Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Salon.com on the truth of waterboarding

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/03/09/waterboarding_for_dummies

The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session." Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second "applications" of liquid in each two-hour session - and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session - a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding - the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus.

Good source. Use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 07:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You beat me to it. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna be sick for a while. Western civilization would be a good idea indeed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If these complaints were a bit less partisan I'd take them more seriously. Legally, CIA director George Tenet would be the logical guy to hold responsible. But, no, I've never seen even a hint that Tenet might be prosecuted or held responsible in any way, presumably because he is a Democrat and a Clinton loyalist. Tenet actually pioneered rendition when he was Clinton's CIA director. Instead, the blame for waterboarding has always been directed at a couple of Republican lawyers, neither of whom had any decision-making authority. If Yoo or Bybee had refused to sign off, it wouldn't have stopped anyone from being waterboarded. Tenet and the White House would have found other lawyers to tell him what they wanted to hear. Waterboarding isn't actually my style. Churchill hung 16 Nazi spies who refused to cooperate. The rest all cooperated. I don't recall Gandhi protesting. Kauffner (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bush on waterboarding KSM

Bush evidently briefly talked about waterboarding KSM in a recent talk. According to reports Bush said "Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed...I'd do it again to save lives." [1] This should probably be incorporated into the US section on waterboarding. Remember (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use of Vann Nath's waterboarding painting

I've restored the thumbnail image of Vann Nath's waterboarding painting Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg. Another editor had removed it claiming that File:Waterboarding.jpg, which shows an attempt to demonstrate waterboarding at a street protest in Iceland, is an adequate free substitute. I disagree and have restored the previous image. The Iceland demo does not adequately portray either the technique or the gravity of waterboarding. In the Vann Nath painting, the victim is secured to the board with iron bars, his head lower than his body, in Ireland his hands and feet are merely bound with tape and it's far from clear that his head is lower. Vann Nath shows the victim isolated in a cell with a determined interrogator standing over him. In Iceland the setting is an open street, the two men apparently performing the waterboarding look more curious than hostile and the volunteer is surrounded by people in a festive mood, insuring he comes to no real harm. The Vann Nath painting also illustrates the use of the actual waterboard shown in a photo later in the article. In my opinion, the Iceland photo does not convey what the historic eyewitness painting by Vann Nath shows so clearly and fair use of the latter is amply justified. I'd be interested in the opinions of others.--agr (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that the photo is free, and it adequately demonstrates the practice. You can't use a non-free image when you have a free image that demonstrates roughly the same thing. It does not matter that it's a street protest. It gets the basic point across. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the photo, it appears to be some sort of joke with people watching something that is not all that serious happening. To say it adequately demonstrates the practice is stretching quite a bit. It muddies the point and lowers the credibility of the whole article. I would be directly opposed to using it. I'm not against using a free image, just one that's equal to the current image. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Any edit that changes something to an article that has been there for years needs a better rationale than the one offered here. Add to that the somewhat frivolous nature of a crowd play-acting, and the need to remove the origibnal picture is absolutely unclear to me.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The paining should be used as the free image is in no way a good substitute. Verbal chat 13:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding and the media

Interesting paper here - [2]. Remember (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding your girlfriend

Evidently, this activity has caught on in Nebraska See [3]. Perhaps their should be a crime area in this article. Remember (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bush says "Damn right" he ordered waterboarding

Evidently, Bush's new book states that he said "damn right" when asked to authorized the use of waterboarding on KSM. Here is a link to the article [4]. Maybe it should be included. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. --John (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely, given there is an entire article about it and there is even a slight chance he will have to pay for this confession. Hans Adler 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Sure, but with proper attribution ("Bush claimed..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Probably best to wait until the book is released so we can lift the actual quote. That article hedges a little with the 'according to someone who has read the book' part. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lauer interview

Bush talked pretty extensively about waterboarding, its legal justification, and his use of it with his interview with Matt Lauer. Here is a link to the transcript [5]. Here is the excerpt below. I think this should be incorporated somehow into the article. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BUSH: Let-- let-- let's talk about waterboarding.

LAUER: Okay.

BUSH: We believe America's going to be attacked again. There's all kinds of intelligence comin' in. And-- and-- one of the high value al Qaeda operatives was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the chief operating officer of al Qaeda… ordered the attack on 9/11. And they say, "He's got information." I said, "Find out what he knows.” And so I said to our team, "Are the techniques legal?" He says, "Yes, they are." And I said, "Use 'em."

LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?

BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer., but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do.

