog instead. Wikipedia is not a political thinktank. Jehochman Brrr 15:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Sir, the only making it a battle is you, and this is the second time in 24 hours you've left an uncivil and personal attack on me. In my view, WSS has made productive suggestions and it is you that's being disruptive. Stop it now. THF (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
While I support 100% what Jehochmann has said here, I think it may have stopped being productive. Discussion has been ongoing, thorough, and conclusive over the last few months. There is really nothing more to discuss here at this point. The only aspect on which I agree with THF above is that any further matters of user conduct may better be addressed at the relevant Arbcom enforcement page than here. Per WP:DFT, I support the closure of this discussion here. Editors wishing to challenge the consensus will need to carefully read the discussions here and in the archives, then wait a few weeks and come back with some new sources. See you in early March, and I look forward to reading your new proposals and your new evidence at that time. Further near-term disruption of this talk page will be dealt with in another venue. Think carefully whether you really want to move to that step before you reply. --John (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I second this and point out that William S. Saturn already made the above comment before in the archives and that he was answered by multiple editors on the issue. That this page is in probation and disruptive behaviour can be punished and finally that rising the same issues every time without adding anything new to the discussion is a form of disruption.--LexCorp (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing that says that raising issues multiple times is disruption. Good faith concerns can be brought up as many times as needed. Since there is clearly no current consensus, it should be discussed rather than shut down as if there's no dispute at all. We can settle the issue with a simple compromise. Swarm(Talk) 20:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not trying to shut down the discussion, although after this lengthy discussion there is no sight of a new consensus forming. My following comment is directly in reference to editor William S. Saturn comment above. Rising the same points almost verbatim without new arguments or data by a well known conflictive user is IMHO a form of WP:IDHT disruptive behaviour that serves to exhaust other editors. And as a fair warning I point out that this page is under probation and administrators can issue punishments for such behaviour.--LexCorp (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please show me the consensus for stating that the official position of the United States is "fringe" such that it can be ignored for purposes of NPOV. I didn't see that in anywhere in the archives. As far as I can tell, this is a new argument where there has yet to be consensus one way or the other. As such, it is inappropriate to bully other editors out of participating in that new discussion, and, as best I can tell, previous such bullying is the only reason anyone can claim that there is "consensus" in the existing edit. THF (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The official position of the United States is that waterboarding is torture. I pointed this out to you earlier. Your continuing to repeat the claim that it isn't is disruptive, in my opinion.--agr (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The official position for several years was that it was not, as you are well aware, and even now, the official position is ambiguous, as, while Obama and Holder have made (much-criticized) political statements saying that they view waterboarding as torture, the government has stated that it will not prosecute anyone for previous waterboarding, when, if it believed it was torture, it would have been illegal. Too, the US Congress, even under Democratic control, has refused to state that waterboarding is torture, amending an anti-torture bill to remove any mention of waterboarding. You are well aware of these facts, and you are well aware that I am well aware of them, so I fail to see why you throw the "disruptive" charge unless you're trying to disruptively sidetrack the discussion. THF (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Obama is President of the United States, Holder is Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. What they say is the US Government's position on the matter. The actions of the previous administration are discussed in the article, however, even they never took a public position that waterboarding is not torture and later withdrew the secret memos that took such a stance internally. Our lede reflects the current situation.--agr (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the Arbcom ruling that forbids me from making an argument I've never made before on a page I've never contributed to before. I wasn't a part of the earlier consensus or discussion, which quite plainly violates NPOV. THF (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look this is ridiculous. There is no official position of the United States or if there is one (which is not my argument and I do not agree with it) that position surely must be that of the latest administration and also the legal precedent of the judicial branch that have stated and ruled that waterboarding is torture. My argument is that ONLY a few elements of the whole USA Government (past and present) argue against classifying waterboarding as torture. The view of those elements are a minority within the USA Government (past and present) and clearly their opinion can be considered fringe (or more likely irrelevant) among the views of the reliable sources from experts on what qualifies as torture. YET you keep implying that I somehow think the position of the USG is fringe but the truth is that you have not yet shown what RS justifies or represents the unified position of the whole USG on this issue. It is clear to me that all this discussion is the result of a failure in separating the act of waterboarding from the present localised political controversy. The article is about said act and given the notablility of the present localised political controversy a section should be dedicated to it. This in no way precludes that the definition of waterboardig is torture is in any way taking sides by wikipedia nor a breach of NPOV.--LexCorp (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

break 3

There is no consensus for the current wording. Section 1 of this talk page was a similar discussion that went extremely long but was never resolved. This is an issue that has plagued this article for a very long time. It can be seen in the noted above section, the NPOV noticeboard and this article's FA nomination. I propose a solution to this issue. Simply the removal of the words "is a form of torture that". It completely preserves the content while removing the disputed statement. Swarm(Talk) 21:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment A small caucus of vociferous editors stating that there is no consensus does not make it true. There self-evidently is a consensus, it's been discussed, debated, agreed, arbitrated, and now here we are. The consensus can change, but in order for it to do so, we would need some new evidence. A couple of individual editors' opinions won't make any difference at this point. Sorry. --John (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)First: Have you ever looked at the FA discussion for this article? It's not just a "few editors". Second: New evidence for what? This is a neutrality issue, not a content issue. It needs to be resolved through discussion, not proof through reliable sources. I'm not disputing the factual accuracy of that sentence, I'm disputing neutrality. I'm not looking for !votes either. I'm hoping people will be reasonable and work toward a solution, other than simply suggesting the discussion is invalid for whatever reason. I'm not arguing this point because I don't agree with it. I'm arguing this point because it's obviously a problem I see with the article and I think it needs to be fixed. I would hope that editors can work toward a compromise, and if they're not interested in doing so, at the very least, have the courtesy to not ask that the discussion be closed. Consensus will never change if new discussions are discouraged simply because the discussion has taken place in the past. Third: Nothing compels anyone to take part in a discussion, so I hope that if they choose to do so, they choose to participate constructively and with the interest of resolving the dispute, rather than complaining that the discussion is going on again. Swarm(Talk) 22:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Proposing a change to an article on the talk page is a bad thing now? Swarm(Talk) 23:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a new argument. I've repeatedly requested somebody to point me to where the argument I am making in February 2010 has ever been made in the archives, and I never had before. This is pure bullying to manufacture consensus where none exists by intimidating editors into participating in discussion. THF (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
'Government +fringe' brings up 8 similar arguments. Nothing you've brought up so far has not been in one of those. Maybe you should review the archives to answer any other questions that have already been repeatedly brought up?161.150.2.58 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
I searched the archives a second time. I still see no evidence of anyone ever making the argument that it is a violation of WP:NPOV to classify an official position of the United States government held during the 21st century as WP:FRINGE on a legal-political question. Please provide the diff or stop threatening editors for making good faith arguments that have not been made before, and still haven't been adequately addressed. THF (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The argument you are making was indeed made before. Here is an post taking essentially the same position from Talk:Waterboarding/Definition: That wasn't a "yes", which may be why we've been having this extremely long debate. The fact that the U.S. government lawyers are considered a "fringe minority viewpoint" is another reason.-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) In any case, the "position of the United States government held during the 21st century" you refer to is prominently mentioned in the introduction. That's hardly fringe treatment.--agr (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
First, that's a different argument than the one I'm making. Second, "prominently mentioned in the introduction" hardly satisfies NPOV when the first sentence says that that position is definitively false. THF (talk) 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Every argument is slightly different, but I see nothing in your argument that isn't covered in the cited discussion. And the fact that the Bush administration, which used waterboarding and by all accounts wished to continue doing so, found it necessary to withdraw the secret legal memorandum that argued it wasn't torture, and order the practice stopped, only supports our lede, it doesn't undermine it. They are the ones who found the memo's argument false.--agr (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In good faith, I disagree both with your characterization of the archives and your characterization of the historical events. But given that I am being harassed for participating on the talk page, I'll let you have the WP:LASTWORD. THF (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

THF and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Please note that in a response to an enforcement request here, THF has made accusations of improper behaviour against people on this talkpage. I asked him to notify those editors, but he has refused, so I'm posting a notice here. Verbal chat 10:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

The article's first sentence currently falsely implies that United States attorneys have definitively committed international war crimes. This violates BLP. I will not change the current consensus text without discussion (notwithstanding the very strong command that BLP requires such a change to be made no matter what), but I see no evidence in the archives or FAQ that editors have fairly and fully considered the BLP implications of the questionable language in the first clause of the first sentence. I suggest that a more neutral phrasing that does not take sides on the controversy of whether waterboarding is torture would avoid the BLP problem. THF (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There are various problems with that claim. First, I'm not aware that any attorneys has ever performed waterboarding, or ordered it to be performed. Giving a legal opinion is not a war crime, even if this opinion is wrong. Secondly, torture as a legal concept in international law has a narrower definition than torture in general language. Hence an act can be torture without being considered torture for the purpose of e.g. the UN convention against torture. In short, your attempt to declare this to be a BLP issue is misguided. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with you about the liability of attorneys for opinions, but note that the current iteration of Bush Six does not. Thus, there is a pending BLP issue. THF (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
As no WP:BLP issue has been identified, and it seems unlikely that one will be forthcoming, I have removed the tag. Please present a BLP issue before placing the tag, and if there is a BLP issue that material should be removed. However, this is clearly not a BLP issue. Verbal chat 18:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This verges in the realm of ridiculousness. A clear misuse of the WP:BLP. The article does not imply anything of the sort. IMHO this qualifies as disruptive behavior by user THF.--LexCorp (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
In conjunction with Bush Six, it absolutely does imply war crimes were committed. There is an investigation by a Spanish judge whether American attorneys authorized torture. Thanks to the current NPOV violation, this article currently says that they did. How is it disruptive to raise a new argument on a talk page that has never been raised before? THF (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Look AT THE ARCHIVES. This very issue was discussed there. Rising the same issues again and again and not abiding by consensus is a form of disruption.--LexCorp (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I did look at the archives, and it is not discussed there, and there certainly isn't any indication of consensus about it. Look at my opening statement. And I have only raised this issue once. Please retract your personal attack. THF (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The argument that the article somehow implies that USG officials committed a crime is not new. Pointing out that IMHO I consider your behavior as disruptive to the editorial process in this article is not a personal attack.--LexCorp (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That seems like a rather unusual and novel interpretation of WP:BLP to me, one I doubt you'll find support for. Occasionally reexamining consensus is healthy, but please don't make it into a battle using policies as weaponry. henrik•talk 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not novel at all. It arises all the time in articles about pending investigations or trials, even where trials have been completed (e.g. Murder of Meredith Kercher). See, e.g., Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive78#Criminality, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive78#Perjury, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive64#Cyprus_v_Turkey_.28Attila_Olgac_Testimony_of_Alledged_1974_War_Crimes.29, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive49#John_Howard. Heck, the majority of BLPN archives have some similar circumstance arise. THF (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
At any given time there are hundreds of people accused of murder around the world. By your logic we should redefine the article Murder to state that some consider it to be a form of unlawful killing. WP:BLP is there for the removal of very dubious, opinionated and baldy sourced information about living persons that could result in litigation on defamation grounds. This is clearly not the case here. This article accuses nobody of committing a crime.--LexCorp (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Your analogy has nothing to do with my argument. The article does accuse US officials of committing a war crime: "All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. ... Law professor Dietmar Herz explained Novak's comments by saying that under U.S. and international law former President Bush is criminally responsible for adopting torture as interrogation tool." Aside from the crummy grammar, the BLP problem can be avoided by adhering to NPOV and avoiding taking sides on the question of whether waterboarding is torture. THF (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No, The article reports, with attribution, the comments and views of notable experts. The article does not accuse US officials of committing war crimes. Reporting the opinion of RS is not the same as accusing people of crimes.--LexCorp (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No, the first sentence says "W is T" without attribution or qualification; and the first sentence of section 7.1 doesn't even have a cite, much less qualify the statement as the opinion of experts. From these two unsourced POV premises, plus the undisputed fact that US officials okayed waterboarding, comes the inexorable conclusion that living people have committed war crimes, a proposition that violates BLP and NPOV. THF (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence is supported by the first reference; and the first sentence of section 7.1 is a statement of fact. Are you disputing it? If so then feel free to remove it or demand a reference from the editor who included it. Generally it is ok to make statements of fact without citations as long as they are not challenged. Still I fail to see how this is relevant to either NPOV or BLP.--LexCorp (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence isn't supported by the first reference; if it is changed to "According to William Safire" then it is supported. (And nowhere, to my knowledge, does Safire say that the proposition isn't controversial. In fact, I remember trying to include Safire's definition of borking in the Robert Bork article and getting accused of POV-pushing.) It's been explained multiple times why this is relevant to BLP, and you just respond "It's not" without any supporting reasoning. THF (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The first sentence is supported by the first reference and the majority of expert reliable sources. This discussion is pointless. WP:BLP is irrelevant on the lead and questionable on the rest of the article given that it is well sourced. Let's see the opinion of other editors.--LexCorp (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the first sentence fairly presents the POV of the first reference and the majority of expert RS, including me. That doesn't mean it satisfies BLP, given the implications of its current phrasing without any qualification. THF (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

side note

Separately, I did find this in the archives, which says a lot about how neutrally Wikipedia applies BLP, being more protective of admitted murderers on talk page than Bush administration attorneys in article-space. THF (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't "Wikipedia", it was a single editor. I don't know if it was a WP:POINT violation or genuine silliness (I don't know the editor, but I am inclined to believe the former), but it's certainly not a valid argument in this context. Hans Adler 11:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bybee Memo

THF has raised some similar/related concerns to those above at the Baybee memo article talkpage. I feel some of these have merit and should be addressed, and as there seem to be more experts at this more active article, and the concerns are related, I thought I'd invite input. Verbal chat 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?

It was suggested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement that a section be started to determine whether or not the statement "waterboarding is torture" is in line with NPOV. According to the administrator who made the suggestion, this should be simple. I agree. Here's how simple it is: as long as the current wording remains in place, this page will always be the source of a dispute. That is why it is necessary to accurately reflect the definition: An act (something we all agree on), widely considered torture (something we all agree on). Jehochman wants this article to be FA. That will never happen with the current wording because it will never pass the stability requirement. Editors need to take into account the numerous changes to the lead usually done in good faith by IP users and the continuous NPOV concerns raised on this talk page. Editors have two choices: change the wording to conform to NPOV or continue the dispute indefinitely. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat, William? I do hope not. --John (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's reality. I personally have no desire to continue this dispute, but I can guarantee you that others will.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I hope you are wrong in your "guarantee". The consensus here seems to be that the current lede is NPOV. To change it, we need coherent arguments, collegial cooperation among editors, and sources to support any proposed changes. Failing that, it should stay as it is. We are certainly not going to change it to avoid disruption. There are other ways to do that. --John (talk) 03:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This argument makes no sense. Evolution is a good example of a featured article that was not made misleading merely to accommodate extremist POV pushers. Hans Adler 11:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to me to state that waterboarding is torture in the very first sentence when there are huge sections of the article discussing the controversies regarding its use as an "enhanced interrogation technique" and the legal opinions disputing whether it meets the severe pain threshold. "Widely considered" would be better.

Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of offering controversial legal opinions. There are many other problems with the article, but using it to advance a particular point of view right from the first sentence without fairly representing alternative perspectives is certainly problematic. Let the facts speak for themselves. People need good information not opinion. An accurate description of what waterboarding is, what those exposed to it experience, and how it's been used is more appropriate and helpful than telling readers how it should be characterized. The idea that this article is NPOV is absurd. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

From a legal perspective, torture is an official act. The President and Attorney General of the United States have stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture. No other nation's government nor any other authoritative body takes a contrary position. Those are the facts. If you dispute them, bring sources. For a while the previous US administration, in secret memoranda, took an opposite position but they later withdrew those position papers. That story is well covered in our article's intro. In the last US presidential election, both major party candidates stated the waterboarding was torture, as did most of the minor party candidates. There are currently politicians in the US who say they would take a different position if they were in power and again we cover this in the article (though that section may need updating). The current article more than meets the requirements of our NPOV policy, see WP:Undue weight. --agr (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I recommend that if this discussion is to be done, it should be done with a fresh RfC. Swarm(Talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is required unless some interesting new arguments are raised. Verbal chat 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
According to press reports, [10] the Justice Department is soon to release finding of an investigation into the actions of DOJ lawyers during the Bush administration. I'd suggest holding off on any review until that report is published as it will likely have additional relevant information.--agr (talk) 14:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed.--LexCorp (talk) 15:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources already in the article dispute the problematic "is torture" assertion made in the first line. The opening sentence is usually where a subject explained rather than characterized in this way, anyway. An example of the sources establishing that there is a dispute include one saying: "Waterboarding is a technique designed to simulate drowning. The agency has acknowledged using it on terror suspects. Some critics regard it as torture; others say it is a harsh interrogation technique, and proponents say it is a useful tool in the war on terror."