LAUER: You say it's legal. "And the lawyers told me."

BUSH: Yeah.

LAUER: Critics say that you got the Justice Department to give you the legal guidance and the legal memos that you wanted.

BUSH: Well—

LAUER: Tom Kean, who a former Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission said they got legal opinions they wanted from their own people.

BUSH: He obviously doesn't know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book. That's why I've written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did.

LAUER: You talk about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There's another guy you write about in the book, Abu Zabeta, another high profile terror suspect. He was waterboarded. By the way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, according to most reports, 183 times. This guy was waterboarded more than 80 times. And you explain that his understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation up to a certain point and waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold and fulfill his religious duty and then cooperate. And you have a quote from him. "You must do this for all the brothers." End quote.

BUSH: Yeah. Isn't that interesting?

LAUER: Abu Zabeta really went to someone and said, "You should waterboard all the brothers?

BUSH: He didn't say that. He said, "You should give brothers the chance to be able to fulfill their duty." I don't recall him saying you should water-- I think it's-- I think it's an assumption in your case.

LAUER: Yeah, I-- when "You must do this for--"

BUSH: But…

LAUER: …"All the brothers." So to let them get to that threshold?

BUSH: Yeah, that's what-- that's how I interpreted. I-- look, first of all we used this technique on three people. Captured a lot of people and used it on three. We gained value-- information to protect the country. And it was the right thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

LAUER: So if-- if it's legal, President Bush, then if an American is taken into custody in a foreign country, not necessarily a uniformed--

BUSH: Look, I --

LAUER: American­­--

BUSH: I'm not gonna the issue, Matt. I, I really--

LAUER: I'm just asking. Would it be okay for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?

BUSH: It's all I ask is that people read the book. And they can reach the same conclusion. If they'd have made the same decision I made or not.

LAUER: You'd make the same decision again today?

BUSH: Yeah, I would.

will this never end?