I have no problem with noting it is almost universally considered toruture, or whatever the accurate description from reliable sources say, but since there have been major legal opinions that it does not constitute torture we can't state unequivocally that it is torture without putting Wikipedia in the position of offering a controversial legal opinion.

Furthermore, the article does a very poor job of explaining the controversy and reads as an indictment of officials who supported use of the technique in a very limited number of cases where information gathered was determined to be essential to stopping and disrupting terrorist networks. We don't have to determine whether those arguments are valid or not, or whether waterboarding is torture, we can explain what it is and let our readers decide for themselves. But it is obviously inappropriate to say "waterboarding is torture" in the very first line without any qualification when other parts of the article discuss arguments that it doesn't constitute torture. If they are fringe views, then let's describe them as such based on reliable sources, but they were official views argued by notable figures and legal experts such as the former attorney general. It's not our job to make people out to be liars unless there is evidence of dishonestyl and we shouldn't implicate anyone of being a torture or condoning torture without proper citations adn attribution. Explain the subject accurately and let people decide for themselves. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the opposition party in Serbia decided to call the rape camps in the Bosnia war "Ethnic integration centers" would we permit the lede in our war rape article to be changed to "Forced sex by soldiers is an enhanced ethnic integration technique widely regarded as a form of rape" on NPOV grounds? There are currently 89 articles in Category:Torture. Do we change all their ledes to include an element of doubt or should we just wait until some regime decides to justify its use of a particular technique? There is indeed an argument that the realities of the war on terror call past agreements banning the use of torture into question. That is the real heart of the debate in the U.S. For example Scott Brown, in his recent successful Senate campaign, after saying waterboarding isn't torture added "I will use any means possible and encourage the president to use any means necessary to gather any information to keep our country safe." Whether torture should be used in extraordinary cases is an ancient question. The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition traces it back to Roman times (volume 27, pp. 72-79). We can and should present both sides of that controversy, but we should not short circuit the debate by diluting the word torture against the overwhelming weight of sources.--agr (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite the never ending stream of people who continue to dispute this, CoM, there is apparently a "consensus" regarding the matter that some people don't want challenged. I strongly recommend, that if you wish to dispute this, you request comments. Swarm(Talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Child of Midnight. His revised wording appears more scholarly and even handed. It would be great to change it accordingly. Chidofu (talk) chidofu 2/12/10 —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

Articles Like This Damage the Credibility of Wikipedia

I was puttering around the Internet today and came upon a variety of articles discussing whether or not waterboarding was torture. It seemed like it was a relatively convoluted topic as different people described the process differently and had different views about whether it amounted to torture. So I thought to myself, why not check out Wikipedia - I generally get a more intellectual, fact-based analysis from Wikipedia than I do from these other sources where it is frequently tinged with political agenda. So I was very surprised when I opened the Wikipedia page that within the first four words it purported to answer the question completely. This seemed very out of character and completely unhelpful for a variety of reasons.

First, it appears to take sides on a controversial political issue. In order to maintain credibility Wikipedia should very much try to avoid this. I see quite a bit in the discussion about NPOV. While people may argue about whether this is NPOV, it is clear that this statement at least creates the impression of a political bias. If there are multiple NPOV ways to say something, Wikipedia should definitely take the one that avoids creating an impression of political bias.

Second, the article subsequently contained a much more helpful discussion about the various viewpoints on whether or not waterboarding was torture. It seemed bizarre to me that an entry that contained such a significant section on the question would begin with a definitive statement one way or the other. Again, this creates significant questions about the impartiality of the article and the credibility of Wikipedia in general. You should definitely try to avoid becoming a tool for a person with a political agenda.

Third, it is not clearly written. The Wiki entry on "Torture" describes it as something done either (and I am paraphrasing) to get information, to punish or to intimidate. It is unclear from the statement that "Waterboarding is torture" which of these apply. Personally, I don't know if waterboarding has been done to people for purposes of intimidation apart from its use recently for the alleged purpose of getting information. It would be better, in my view, to be more specific rather than less specific and more accurate rather than less accurate in the opening sentence defining a term. For a less loaded example of how this can create problems, look at the Wiki entry on "Solitary confinement". The Wiki entry on "Torture" includes solitary confinement as a torture method, which means that it could be used to get information, to punish or to intimidate. The first sentence of the Wiki entry on "Solitary confinement", however, describes it as "a punishment or special form of imprisonment". Punishment is overly restrictive if solitary confinement is a form of torture. The desire to employ a particular word in the opening sentence of the entry for "solitary confinement" has made it potentially misleading.

Fourth, it is inconsistent with other Wiki entries. "Shunning" is also described as a form of torture in the Wiki entry on "Torture". However, the Wiki entry on "shunning" does not state in the first sentence that shunning is torture. Instead it describes the practice without such conclusory statements. This presents a much more balanced and neutral approach to the subject.

Finally, it seemed strange to me that the article was protected so that edits were restricted and that as a result of these restrictions the article had remained as it was. The problems with the opening statement and a later statement about conclusions that some committee was "expected" to reach sometime in June of 2009 create the impression that someone is working to maintain this document in a politically slanted format. I came to this article trying to find neutral information about a controversial subject and instead just found a lot of controversial behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chidofu (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your points, in order, while there is a short term political controversy in the United States, WP:Recentism applies here and the overwhelming majority of WP:RS call waterboarding torture. Calling it anything other than torture, based on the overwhelming application of reliable sources, would be biased. Second, give how localized the debate is the article spends entirly too much time on the controvery already and needs to be edited down. Third, torture can be used for interrogation, intimidation, punishment, coersion or blackmail. The overwhelming majority of our sources do not describe waterboarding as any of these terms and instead simply call it torture, for us to call it anything else is a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. For the record, Waterboarding is highly effective at every use for torture listed according to a signifigant number of reliable sources. Fourth, that's your opinion and it has been brought up many times in the archives, concensus has supported the current lede. Finally, the protection level on this article is not all that high and was mainly used to prevent random, drive by vandalism of the article. If you have any further questions, please review the archives as everything you have brought up has been discussed previously by fellow editors of wikipedia. RTRimmel (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A couple of more responses to the points you raise: 1. Evolution is a controversial political issue in the U.S., yet our article reports it as fact. Is that political bias? 2. We often report alternate views that are poorly supported by reliable sources, but not necessarily on an equal footing. See WP:Weight. Of course, our writing can always be improved. 3. Waterboarding was used by the Pol Pot regime in their prison camps for intimidation and punishment. 4. What our article on shunning actually says is "Extremes of this cross over the line into psychological torture ..." That's quite different from saying shunning is a form of torture and so the lede shouldn't say that. See Category:Torture for a wide variety of techniques that are called torture in the lede.--agr (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I will reply once more as I don't really have an axe to grind on this subject - just reporting my honest reaction to this page. First, the only poll I was able to find on this subject (I resorted to a bunch of googling after determining that I couldn't rely on this article for even handed analysis of the question) reported that approximately 70% of the public regards waterboarding as torture and 30% does not regard it as torture (it was a CNN poll). So it seems that while a majority does regard it as torture, a substantial minority does not. Second, one would hardly expect to find a lot of sources reporting that waterboarding is not torture just the same as you would not expect to find a lot of sources stating that a spanking is not torture. People don't write articles listing everything that is not torture. Third, I don't see much sign of consensus in the discussions about this topic or in the poll I cited above. Fourth, perhaps my reaction is driven to some extent by the fact that I went to the site to see what Wiki had to say about something that I perceived to be a point of controversy in the United States. I wanted to find out what it involves precisely, whether there are different methods that may be more or less painful or scary, which methods were used historically and which were used in the recent interrogations, how does one draw the line between acceptable interrogation or punishment methods and torture, etc. To have the first four words of the article provide an immediate characterization as torture was surprising and it became positively bizarre upon reading the lower section that did acknowledge a fair amount of disagreement on the question. To use Arnold's evolution example, it seems akin to opening the evolution article with "Evolution is the true and correct theory explaining man's presence on the planet". It may be a true statement, but it would seem rather forced to have this as the opening. My guess is that many people who check the waterboarding entry are going to be looking for information on the same types of questions I had and will be similarly surprised by the pat conclusion. For Arnold, I was referring to the article on "torture" which does characterize shunning as torture and noting that the article on "shunning" does not open up by stating that shunning is a form of torture. Instead it provides a more nuanced explanation. My point is that, even though shunning is torture according to the Wiki article on torture, it was not deemed necessary to immediately characterize shunning as a form of torture in the first sentence. The same is true of the article on waterboarding - there is no reason to immediately characterize waterboarding as a form of torture in the first sentence. It creates the impression that the editor is going out of his way to push this characterization on the reader for this particular entry only and for no apparent reason. Finally, it is totally disingenuous to (a) argue that anyone is asking you not to describe waterboarding as torture in the article (I have read some of the discussion and have not found one person who asks you to describe it as something other than torture), or (b) argue that if you leave torture out of the first sentence and instead insert a clinical description of the process (as is done in the article on shunning) you will violate some policy. I have said my piece, you can take it or leave it, but do recognize that the current form of the article creates an impression of political bias to a reader who came to the site without preconceived notions on the topic. Chidofu (talk) chidofu 2/12/10 —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC).