Please adhere closely to the topic of concrete discussion of potential improvements to this article based on reliable sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it will "never end" because a certain group of editors have seized control of this article and made it entirely POV, while ruthlessly suppressing other viewpoints. You have decided tht "waterboarding is torture" is a 'fact' Divinely Pronounced from Mt Horeb, and in trying to maintain the illusion of that 'fact' are almost certainly going to get dissenting voices from now until whatever time the epistemic closure ceases. Hint: when editor after editor tries to sway an article from Received Opinion, that's a big clue that the article violates NPOV. Have we learned nothing from the William Connolley debacle? --Solicitr (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC) There are hundreds of reliable sources, from law professors to physicians to human rights experts to military lawyers to US presidential candidates (of both major parties) to Christopher Hitchens who support that fact that waterboarding is torture. Many of the sources are in the archives. I'm sorry, but Glen Beck is on the WP:FRINGE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Oh, it's just Glenn Beck? Sorry, I don't listen to him. You're trying to decide 'fact by majority vote'- sources whose opinions (I stress that) agree with yours are reliable, whereas others who don't, aren't. Whether or not waterboarding constitutes 'torture' is a matter of opinion. It's not and cannot be a 'fact' no matter what Christopher Hitchens says, or law professors (who are in the business of opinion, not fact), or 'human rights activists' (hardly an unbiased crew). You could line up much of the same 'support' for a declaration that "Capital punishment is a crime against humanity", and it would still be a) opinion and b) POV. A proper NPOV lede would run something like Waterboarding is a coercive interrogation technique which many authorities consider to be a form of torture. That would be a non-idiological NPOV approach. Wiki is not supposed to present opinion- not even the massed opinions of a lot of people- as "fact"--Solicitr (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Freudian slip on the "activists"? Your suggestion is not POV, but is, indeed, wrong. Note that waterboarding has been used for many other things than interrogation, including punishment and coercion, just like other forms of torture. Unless you have significant reliable sources denying the claim, it stands. Note that such sources are easy to find for capital punishment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC) You are playing the definition game- trying to take something which can not, categorically, be other than opinion and claim it as 'fact.' It is no different, save heated politics, from the debate in Alaska class cruiser over whether they fit the definition of "battlecruiser" or not. That's all it boils down to- how one defines the term "torture" and whether waterboarding fits within it, which cannot be anything other than opinion. "Unless you have significant reliable sources denying the claim, it stands. ". Such sources are easy to find, including a few which the article includes (and dismisses out of hand). But to you, any such source like the Bush Justice Department is inherently "not reliable"- because it disagrees with your views. Circularity in action.--Solicitr (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC) While postmodern "it depends on what the definition of is is" may be fine for you or Bill Clinton, they are not useful for building an encyclopaedia. If you have sources, bring them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Opinions cannot be facts. Waterboarding is largely considered torture, however the claim that it "is torture" is not acceptable in the spirit of NPOV. Merriam-Webster does not even define it as such.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC) By the same argument the United States of America is not a democracy. [6] Hans Adler 09:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC) That particular link goes to United States. United States of America is defined as a Federal Republic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks for providing the link I meant. That was exactly the point. Federal republics need not be democratic any more than interrogation techniques must be torture. (By the way: I don't object to removing this section.) Hans Adler 17:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC) See United States of America. I don't think the position is being pushed that waterboarding is not torture. A reflection of the sources reveal that it is "largely considered torture". This is the best way to account for the minority of experts that claim it is not torture.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC) It is neither 'postmodern' nor Clintonesque, my characteristically smug Lefty friend; it is a categorical observation. It is no more a matter of fact than whether or not Israeli construction in East Jerusalem constitutes "settlements." You demand "sources;" you have sources, and have scrubbed sources, and if I were to bring more, you would dismiss them in the same way you have all the others, as "unreliable" or "fringe." To you a "reliable" source is one that agrees with you. No, what you've got (and you certainly act as if you think you "own" this page) is sufficient numbers and Wikipower to ensure that you can present your political POV as 'fact,' simply because you can outmuscle opposition. As far as you're concerned, you are objectively Correct and there's an end on't: which is the diametric opposite of making an encyclopedia. Good God, the page on Osama bin-Laden studiously avoids calling him a 'terrorist.' I think there is something to Wikis as exploitative and perhaps repressive tools in most political and societal sense, not just the personal pwn'ing of individual editors.... At the same time wiki software and culture facilitates the concentration of privileged (literally', in the "permission" sense) into the hands of a few pre-selected and thereafter self-reinforced actors. The wiki is a rigged game that exists for benefit and use these privileged actors while the egalitarian illusion keeps the bulk of exploited labor grinding away. This game fixing is then rigorously denied and hidden. The story for consumption is that everyone contributes on a level playing field and only merit and hard work distinguishes participants. This is the story bought hook-line-and-sinker by the ultra-democratic community and wiki boosters best embodied by Everyking.--Wikipediareview It seems that little was learned from the Wikia/Durova fiasco--Solicitr (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC) And, right on schedule, one of the 'privileged elite' has dropped a protection-lock on the page citing "vandalism'- which is of course utter crap, as the briefest look at recent History shows- it's just shutting down any attempt to ameliorate this page's blatant but Cabal-approved POV. --Solicitr (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC) For those interested, here is a helpful link for what vandalism is not: WP:NOTVAND. As you can see, changing torture to "interrogation", which happens to be the definition provided by Merriam-Webster, is not vandalism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

The lede reads, "waterboarding is a form of torture." A flat out statement, poses as fact when it represents a hotly-disputed opinion. Recommend "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique which many assert constitutes torture." Similarly, this edotorializing usage, "Justice Department memo attempting to justify torture" --Solicitr (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See all the archives and all the reliable sources. This is not a "hotly debated opinion" among anybody but a few political pundits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

US and International law do not specifically list waterboarding as torture. There is a severity test for an instance of waterboarding to be classified as torture. US citizens are typically charged with assault and battery for waterboarding, since a finding of torture under US law requires a civil authority chain of command over the incident. The article uses specific and harsh historical examples of waterboarding, testimony that was part of a larger war crime investigation, to make the equation, and ignores the opinions of US military personnel who have experienced the interrogation technique with no ill effects. 71.105.198.93 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is all this POV pushing starting again? Is the US planning to use this torture technique again, or is there finally a real chance some of the perpetrators will be convicted? Absolutely amazing how shamelessly American politics can be detached from reality. Hans Adler 09:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who is POV pushing? We aren't the ones insisting on a categorical assertion that waterboarding "is" or "is not" torture -- to the exclusion of sources that disagree. You are the one attempting to exclude points of view you disagree with by editorializing their exclusion into the lede. "Many consider waterboarding to be a form of torture" is a true statement, just as true a statement as "some sources do not." Do you deny that there are at least some sourced authorities that disagree with the categorical "is torture" statement? If not, what exactly is wrong with eschewing the categorical assertion for an NPOV description that captures this disagreement? Oh yeah, politics, that's what. 220.255.1.106 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah. This article has been shamelessly politicized by an anti-waterboarding admin. NPOV would be "many consider waterboarding to be a form of torture," not a categorical "is" torture, given that we have sourced authorities who disagree on the issue. See, e.g., http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/05/no-torture-no-prosecution.php ("Even the worst of the CIA techniques that were authorized – waterboarding - would not constitute torture"); Michael Lewis, A Dark Descent into Reality: Making the Case for an Objective Definition of Torture ("The past four U.S. Attorneys General currently have very different opinions about whether waterboarding constitutes torture. . . . Such wide disagreements between legal professionals would not exist if torture were more clearly defined."). But NPOV doesn't apply to corrupt, politically-motivated wikipedia admins, alas. 220.255.1.114 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want, insist that Wikipedia is anti-waterboarding. In fact, we are also anti-murder and anti-pedophilia. You will just have to live with the fact. Hans Adler 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Wikipedia is anti-POV. You can be anti-anything in your personal capacity, but editorializing your personal political or moral preferences into an article to the exclusion of well-sourced authorities that you disagree with is simply a violation of NPOV. And you will just have to live with the shame. 220.255.1.103 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.144 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A single OpEd by a single person, immediately ridiculed by other experts, is not a significant voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Experts"? You mean an anonymous comment thread that accompanied the article? That you characterize as "expert" an internet comment thread is a sign of your ludicrous bias. Moreover, I provided two sources, both reliable, the second of which named prominent DOJ officials -- two former Attorneys General -- who do not consider waterboarding to be torture. The fact that others disagree with them does not make them insignificant voices. Your modus operandi, as far as I can tell, is to disparage any source contrary to your preferred editorial slant as "insignificant," even though they are well-sourced. You are violating NPOV, and you know it. 220.255.1.99 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the credentials of the commentators. Moreover, check the content of the article and the comments - OR, of course, but can you honestly disagree? Going by the Bush administration officials on the issue is about as reasonable as letting a burglar define breaking and entering, or expecting reliable truth from the Soviet era Pravda, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

An internet comment thread anyone can comment on with a series of anonymous comments that are unverifiable is not a "reliable source." The article itself, published by JURIST and written by a contributing editor who is a law professor in the relevant field and an actual expert, is a reliable source and not "OR." You are violating every wikipedia rule on reliable sources and NPOV with your claptrap. Here we have a wikipedia "administrator" telling us an internet comment thread is a reliable source, while a published article isn't. Laughable. 220.255.1.115 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to follow WP:DFTT and WP:DENY, I suppose. Hans Adler 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Justice Dept. / Los Angeles attack

"According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized terrorist attack on Los Angeles."

I'd suggest this should be removed (or at least moved). First, the supporting link no longer exists. Second, unless they actually produced some evidence that this is true, rather than just asserting that it is, should is really be mentioned at this point in the article? Perhaps, there should be a section contrasting the claims of the efficacy of waterboarding versus the counter claims that it is entirely unproductive - some examples:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/11/06/no-appetite-for-prosecution-in-memoir-bush-admits-he-authorized-the-use-of-torture-but-no-one-cares/

Where this currently appears in the article, isolated from context and counter argument, seems misplaced (if not actually POV).

Finally, since this article accepts the view the waterboarding is torture (which it is) then this sentence can be rewritten as "According to Justice Department documents, the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information...". Stated like this, it seems even more out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.193.208 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I repaired the link to the CNSNews 21 Apr 2009 article, which says, "A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005, released by the Obama administration, revealed that the CIA, in waterboarding al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was able to gather information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles".[7] A more recent (13 Nov 10) article says, "According to the 9/11 Commission Report [KSM] was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including ...an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles...." Bin Laden rejected some potential [9/11] targets suggested by Mohammed, such as the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles".[8] KSM was captured in 2003. TFD (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lede contains falsehood. No Japanese were executed for Waterboarding