An even larger fraction of the American public, about 44% in multiple polls, believe man was created "pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." [11], yet our evolution article does not reflect this, nor do numerous other articles on biology. One can also find American opinion polls where significant numbers say global warming isn't happening, Iraq is responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks, the Apollo moon landings were faked, etc., yet we do not take such polls into account in our articles on those subjects. Our articles are based on what published sources say, not polls. You again mischaracterize what our article says about shunning. Our torture article says "Psychological torture also includes deliberate use of extreme stressors and situations such as mock execution, shunning, violation of deep-seated social or sexual norms and taboos, or extended solitary confinement." That is very different from saying shunning is a form of torture. Yes, other ledes might work, I've suggested some in the past, but there has been a consensus in favor of the present lede, absent any sourced basis for changing it.--agr (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Evolution and global warming are considered scientific fact. The other points you raise about 9/11 and the apollo moon landings are conspiracy theories and have their own articles. This situation isn't comparable to scientific theories or conspiracy theories; it's an ongoing political controversy. There are plenty of reliable sources that report opinions that waterboarding isn't torture, yet this article takes sides on that controversy. There's a difference in opinions like this and opinions against scientific theories and conspiracy theories. Swarm(Talk) 20:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources that report opinions that waterboarding isn't torture - subtle but irrelevant. Sources report opinions all the time. If they are reliable, that makes the reporting reliable, not the opinion. We have a very strong lack of reliable sources denying that waterboarding is torture. Sources that report on Cheney's opinion (is there anybody else out there? ;-) may be plentiful, but largely irrelevant. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

A Good Reason this Article Should Soften Opening Line

Is that neutral people who are Wikipedia neophytes (myself and the above are two notable examples) find the blatant use of "X is Y" to be a dramatic redefinition that is in fact not established by consensus. The members of the Wikipedia community who are stifling those edits are not other neophyte users but in fact members of the Wikipedia Establishment. I'm sure I could cite some WP:Trust that the people who read the encyclopedia aren't stupid just because you edit it more than them -- but I don't know where that is in the meta-verse of Wiki editing. What I do know is that the Torture Memos which were legal opinions which have not been invalidated by a court did assert a definition of torture that involved "no permanent physical harm" -- in which case Waterboarding is not torture and that definition is not a redefinition of torture since the UN definition of torture is itself a redefinition of torture, and if we go back to the earliest definitions it lines up equally well with both of them, since it was originally just "prolonged cruelty" and not even linked to interrogation, in which case domestic abuse would also be a form of torture. Saying it's use like, "an interrogation technique" is not only equally valid, but more valid, as a way of objectively describing what it actually is. Which is hands down the purpose of the article anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.40.176 (talk) 10:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please inform us of a RS from an expert on the subject stating that waterboarding is not torture. There are quite a few that state the opposite thus the lead in the article.--LexCorp (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Again, look at the opinions of Yale Law Educated Law Professor John Yoo in the torture memos which specifically says they are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.40.176 (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Sadly John Yoo opinion and expertise only relates to the legality of the act in the US. His opinion has been retracted by the USG which seems to cast a rather large doubt as to the "expertise" of John Yoo even on legal matters in the US. What you need is a RS expert in the medical/psychological field with particular experience in treating/investigating torture victims/allegations stating unequivocally that the acts performed in waterboarding do not constitute torture as the subject does not experience anything akin to what other torture victims experience in other forms of torture nor are there any lasting physiological/psychological problems related to the fun experience of being the subject of a waterboarding session.--LexCorp (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Why does a Doctor's opinion supersede a Lawyers? Why does a Professors? Even if you look into Wikipedia's own NPOV standard, this is totally a slippery slope. There is no non-political definition of torture, so why pretend? Even your response is political. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.40.176 (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Well a doctor will be better qualified to determine what the subject experienced during his alleged torture treatment rather than a lawyer. I guess that in a court dealing with a torture case the issue will hinge in such testimony and not in the testimony of a lawyer arguing that the act is not torture. But really I digress because what I said is an "expert in the medical/psychological field with particular experience in treating/investigating torture victims/allegations" such as Professor Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the IRCT and former member of the United Nations Committee against Torture. I am not disputing that there must be some lawyer or even non lawyer/doctor experts on torture with similar backgrounds as Professor Bent Sørensen background, which show a sustained professional dedication to the issue of torture. Such persons will no doubt qualify also as experts on torture but neither John Yoo nor the grand total of the 8 RS presented thus far stating "waterboarding is not torture" seem to qualify as experts on the subject.--LexCorp (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I am with Lexcorp on this one. Yoo's opinions are a fringe opinion. It seems to me that in the last N years most apologists for the use of the technique have quietly stopped trying to deny that water-boarding is torture, or is tantamount to torture. WRT Yoo's credibility and intellectual honesty -- you are aware that he is one of the Bush Six? He has to view what happened to Augusto Pinochet on his last trip outside Chile as a cautionary example. He has to consider letting his passport expire, and never leaving the USA, because there is a slim but measurable risk if he travels outside the USA he will find himself arrested, and face war crime charges. I think if we are going to call upon law professors on the legality of torture, we should probably stick to those who don't face a risk for being tried as war criminals for having advocated torture. Did you actually read what techniques Yoo claimed the President could order? It wasn't just waterboarding. He claimed the President could order eyes to be gouged out, ears and noses to be cut off, and the immersion of the subject's body parts in boiling water or caustic solvents. Geo Swan (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sharpen by replacing the lightning rod word "Torture" with its definition

There is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, but Waterboarding is torture might not be the best way to start the article. We can say "Waterboarding is a form of simulated drowning that causes the subject to experience the terror of imminent death." I think we can discuss wording, but "enhanced interrogation technique" is a non-starter. Jehochman Brrr 13:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Please inform me as to why starting the article with Waterboarding is a torture technique is not the best way to start the article given that all RS from experts state waterboarding to be torture or a form of torture.--LexCorp (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Torture == intentional infliction of pain or distress. The version I suggest takes out the word and put in the definition with specifics about why waterboarding is torture. It's less debatable and more informative. Jehochman Brrr 13:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
As with the violin/string instrument and the Nuclear weapon/explosive device examples. Torture is an integral part of the definition of waterboarding. Thus I agree with a modification of your suggestion as "Waterboarding is a form of torture consisting in a simulated drowning that causes the subject to experience the terror of imminent death."--LexCorp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, FWIW in a similar vein Nuclear weapon doesn't say that Nuclear weapons are evil. You can draw the conclusion pretty quickly yourself by just reading the article. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there many nuclear weapon experts defining Nuclear weapons primarily as evil?. You got me confused there. More likely your example is absurd.--LexCorp (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The Nuclear weapon article also starts with "A nuclear weapon is an explosive device". By following the logic of those that want to remove torture from being an integral part of the definition here we may end up with the absurd proposition that the definition of Nuclear weapon should omit the "explosive device" and define it as an arrangement of radioactive material prep to undergo a fission reaction or a combination of fission and fusion reaction. This is the correct analogy with this article.--LexCorp (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Let's not talk in analogious because it obscures the issue. What we need to decide is whether "waterboarding is torture" or "waterboarding is a form of simulated drowning that causes the subject to experience the sensations of imminent death" is a better summary of the information that follows. Perhaps the second or third sentence will say that the vast majority of legal scholars consider waterboarding to be a form of torture, although the Bush administration and conservative pundits claim that it is not. This, I think, is a very neutral way to summarize the current status. Waterboarding became notable specifically because of the political controversy. This is a highly relevant fact that should appear in the lede. Jehochman Brrr 15:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
To me the above analogy clarifies exactly how vacuous (in arguments supported by WP or otherwise) are the arguments for removing "torture" from the definition. If we follow WP:lead to the letter then I think the first paragraph does a good job in "defining the subject" apart from the last sentence "The term waterboarding was coined in 2004." which in my view should be part of a second paragraph summarizing the historical use and leading into a third paragraph that merges the content of the current 2nd and 3rd paragraph covering pretty much the current political controversy. That should be IMHO the optimal structure of the lead. So to sumirise, paragraphs:
  1. defining the subject
  2. Historical use ending on the polemic recent use by the USA thus establishing notability in recent times.
  3. Detailed account of the political controversy resulting from the policies of the former Bush administration.
Now my opinion is that we wait for the famous and long due OPR report before engaging in a rewrite because frankly the whole 3rd paragraph content may vary depending on what is in the report.--LexCorp (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually trying to explain something basic about NPOV here, where Nuclear weapon has long been the gold standard for me. <sigh>

We don't say that saying that nuclear weapons are evil horrible things that should be banned.