The lede and the WW2 section both contain the assertion that Japanese officers were executed for allowing waterboarding. This is false. The charge is supported by one link quoting US Sen John McCain asserting that this happened, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/29/politics/main3554687.shtml but McCain was misquoted. The US executed 6 generals and the prime minister for war crimes. The primary crime was the crime against the peace i.e. starting the war, invading Asia, bombing Pearl Harbour, and numerous other crimes such as the slaughter of civilians in Nanjing and other occupied cities. Lastly, under count 54, they were also charged with inhuman treatment of prisoners, but this did not primarily concern waterboarding, it concerned the Bataan Death March, the starvation of prisoners, the unlawful execution of prisoners, the beatings with fists, clubs, kicking, and burning with cigarettes. Waterboarding was the least of those charges, and the Japanese version of waterboarding was far more severe as it poured water into the mouth, sometimes with a tube, until the stomach was bloated with water and then a soldier jumped on top of the stomach to force vomiting. Japanese waterboarding didn't simulate drowning to cause fear, it actually drowned the POWs and civilians. 16 other members of the Japanese military regime were sentenced to prison and paroled in the mid 1950s. The point is that the Japanese actions against POWs were the least of the charges, and the action that was most serious was the mass murder of POWs, not their maltreatment. The USA never hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding. see link- http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/180923/sorry-paul-begala-youre-still-wrong/mark-hemingway Consequently I'm going to remove that passage from the WW2 section for the moment, and eventually I plan to remove it from the lede if it isn't modified.Walterego (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Waterboarding by scottish gangs

According to this article [9], scottish gangs have been reported to use waterboarding on rival gang members. Randomly interesting. Maybe deserves inclusion into article. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

update

Someone might want to update the 2008 sentence "t appears unlikely that bill supporters will be able to gather enough votes to overturn the veto.[199]" 194.90.46.228 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mammalian diving reflex?

In reviewing the leed for my comments above, I noticed that it says waterboarding triggers the mammalian diving reflex. No source is given and I find this claim dubious and a distraction at best. There is nothing in our article on the mammalian diving reflex that suggests it produces a panic reaction or anything of the like. I propose removing the phrase "thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex".--agr (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Even reading the article mammalian diving reflex does not tell the reader what is really going on in the context of waterboarding, and I saw nothing in either of the two sources cited that mentions this reflex. (Admittedly the Safire source may mention it, but that particular page on Google Books did not seem to be accessible.) In fact, I would go beyond just removing the mention of mammalian diving reflex, because I think the second and third sentences of the article can be rewritten into one much better, clearer, shorter sentence. And here it is:

Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, causing an almost immediate gag reflex and creating the sensation that the captive is drowning.

I will make this change tomorrow unless anyone has any major objections. Neutron (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so much an objection as a comment. If the water is poured into the breathing passages per your revision, then the victim is actually drowning; the claim is that there is an illusion of drowning, not actual drowning. It appears the purpose of the face covering is to keep the face wet and the breathing passages free of water. This looks like (although it may not be) an attempt to invoke either the mammalian diving reflex, or a subsequent reflex to that, to remove the face from the water. OR or SYN, entirely possible, just a comment. htom (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

While all sources seem to agree that waterboarding triggers an intense reflex response, I'm not aware of any reason to identify that with the mammalian diving reflex, which is something entirely different. The mammalian diving reflex is a protective response that lets the mammal remain under water longer by slowing metabolism, etc. If anything it would let the victim of a waterboarding hold out longer, yet accounts say victims capitulate in less time than most people can hold their breath underwater. Connecting mammalian diving reflex with waterboarding appears to be simply an error. --agr (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Now I wonder what reflex it is? htom (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to htom's first comment: The phrase "Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages," was not created by my draft revision. It is exactly what is already in the article. My editing changed only the remainder of that sentence and the following sentence and merged the two sentences together. Nowhere in the intro does it state that the face is covered first. That is stated in the more thorough description in the body of the article. I agree that the description is confusing unless it is first mentioned that the face is covered. Unfortunately it is difficult to concisely describe this procedure (which we need to do concisely in the intro) and this is made more difficult by the fact that (as stated in the body of the article) there are several different ways that this procedure is carried out. The basic idea is the same but the details (including how and when the breathing passages are covered) vary. Describing this process is made even more difficult by the fact that some sources say that even with the face covered, the victim (or as the article says, "captive") actually is drowning, which presumably is why the water is only poured for a short period. Other sources use terms like experiencing the sensation of drowning; the person is made to believe he is suffocating; etc. But we need to do the best we can to end up with an intro that describes the procedure briefly and as consistent with the (inconsistent) sources as possible, and then leave the details for the body of the article. Now that I read the intro again, I think the entire thing should be rewritten, but I am not going to tackle that right now. Here is another try at just the two sentences in question, and notice that I am moving the appearance of the word "over" to try to address your comment, and I have omitted the references, which remain the same. I have also ended up with two sentences again, because the single sentence was getting too long with the addition of the face-covering.

"The face is covered with cloth or another thin material, and water is poured onto the face over the breathing passages. This causes an almost immediate gag reflex and creates the sensation that the captive is drowning."

How's that? Neutron (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Better, and sorry, I didn't mean to fault you in particular for the phrasing, I hadn't noticed it had wandered in again. I'd probably start with something like "Waterboarding is a term used to describe, without definition, and to conceal, without describing, several different procedures that are frequently denounced as torture. ..." I doubt that's acceptable, though; the very vagueness is part of both the effectiveness and the confusion about what is actually going on. htom (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Another idea: To make it simple and straightforward, how about replacing the first three sentences of the intro with this: "Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning." The next sentence would be the current fourth sentence, which starts "It can cause extreme pain..." The remainder of the description (including the parts about the captive lying face-up at an incline, and about the gag reflex, but not necessarily the mammalian diving reflex) can be moved down into the "Technique" section. Neutron (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think lying face-up at an incline is an essential part and should be in the lede. I'd go with your first proposal for starters. Also the sentence "The term waterboarding was coined in 2004" is not supported by the citation[10]. Safire only says the earliest use of the word "waterboarding" as a gerund form he could find was in 2004, but he has a use of "water board" as far back as 1976 and "surfboarding" for a similar torture in 1929. The column is worth reading for the overall discussion here as Safire discusses the general phenomenon of torturers changing the names of the methods they employ to protect their activities. --agr (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, waterboarding causes dry drowning, not the sensation of drowning. You are actually drowning while they waterboard you. If they don't stop, you do technically drown so I'm not entirely sure the 'sensation' of drowning carries the right meaning here. 151.213.192.41 (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I edited the first few sentences of the intro. I combined a few of my own suggestions, resulting in a single sentence that seeks to describe what waterboarding is (retaining the "form of torture" language) and then a second paragraph that goes into a little more detail. As for "sensation of drowning", there are sources for that. If anyone has sources that say the victim actually experiences drowning, I suppose you can add a sentence about that, but I don't think "sensation" should be deleted because it is sufficiently sourced. I think that to most people, "drowning" means you die, which is what would happen if you were waterboarded continuously for long enough. This is not an easy subject to write about concisely, but I think the changes I have made at least improve the readability of what was there, without actually changing the meaning. Neutron (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is it neutral to define waterboarding as torture?

The current article lead defines waterboarding as "a form of torture", with editors who support this arguing that the vast majority of reliable sources agree with the statement. However a high level of controversy surrounded whether waterboarding was indeed torture, with the even some of the highest levels of American government claiming that it wasn't. This has been a long-disputed issue on this article with numerous editors on both sides. It's clear that the dispute isn't going to go away, so I'd like to request comments on the matter. So the question is, again, is it neutral to define waterboarding as torture? (not 'is waterboarding torture or not?') If there is no consensus, would a compromise be acceptable? We could simply replace the disputed statement with the dictionary definition: "an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning"[11]