Instead we say that they make a very loud boom, kill lots of people, knock down houses, and give the survivors radiation poisoning, so that they suffer a slow agonizing death.

That's pretty neutral, right?

One could approach waterboarding from the same angle. One should. In fact, one must, as it's a fundamental wikipedia policy.

So it would be nice if instead of debating whether or not waterboarding is torture, we just say all the horrible things it does, and then we provide sources that say that that amounts to torture, and provide sources that say that it doesn't.

IMHO, that's somewhat akin to how the MSM dealt with the Iraqi information minister: "There are no tanks in Baghdad", whilst cameras showed the tanks rolling in. People can decide for themselves which sources they'll give more credit.

I don't want to see argument on whether or not waterbording is torture. I want to see argument on how to present Waterboarding in an NPOV way. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a form of torture" is exactly neutral. Note how the words "evil" or "illegal" or "an abomination against cherished principles of humanity that I find hard to believe any civilized person would defend, even on US network TV" are missing. Compare "A hammer is a tool", not the more "NPOV" "...consists of a head and a shaft and is sometimes used to drive nails. Several experts consider it a tool!". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Among the expert RS there is no argument about defining waterboarding as torture. The controversy is only political in nature. The view that waterboarding is not torture is non existent/fringe among expert RS (In fact there isn't at the moment even one RS from an expert stating that it is not torture) and among RS expert in legal matters it is fringe/minority but those only count to establish the political controversy and the legal status of the act in the USA not to define the subject. The failure to appreciate that distinction is what results in many people objecting to the lead by invoking the NPOV policy. But the fact is that the letter and spirit of the NPOV policy is there also to protect articles from WP:Recentism and public controversies that do not reproduce themselves in the RS. In fact giving WP:undue weight to the non existent view among expert reliable sources that waterboarding is not torture or omiting the view from all the expert reliable sources that it is torture is what is against the NPOV policy and neutrality in the article in general.--LexCorp (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Kim, which sources do you have in mind to support the contention that it is not torture? --John (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Nuclear weapon begins "A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion." The first sentence says that a nuclear weapon is a member of a general class of things (explosive devices) and then more precisely defines its nature. Waterboarding currently begins "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his back with the head inclined downwards; water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing the captive experience the sensations of drowning." Just like nuclear weapon, this article notes that waterboarding is a member of a class of things ("a form of torture") and then more precisely defines the technique. If nuclear weapon provides a model for how to write a lead, then this article is following it. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Somehow folks are looking at every similarity between waterboarding and nucler weapon, except the ones I mean. Bother. Perhaps I'm explaining wrong. Let's try a different angle, and do a standard quick check:

If you look at Nuclear weapon, do you agree that the wording is factual? Would anyone oppose that phrasing? Would you edit it? Would anyone edit it? Do they do so? If so, who, why?

Now try waterboarding. Ddo you agree that the wording is factual? Would anyone oppose that phrasing? Would you edit it? Would anyone edit it? Do they do so? If so, who, why?

Is there a difference between your answers? If so, one of the two articles is not yet fully NPOV.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That reasoning is complete bogus. People attack factually correct and neutral articles all the time, because they think their POV is underrepresented. That does not make it so. If this happens or not is much less a question of NPOV but of political focus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
If people attack factually correct and neutral articles, then per definition the articles are neither factually correct nor neutral. --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to The Asylum. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Objections published by reliable sources are germane; the talk page grousing of Wikipedia editors, not so much. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kim, here are ledes from several other articles all of which mention torture in the first sentence:

  • The rack is a torture device comprised of a rectangular, usually wooden frame, slightly raised from the ground, with a roller at one, or both, ends, having at one end a fixed bar to which the legs were fastened, and at the other a movable bar to which the hands were tied.
  • An iron maiden (German Eiserne Jungfrau) is a torture device, consisting of an iron cabinet, with a hinged front, sufficiently tall to enclose a human being.
  • The thumbscrew or pilliwinks is a torture instrument which was first used in medieval Europe. It is a simple vice, sometimes with protruding studs on the interior surfaces. The victim's thumbs or fingers were placed in the vise and slowly crushed.
  • Dunking is a form of torture and punishment that was applied to scolds and supposed witches. In a trial by ordeal, supposed witches were immersed into a vat of water or pond, and taken out after some time, and given the opportunity to confess.
  • Boiling to death is a crude and torturous method of execution.
  • The iron chair was a torture device, very similar to a gridiron. The victim was placed on several strips of brass over an open flame, and slowly roasted alive.

Should we change all these ledes as well (and there are many more) on NPOV grounds?--agr (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone expressed an opposition to those lead paragraphs?--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank the FSM your views on what is neutral and its definition is not the actual NPOV policy here in wikipedia. Your naivety is amazing. You must be aware that there are thousands of topics as controversial as this one and by your criteria none of then will ever be deemed in line with NPOV and totally neutral. Why do you think there is a WP:NPOV policy in the first place. Did you even bother to read WP:NPOV?--LexCorp (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
LexCorp, I don't like your tone. Oh, and you're violating a bunch of Basic Wikipedia policies on how to discuss a topic, which, as you seem to be a heavy duty contributor you should know. One of the Cardinal ones is that you can't cite other articles to make your point. Right? I can find 8 articles that support that you're wrong. You can find 5 that do it your way. It's against policy to use those arguments. Kim Bruning is using a different tack that doesn't violate policy which is to say, "We don't say Canada is a Socialist Democracy" because Socialist has a flimsy definition, as does Torture, which everyone arguing this point here seems incapable of realizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.139.40.176 (talk) 13:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I fully apologize to the wikipedia community and to Kim Bruning in particular for the perceived tone in my above comment. I was just trying to express that the views of editor Kim Bruning in his comment above which I fully reproduce here as "If people attack factually correct and neutral articles, then per definition the articles are neither factually correct nor neutral." to my knowledge is not part of/supported by any WP and is also plainly wrong. That IMHO Wikipedia will cease to be a viable project if at any time in the future such opinion becomes WP. I will hardly describe myself as a heavy duty contributor and further claim complete ignorance of the WP that prohibits presenting other articles in talk pages as examples to make points and thus I ask you to point me to such WP so that I may in the future avoid violating WP.--LexCorp (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the apology.
Note that my statements only hold true in those cases where people are acting in good faith. Your statement is that wikipedia would never work if my interpretation was used.
Alright, let's make it harder on myself, and use the original formulation, instead of the current. Meta:Neutral_point_of_view:
"The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree".
From that statement we derive by logic: if supporters and/or opponents do *not* agree, (and thus attack the article), then apparently the article is not (yet) neutral .
Apparently Wikipedia was never a viable project to begin with. ;-)


Another statement you made is that there would be "thousands of topics that would never be neutral" according to "my" interpretation of NPOV. For the sake of argument, let's say there are ~3000 such pages. At the time of this post , wikipedia has 3,200,208 articles. Let's round that down to ~3,000,000 for easy maths.
So the way you've phrased it, you are stating that I am correct ~99.9% of the time (which is a pretty good score for a human being :-P). I would like to thank you for the compliment. :)
--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
So the rest of the statement "Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points." And so your argument that we should listen to a minority of voices and changes a well established concensus lead so that it will satisfy a minority. I fully support this attitude, I would also like to look at other articles such as Holocaust which is a decidedly pro-western viewpoint and despite hundreds of sources that fully support the fact that it didn't even happen, including many governments and many organizations within the United States. I look forwards to assistance to like minded editors such as yourself in editing these articles to support all sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.57 (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes. My "Note that... good faith" is a modern wiki-speak translation of the original "Of course...particular points" which you've quoted.
Yes, we should listen to the minority. It is called "Neutral point of view", not "Majority Point of view". Of course, it's not called "Minority Point Of View" either. To that extent you are correct.
To achieve neutrality here, we should attribute better and more explicity. If we have a source that says that -say- the UN states that waterboarding is torture, then we could put "According to the UN ...". And we can explicitly name those american policians who claim that it isn't. If we have a source that says they were actually involved in ordering waterboarding, we can add that too. People can then draw their own conclusions.
There's some more about this kind of thing in the NPOV FAQ: There's_no_such_thing_as_objectivity, Morally_offensive_views, and the one closest to what I'm trying to apply here is: Avoiding_constant_disputes.
Finally, you realize that I could just call Godwin on you for the rest of your statement, right? ;-) But ...
Yes, we actually have a number of articles that present sources claiming that the holocaust didn't happen, and of course also sources that counter *those* claims. See: Holocaust_Denial, with links to extensive in-detail articles too.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
That's similar to Waterboarding_in_the_21st_century where the torture deniers arguments are rebuted. Maybe you should head there?