I would request that the regular users involved in the dispute don't carry over their arguments here; this will avoid over-cluttering the RfC. Swarm ^X 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you have a new reference to present, the answer is the same as the last two hundred times this question was asked: "Yes, a great preponderance -- virtually all -- reliable sources say waterbording is torture." I believe starting yet another RFC without having any new facts is tendentious editing. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  Woah. "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." How is starting an RfC 'editing with a bias or viewpoint'? And what's my bias? Please, tell me, because as far as I know I have no personal bias. This RfC is a response to the recent renewal of the issue, which I'm not even involved in. Do you disagree that the dispute keeps getting brought up again and again? And why would you be against an attempt at community consensus on the issue? Swarm ^X 04:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  We've had a long term problem on this page with external canvassing, sock puppetry and political POV pushing. You might be acting in good faith, but many of the editors who keep raising this issue probably aren't. Let's not take the bait. Jehochman ^Talk 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• The issue isn't going away because some editors insist on beating the dead horse. I know it can be tough if something you would really like to do turns out to be illegal. But that's life. Hans Adler 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• "with the even highest levels of American government claiming that it wasn't" is wrong. Some members of a past government claimed this. Both Obama and McCain called it torture during the 2008 campaign. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, comment slightly refactored. Swarm ^X 04:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I'm just tiptoeing in here, having seen the RfC and never having edited here before. The lead does go on to summarize the claims that it is not torture, so I don't think it's a problem that the first sentence says that it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Waterboarding is torture, as the preponderance of expert sources shows. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, it is neutral to say this as it is backed up by the vast majority of sources. --John (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the unanimous comments here that the article is correct as-is. Maybe we should put a FAQ at the top of this talk page explaining that this has been discussed to death and further discussions will be summary closed? Raul654 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  The best case scenario is a rock solid consensus- if the RfC generates this, I agree that we should put a message at the top (not necessarily a FAQ) that refers to it to avoid further talk page arguments. Swarm ^X 07:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  There's already an FAQ at the top warning that this issue has been discussed for months and that a new, high-quality reliable source would be sufficient to revisit the issue. Perhaps we should close this discussion as redundant since no such source has been put forward. Jehochman ^Talk 13:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe we should make the FAQ bigger and more obvious so that it stands out from the other half-dozen templates here. I didn't see it before I posted my comment, and I was specifically looking for it. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  I moved the FAQ up and uncollapsed it. Is that better?--agr (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Much improved. In addition, I removed some of the other unnecessary headers to reduce clutter. The problem remains, though, that the FAQ isn't definitive enough is telling people not to rehash it. Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." Yup- and that's the case even when a majority of editors agree to do it. "There's already an FAQ at the top warning that this issue has been discussed for months and that a new, high-quality reliable source would be sufficient to revisit the issue. Perhaps we should close this discussion as redundant since no such source has been put forward." -because you in the Cabal simply dismiss them all as unreliable or not "high quality." How convenient. "The issue isn't going away because some editors insist on beating the dead horse. I know it can be tough if something you would really like to do turns out to be illegal. But that's life": typical snark. Gee- why do you think this issue keeps coming up - being "rehashed" as you put it? Because you waterboarding-is-torture-so-shut-up people are NOT a unanimous, unchallenged consensus, there are other viewpoints no matter how hard you try to pretend they don't exist, and this issue is not going to go away until you admit the POV hammerlock you have on this article and abandon your tendentious editing. Solicitr (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have glanced at this page many times over a long period, and I must say it is clear that much of the "is torture" crowd have been acting in bad faith. A striking recent example is the above citation of an article written by a legal scholar, law professor, and former JAG Lt.Col. for a highly respected legal news site (JURIST). The response to this was to discount it as unreliable due to the "expert" responses in the unmoderated, anonymous comment thread attached to the article. The user who rightly insisted on its reliability was then called a "troll" and a "vandal" (for those who don't know, WP:DFTT stands for "Don't Feed the Trolls", and WP:DENY refers to denying recognition to vandals (people who deface pages with "joe is gay" and the like)).

Question: I saw no one object to this scurrilous attack on a user. Will other advocates of the "is torture" position have the integrity to condemn this despicable insult of a user as a troll/vandal for posting relevant information to a talk page?

Many users have rightly noted that the WP:RS standards are being rigged and the goalposts shifted. Thus, 100 lefty law professors sign a petition, and that is 100 sources, but the above is not even one source. Also, anyone ever involved with the US government is apparently forever disqualified from being a source due to conflict of interest (?); this absurd standard would discount almost any scholar associated with an institution, or that has ever applied for a grant, or almost anything. An economics professor who makes money would be compromised! No, a scholar in the relevant field is a reliable source.

Indeed, everything seems to hinge on this one petition. "Is torture" advocates make endless reference to "hundreds" of sources, but if that petition is not counted, the "is torture" sources number 40-odd, while the "is not" or "might not" ones number 20-odd, even by the rigged standards. This is not overwhelming. This shows how flimsy the whole foundation of this claim to near-unanimity is.

The petition in any case is a legal opinion, and does not cover other aspects (e.g., medical expert opinion, colloquial/political use of the word torture, etc.).

One can compare other pages for appropriate ways to handle controversies involving minority opinions. E.g., Global warming says "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring", not "It is occurring." Creation science refers to "generally accepted scientific facts" and "The scientific community states that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science". These are good templates for writing about such topics.

Right now much of this article reads like an editorial entitled "Why waterboarding is torture and why those who say otherwise are foolish and wrong and criminal". This is not how articles should be written. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a soapbox. E.g., articles on torture devices do not generally bother talking about psychological effects lasting for years.

Let us not deceive ourselves about what has gone down here. There was an edit war, and the "is torture" crowd won it and drove off the neutrality brigade. There was no consensus, merely victory by exhaustion and bullying. There is now no organized opposition, but people will continually comment here because the article is now, and likely will remain for some time, in violation of WP:NPOV, and this is obvious. It is I suppose futile to try to convince those who won the war to be reasonable and give up their prize.