Why are we acting as if there's really no controversy going on, while waterboarding is otherwise universally accepted as torture. Nearly a third of respondents in this poll don't think waterboarding is torture. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee that waterboarding does not constitute torture. [12]. Marc Thiessen publicly stated that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture.[13] Scott Brown has publicly stated that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture.[14] The White House formerly held the official position that waterboarding is not torture.[15] Numerous wikipedia editors over a very long period of time have disputed the neutrality of the phrase on the article's talk page. The most prominent problem mentioned during the article's FA review was that it was too POV right from the first sentence. It's both disputed in Wikipedia, and in real life. Lexcorp, regardless of your little belief that "waterboarding is torture" is a universally accepted statement, it's not. Swarm(Talk) 21:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is an essay, not a policy, 83.139.40.176 (talk). Is that what you were referring to when you mentioned Wikipedia policy? I think what LexCorp is getting at is it's all very well to argue about the salience or verifiability of a particular topic, but just because you have someone who disagrees does not automatically guarantee that the opinion will get much of a mention or even be included in a Wikipedia article. For what it's worth, "Facts" in Wikipedia-land are what is verifiable. The "flimsy definition of torture" argument isn't very impressive, IMHO, given the verified and well-attributed information there, never mind the factual basis of the force of law. There may be some disagreement about whether Waterboarding is torture, but it will be challenge to demonstrate a verified majority of information that suggests otherwise.--Happysomeone (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd also point out that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Precedent in usage encourages looking at other articles for precedent in "style and phraseology." We are not reluctant to use the word torture in other articles detailing specific methods, so there is no reason to avoid it here, especially when a preponderance of reliable sources support the usage. --agr (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Amen. I'd also add that it's really unhelpful when editors disagree with others by calling their opinions "little".--Happysomeone (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh good lord. Swarm(Talk) 23:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I was going to answer you fully but it is a waste of time seen that every point you make is already discussed to death in this very talk page and any interested party can see the usual counter-arguments. I would just like to add that today I learned something very distressful about me. The power of POV pushing by attrition is greater than my revolve to help in this article.--LexCorp (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia :-) --Happysomeone (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, that's nice. It's not a legitimate viewpoint on any of these multiple editors' part, it's just POV pushing. And the fact that it keeps being brought up doesn't mean it might actually be more of a widely disputed issue than you believe, it's simply attrition And here I was thinking you actually were trying to participate in civil, good faith debate. Swarm(Talk) 04:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
You missed it then. The civil, good faith debate was about 50 paragraphs up. Right now you are looking at the final de-evolution of a WP:IDHT section lead by a group of editors with almost no WP:RS to back up their viewpoint arguing to change a long term concensus lead on an article. Since that group has brought up no new points for several section headers now, I'd argue that there isn't much good faith left around for anyone anymore.161.150.2.58 (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Why can't people try to improve the other 99% of the article, rather than bicker over the first sentence of the article, for which there is an extremely solid consensus? There is a lot of work to be done. --John (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to check: Are you referring to local consensus, or site-wide consensus? --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Both. --John (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Interesting! Could you characterize how/where the site-wide consensus was found? Best I could find was the relevant Arbcom case. On reading policy/guidelines/essays I can't find anything that actually supports current wording, in my interpretation. (although with the OPR report out discrediting the legal position... things may alter somewhat over time) <scratches head> --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding on the sitewide consensus seems to match mine. The relevant policies, as have been quoted multiple times on previous discussions over the last few years here at the article talk, include WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:UNDUE. Your own interpretation of core policies, while of course interesting, is not necessarily relevant when discussing a consensus formed by others working to the consensus interpretation of those policies. With the legal position of those few lawyers in the Bush administration thoroughly discredited and disowned by all, as you say, there is even less controversy with the lead sentence than there ever was, in my opinion. As I say, there is much work needing to be done on the remainder of the article and it might be better to focus on that first, then come back and continue this discussion, if it still seems important to you. --John (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I stated several current, reliable sources highlighting the controversy just above, John. It's not just a few lawyers in the Bush administration. Swarm(Talk) 04:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, your links highlight a controversy among the general US populace and politicians, not among experts. There is also a controversy over evolution in the general US populace and among politicians, should the wiki article on evolution have its lead edited to reflect this? 74.107.142.232 (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The argument that this article can be related to evolution is at best facetious and at worse purposely misleading. The definition of torture is not well settled but is a political lightning rod. All forms of interrogation are a form of torture of they involve any coercion whatsoever over the broadest sweep of the guidelines. People keep bringing up so-called "Experts" who are not, in fact, experts. Very reputable Human Rights organizations, including part of the UN, have taken to calling the US a human rights abuser, but this is obviously untrue and politically motivated. UN experts and experts in the academy are not enough to term this method of interrogation torture. I think it is important to remember that We can say This method of interrogation is torture but we cannot say This method of torture is use for interrogation. This strikes me that it should FIRST and FOREMOST be listed as an interrogation technique (1st sentence) and then have torture brought up later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.220.244 (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The above comment is a perfect example of what's really going on here, an attempt to redefine the word "torture" into something meaningless. Once this is accomplished, laws and treaties banning torture can then be safely ignored. Fortunately, the standard for what gets said in Wikipedia is reliable sources and that very much includes "UN experts and experts in the academy" and excludes op eds and talk show hosts. --agr (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Damn, you've figured out my ulterior motive to dilute the meaning of the word "torture" to the point where laws and treaties banning it can be ignored. Have you ever considered signing as "abf" instead of "agr"? Swarm(Talk)
<quote>We can say This method of interrogation is torture but we cannot say This method of torture is use for interrogation.</quote> We could just as easily say This method of punishment is torture or This method of coersion is used for torture or This method of blackmail is used for torture and we have adaquate WP:RS to back up all of those viewpoints quite well... seeing as they are all common uses for torture.

This issue seems to flare every time there's a national election in the United States. This does create the appearance that some folks would like to revise history to say something besides the administration of George W. Bush tortured prisoners. Any amount of doubt or dilution stands to create political gain. Do not forget that this page read by hundreds of thousands per month. Jehochman Brrr 13:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the FA candidacy too, where the article failed on Instability and POV grounds by the look of it. That was 2 years ago.

Checking sources, yes, we have a lot of scholarly sources saying that it's torture. We have a small number of political but highly influential sources saying that it's not. What I am missing is the actual documents written by the (now discredited?) white house lawyers, and there is apparently a DOJ memo that is mentioned once in the source list, but no actual reference is listed. I take it these documents are still secret, and not available under FOIA?

Is it correct to say that formal documents stating that water-boarding is torture are all public, while formal documents stating the opposite are all secret? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the Bybee Memo, the text of that is publicly available. The Bybee Memo has been repudiated, of course. I'm not sure what DOJ memo are you referring to, unless it's the Bybee Memo, which was principally authored by John Yoo, and prepared by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, the official administration position was never an unqualified waterboarding is not torture, it was something to the effect of under certain conditions and circumstances, this technique(waterboarding) would be lawful. Typically coupled with anything approved by the President is legal with the cravat that the US must also maintain existing international treaties such as the Geneva Conventions which specifically maintain waterboarding is torture and all legal precedents in the US were that waterboarding is torture. Basically, my read of the withdrawn memos was: waterboarding was legal, when applied in certain locations, to certain people, by certain people, with specific people watching them, in a specific and approved manner, and with specific approval from specific people. They were all very narrow legal opinions that in the end only applied to a total of 3 people in the whole world. In every other case it was illegal because it was torture. Further, other memos that were not withdrawn specify that the way waterboarding was done was much more vigorous than that waterboarding that was allowed for under those memos. RTRimmel (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
There are two memos signed by Bybee. One, to Alberto Gonzales, discusses torture in general and does not address waterboarding specifically. It's ref 3 in the Bybee Memo article. The second, ref 9, is to John Rizzo and does discuss waterboarding. see p. 3 ff. Both have been largely declassified, with a few redactions of names and other details, and have been publicly available for some time. Note that the memo to Rizzo authorizes the use of waterboarding on just one individual, Abu Zubaydah, based on a number of explicit assurances by the CIA, including strict supervision of the procedure by medical personnel, limiting the procedure to 20 minutes at a time, a detailed personality assessment of Zubaydah that concludes he won't suffer mental harm, and assurances from the CIA about the lack of long term harm to US military personnel who experienced waterboarding in SERE training. --agr (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is unproductively coasting. Question: does anyone disagree that a political controversy exists? Swarm(Talk) 08:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll grant that this is an unproductive discussion, but to answer your question sure there is one however WP:Weight and WP:UNDUE says we don't pay that much attention to fully retracted position. Because everyone had discredited the memos we cannot use them as an official US government position, that leaves a bunch of recent work by a few politicos with an axe to grind. Given that we can identify the, at best, minority viewpoint down to one specific group we shouldn't change the lead. The controversy is so localized, and the controversy itself is POV by our standards, that we should avoid it and keep the current lead. RTRimmel (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more, RTRimmel. Might help if everyone had a look at the OPR final report. On what basis would they find Bush administration lawyers Yoo and Bybee guilty of professional misconduct, and recommend disbarment? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm....--Happysomeone (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

From the OPR report.

"The Bybee Memo had the effect of authorizing a program of CIA interrogation that many would argue violated the torture statute, the War Crimes Act, the Geneva Convention, and the Convention Against Torture, and Yoo's' legal analyses justified acts of outright torture under certain circumstances, circumstances, and characterized possible prosecutions under the torture statute as unconstitutional infringements on the President's war powers."

Well this completely discredits Yoo's expertise and the opinions of those using the Bybee memo to inform their views. I am still reading the report but it looks like a whitewash of the worst kind. Basically if you are the White House and want to torture someone then find a moronic lawyer on the DOJ that shares your views and restrict the access of his opinion to anyone that may object by means of national security secret. I haven't read the recommendations but I am sure they will be laughable.--LexCorp (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The recommendation: do not restrict access of legal opinions to those that would easily identify the bullshit and already have high-security clearance. Very laughable.--LexCorp (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok I think this pretty much settles it. Naysayers withstanding. From the OPR report quoting Yoo:
"[T]he waterboarding as it's described in that memo, is very different than the waterboarding that was described in the press. And so when I read the description in the press of what waterboarding is, I was like, oh, well, obviously that would be prohibited by the statute."
Thus, in a nutshell, waterboarding described as per this article constitutes torture in Yoo's opinion.--LexCorp (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone been following the news? Yoo and Bybee we're just recently cleared of any professional misconduct. Happysomeone said "On what basis would they find Bush administration lawyers Yoo and Bybee guilty of professional misconduct, and recommend disbarment?" above, and this is an important detail to be aware of if you're going to talk about them. They weren't found guilty of professional misconduct, so get that fact right in the future. Swarm(Talk)

On what basis would they find... implies that Happpy was actually saying they weren't found guilty of professional misconduct. The question was what would be required for that, seeing as they gave terrible legal advise and allowed torture? But then again, that's not a question about waterboarding. I'd advise you to read more carefully in the future. RTRimmel (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It was clearly a rhetorical, sarcastic question, based on the fact that they wrote "Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...." after it. Swarm(Talk)
That is your opinion, I presume to WP:AGF however and assume that its a point directed towards the obvious whitewash that the OPR represents. RTRimmel (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, you're both correct. The OPR very defnintely found these two guilty of misconduct and recommended a certain course of action be taken - but the OPR cannot bring a complaint to a criminal court since it's an internal board. U.S. Department of Justice administrators (specifically Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis) disagreed with that finding, and issued his own finding and conclusion. Margolis's reasoning for downgrading the findings to "poor judgement" is also an interesting read. But Swarm's claim that they were "just recently cleared of any professional misconduct" is not accurate. In fact, it's opening the door to a host of even more scrutiny, from which there could be more charges pending. But for now, it's true, the enforcement arm of the government gave them a pass. For now. Meanwhile, the OPR report, the ethics arm of the DOJ, is sitting there out in the open (finally).
The real point here was, why did they reach this finding (even Margolis came to similar conclusions, despite the downgrade) What did they do wrong? Think about it (hint: the answer is not "they didn't do anything wrong)--Happysomeone (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Does a Political controversy exist or not?

Back to my question; does anyone disagree that there's a political controversy going on regarding this matter? I would appreciate it if anyone who does disagree would speak up so we can get back to addressing the question directly. Swarm(Talk) 05:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.249.20 (talk • contribs)
This has already been answered repeatedly so lets flip the question here, given that the hundreds of expert sources from the medical, legal, historical and millitary perspectives are all 100% on board that waterboarding is a form of torture, are none of them as signifigant as the handful of political sources your found? Further, since a great number of those sources waffle from "waterboarding is not torture" to "waterboarding may or may not be torture" or "waterboarding is usually torture", do these non-unified positions outweight the hundreds of other WP:RS clearly stating waterboarding is torture? Is a diminishing political controversy with a few prominent adherents and discredited secret memos more important than every other source? Since that seems to be your question, again per WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:VEvAL we are not permitted to give that statement as much weight. We are not required to change an WP:NPOV lead to one that is less detailed to preserve someone's sensibilities. I appologize, if you feel this is in error please hit the NPOV board for further discussion. RTRimmel (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is a controversy among the general US population and among politicians, but as I said before a similar controversy about the theory of evolution exists amongst the general US population and politicians. So again I ask you, should we be editing the lead for the article on evolution as well? 74.107.142.232 (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright, so you recognize that a controversy exists, but you feel that changing the lead would constitute undue weight; that it would be ignoring the vast majority of the reliable sources that state it is torture. My counter is simply not so. As it currently stands:
  1. There is an ongoing political controversy as to whether or not "waterboarding is torture"
  2. The current first sentence says that waterboarding is torture.
  3. The article covers the controversy
  4. The article makes it clear that waterboarding is considered to be torture by the vast majority of experts.
See how point 2 conflicts with point 1? There is a notable controversy about the matter. The current lead unequivocally takes the side that the experts are on, basically because "they're experts". If this was a scientific controversy, of course wikipedia should take the side of scientific experts. Not because they're experts, but because it would be scientifically defined. Since "torture" isn't scientifically defined, it's not reasonable to take the side of the experts. That is not neutral. Let's say we eliminate point 3. The issue would then be:
  1. There is an ongoing political controversy as to whether or not "waterboarding is torture"
  2. The article covers the controversy
  3. The article makes it clear that waterboarding is considered to be torture by the vast majority of experts.
So why do you feel this is an unacceptable proposal? Eliminating that one word from that one sentence is not going give undue weight to any part of the article. It's not going to change any of the information. It would simply present the facts without taking sides in the controversy. Also, there's a difference between an "expert opinion" and a "scientific theory". For that reason, I ask that evolution not be brought into this discussion again. Swarm(Talk) 20:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
P.S. this has been discussed at the NPOV noticeboard with no solution. Swarm(Talk) 20:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Experts are experts. Scientifically or otherwise. Your point 2 does not conflict with your point 1. The supposedly DOJ expert has been resoundingly discredited. If you read the report it is clear now that the CIA and the USG use the term waterboarding indistinguishably to refer to the SERE mock-up training, to the modified constrained EIT instructions and to the supposedly wrong application by the CIA field operatives of the modified constrained EIT instructions (the "real" deal as they put it). Given this I even doubt that there is a "real" (in the sense of difference of opinion) controversy at all. People are referring to different things by using the same term. Thus precisely the need to use the experts views given that all others don't known what they are talking about. Even Yoo acknowledges that the definition that appears in the press is torture.--LexCorp (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
So basically, Swarm, you are saying that NPOV notice board didn't say that the consensus lead was against WP:NPOV policy and you are proposing a change to remove a word that is critical to the definition because you believe that a political controversy exists in sufficient power to overwhelm 400 years of history about the use and application of waterboarding, despite the fact that the most prominent adherents to that position can't quite make up their mind or are changing their opinions to that it is torture. Well, if that's all you have I'm going to recommend we retain the current consensus lead. If you can bring something novel to the discussion we can review this at a later date, however given that we have gone on about this for over a week now with no fundamental change to the lead and with a significant number of editors expressing that the current lead is supported by policy you are moving into a WP:IDHT mode. Frankly, removing torture from the lead is just as contentious as leaving it in, save of course that it is less well supported by sources, and will do absolutely nothing to improve the articles chances at achieving a FA status. I can think of, off hand, at least a dozen editors who would oppose such a change in lead as a bow to political pressure or an effort to remove supported facts from a statement to support a minority viewpoint. RTRimmel (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Point 2 does not conflict with point 1. The argument that waterboarding is not torture is a WP:FRINGE position.--Happysomeone (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright. If this article ever gets to GA status with the current lead, I will consider you unequivocally right. Swarm(Talk) 02:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are a few over 8000 articles out of the 3 million or so that are good articles. We could nominate this one if the body gets improved. The lead is not this article's main issue, for example it spends far too much time discussing the non-existent controversy about waterboarding in the US. 03:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs)
Any article can become a good article. The problem is, although I'm seeing a lot of "let's spend less time talking about this and more time improving the article", I haven't seen any suggestions on what needs to be done. Swarm(Talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There is not a political controversy about this in any real sense. We have a tiny fringe minority who would like there to be a controversy, but their views are not supported by experts, or by the vast majority of reliable sources. It may bear comparison with the 9/11 conspiracists; we do not deny that there exist people who firmly believe that the attacks were done by shape-shifting aliens/the CIA/Israeli laser-guided drones/whoever. Some of these people are even notable enough to have their own articles here. Nevertheless, the September 11 attacks article's lead sentence quite correctly describes the majority view that the massacre was perpetrated by al-Qaeda hijackers, as this is what the majority of reliable sources report. This article likewise follows WP:UNDUE, as it should. Of course, as with 9/11, if reliable new information comes out changing how the subject is viewed, our coverage will have to change too. Pending that, further repeated raising of questions like this definitely enters WP:FORUM or WP:SOAP territory, in my opinion. --John (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is an academic project, not a political one. What the politicos say doesn't matter at all, except to establish their own personal opinions. Additionally, Wikipedia takes a world view, not a US-centered view. The US political scandal is covered in the article. If circular discussion continue, somebody may have to file an arbitration enforcement request. Jehochman Brrr 01:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, then. It's incredibly concerning that you're threatening an AE request for a talk page, though. I haven't touched the article, so I'm not sure what exactly you want enforced, or how you want it enforced. Surely you don't think a block is necessary for discussion on a talk page, especially for someone who just stated "I think we can discuss wording" Swarm(Talk) 02:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Cute. Look at the history, you've been at this for a month. Its called tenacious editing. Again, if you have something new to bring to the article we are all ears, but you are brining up a discussion thats in the archives with the same result. RTRimmel (talk) 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
If I was the only person going on about this, you might have had a point. I see what you mean. You think I am "bringing this up again" because it looks like I started a new section, right? The first message in this sentence was nothing but part of a reply in the section above. Someone split my comment and put a new heading above it-- that's the only reason there's a brand new section. I don't know who it was and I don't really care that they did it. But if you think I started yet another section and it's pissing you off, I assure you it wasn't me nor was it my intention, nor did I start this discussion or the one preceding it. Swarm(Talk) 06:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right, it was added by User:152.3.249.20 here. Nevertheless, I think this matter has now been decided conclusively. Can we agree that this has been resolved for now, and get on with productive discussion towards improving the article? --John (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely. Swarm(Talk) 06:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
archived per WP:TALK
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is absolutely ridiculous. This is one of the glaring examples of how Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia in English is incredibly culturally biased, so those arguments about "global perspective" are not only naive but false and carry no weight. Wikipedia carries a US perspective because it is a largely US-edited encyclopedia. That's not a good thing or a bad thing, it's a true thing. Next, this controversy is not resolved by proclamation that it's "resolved"--disinterested editors continue to come in, these are just average people reading the encyclopedia, and they drop a line to say "this article isn't right" and then they leave because they don't give a fuck and figure people will just take the article with a grain of salt and but they will also think less of the wikipedia project as a whole--lord knows, I do. Wikipedia has an incredibly overgrown establishment structure with an incredibly high nerd/no life threshold, and thank god there are so many people without lives who can withstand its BS, but it's still BS and the opening line of this article is neither descriptive nor correct. But the people who currently check this article because they have a fetish for waterboarding as an article and an issue over which Wikipedia gives them some small control over a raging wildfire of a political debate are not in any sort of "flagrant majority" nor are they made more right for piling on Swarm for carrying the torch of the apathetic (and rightly so) general population. Remove the first sentence for a day, change it to something equally descriptive, and see if you can sleep at night. If you can, it's probably the right thing to do.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.220.244 (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2010

There is no controversy. Waterboarding is torture. End of story. The only possible reason for seeking to define it as anything other than the abomination that it is, is that the person seeking such, is a murdering, white American, neo-colonial fascist, who wishes to have impunity to commit inhuman acts against his fellow human beings, or wishes for his government to have the same, without realising that a government that can justify torturing foreigners, is a government who can just as easily justify torturing him.

I am thankful that, for *once,* Wikipedia is somehow managing to maintain a degree of editorial integrity in regards to this subject. I also wish I understood how someone can seriously claim that apathy is, in any way, a morally justifiable social response to this subject. The author of the above post [redacted] opted to hide behind online anonymity, rather than claim responsibility for his words. Petrus4 (talk) 07:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not constructive discussion related to improving the article, so I am hiding this digression. I am also redacting a serious personal attack per WP:RPA. Hans Adler 07:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed from here

Well now that some of the issues are settled and that the OPR report is out thus bringing some kind of closure to the political controversy (at least at the USG administration level). Lets discuss on how to proceed from here in order to improve the article. IMHO we already got a serious problem with the content fork Waterboarding in the 21st century. We have to decide if we recognize it as a legitimate content fork or not. If we recognize it as a legitimize fork then much of the content of this article and the Waterboarding in the 21st century could and should be summarized in order to avoid repetition.

So 1st proposal.--LexCorp (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Is Waterboarding in the 21st century a legitimate content fork of Waterboarding?

  • Comment I'm not sure that should be the first question. I think we need to bring this article up to date before we worry about Waterboarding in the 21st century. It might be appropriate to change that article's title to Waterboarding by the United States and use it for greater detail on what happened and the controversy in the U.S.--agr (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

They never said what happened to Christopher Hitchens in the explanation after he was voluntarily subjected to waterboarding and as to why he gave in so quickly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.112.46 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, to quote Christopher Hitchens "if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture." And as for what he gave in, the average soldier in SERE only lasts 18 seconds, and only the best of the best can get in. Chris is a 57 year old chain smoker. Besides that waterboarding is a horribly effective torture by all accounts. So, in very simple terms 'he gave in because its torture'. 174.130.204.75 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Safire, William. Safire's Political Dictionary, page 795 (Oxford University Press 2008): “Waterboarding. A form of torture in which the captive is made to believe he is suffocating to death under water.”
  2. ^ White, Josh (November 8, 2007). "Waterboarding Is Torture, Says Ex-Navy Instructor". The Washington Post. Retrieved December 17, 2007.
  3. ^ "Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales". Human Rights Watch. April 5, 2006. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  4. ^ Davis, Benjamin (October 8, 2007). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff". JURIST. Retrieved December 18, 2007.
  5. ^ "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War". Democracy Now!. November 5, 2007. Retrieved December 18, 2007.
  6. ^ McCain, John (November 21, 2005). "Torture's Terrible Toll". Newsweek. Retrieved April 17, 2009. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.
  7. ^ Mayer, Jane (February 14, 2005). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  8. ^ "Former member of UN Committee Against Torture: 'Yes, waterboarding is torture'" (Press release). International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims. February 12, 2008. Retrieved April 21, 2009.
  9. ^ Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost plane: the true story of the CIA torture program. New York City: St. Martin's Press. p. 226. ISBN 0-312-36023-1. OCLC 70335397. As one former CIA official, once a senior official for the directorate of operations, told me: 'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.' Another, also a former higher-up in the directorate of operations, told me: 'Yes, it's torture...'
  10. ^ Bell, Nicole (November 2, 2007). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: 'Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal.'". Crooks and Liars. Retrieved 17 April 2009.
  11. ^ "CIA Whitewashing Torture". Human Rights Watch. November 21, 2005. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
  12. ^ "Amnesty International Response to Cheney's 'No-Brainer' Comment" (Press release). Amnesty International. October 26, 2006. Retrieved April 17, 2009.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_12&oldid=1158015620"