But insulting every user that critiques the article is unacceptable. And such users should know what really happened here. Benkta (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I don't even bother to look at this talk page after the Arbitration case, but this time I happened to; the side I was on lost, and I pretty much stay shut up about the POV problems here. Thank you for noticing that there was a dispute, Benkta.htom (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• Waterboarding is torture - This seems like a simple case of following the majority of RS. In this case, a quick glance at Google seems to make it clear that a majority of sources define it as torture. It doesn't really matter what the US Government says about the issue. Even they were considered a reliable source, they are just one of many.... NickCT (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC
  • The standard is not "majority rules" with the RSs. It is rather to describe what RSs of all viewpoints say. Benkta (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The standard is also to have concise leads. The notable viewpoints of of all RSs can certainly be discussed, but I think it's OK for the lead to unambiguously call it torture based on "majority rules". NickCT (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• (response to RfC) Yes it is. Any treatment that is guaranteed to provoke acute death anguish in the subject, which waterboarding does, is torture. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether it is torture or not. It may be true that Montague Druitt is Jack the Ripper, but it would not be neutral to say that it in an article, because there are other opinions. Benkta (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • This has to be one of my favorite aspects of Wikipedia - the truth isn't what matters! 77.101.60.220 (talk) 11:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
    • "but it would not be neutral to say that it in an article, because there are other opinions" By this logic, no page can say a single thing without saying everything and remain neutral, because someone might have a different opinion on anything. Perhaps you'd like to qualify some of the things you say, to make it sensible. For example (by your reasoning), the Earth article cannot say "Earth is currently the only place where life is known to exist", because some people think they know life exists elsewhere. It cannot say "The planet formed 4.54 billion years ago, and life appeared on its surface within a billion years" because some people hold a differing belief. You see, we can do this for every sentence and your reasoning disallows each sentence. GManNickG (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• The answer isn't "Yes" or "No" I don't think we can categorically say in an article that waterboarding is torture—not when we have reliable sources that stop short of designating it torture. Consider: "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." In my opinion we have to find language that balances out these two competing views. Bus stop (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • "Waterboarding is the act of pouring water over a bound prisoner's face, mouth and nose to simulate drowning. Waterboarding causes an intense fear of imminent death and may result is serious injuries such as broken bones or brain damage, or even actual death." Such wording would perhaps be even better. Any reader will understand that this is torture, and we can also say "A, B and C consider waterboarding to be torture, whereas X, Y, Z believe that it is not." I dislike calling waterboarding torture, but I dislike even more using a euphamism like "technique". The best way would be to say specifically what it is. The second best is to say generally what it is -- torture. The worst outcome would be misdirection -- calling waterboarding an interrogation technique. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've suggested, to mixed opinions, to start with "Waterboarding is a torture technique that consists of immobilizing the ...", with the understanding that while waterboarding is torture in general, not every individual application necessary is torture (as it has been used for training purposes, or as a publicity stunt). I find a simple description of the act to be problematic, in particular since there are some variations (use cloth or foil, use hose or bucket, tie down or hold down, ...). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
      • We could describe the act of waterboarding as it is most frequently performed, and then separately list variations. I believe that specifics would help alleviate concerns. Everybody seems to agree what the specific steps are, but disagrees on what they mean. (1) Restraining a prisoner. (2) Placing them in a prone position. (3) Causing water to pour over their face and respiratory orificies, (4) Continuing until they gag, choke, struggle, and panic due to the imminent sensation of death by drowning. Jehochman ^Talk 18:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that describing the various ways that "waterboarding" is carried out is the way for us to proceed. The term "torture" has become the pivotal term in government and elsewhere—therefore we should use it as little as possible. But we can report that there is considerable debate, often heated, about whether or not the term "torture" is applicable to waterboarding. We can cite the arguments for both sides and leave the matter to the reader to interpret. Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• But thats a WP:Weight issue as the vast proponderance of sources indicate that it is torture. Doing so is not going to improve the article, and in fact provoke the opposite reaction. Unless the 'not torture' or more accurately the 'may not always be torture' crowd can get some new sources that carry some exceptional weight, I say we still with the overwhelming majority as opposed to the WP:Fringe. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• • • (resp to Jehochman) Technique is a generic term, not a euphemism, any more than animal is a euphemism for horse. In any rate, Wikipedia does not shy from great levels of dodginess. E.g., Osama bin Laden is merely "extremist", and al-Qaeda is a "militant" group, though "Most of the world considers it a terrorist organization." Benkta (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the above, simply describing it (without a "label") would be the most neutral thing we could possible say. Swarm ^X 02:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we ignore the sources this is correct. 161.150.2.57 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Short of describing waterboarding incorrectly, we would not be ignoring any sources. Swarm ^X 08:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's misleading to leave out key information from the first sentence and use more general language instead, just to avoid it. The first sentence of our article George W. Bush doesn't describe the man as an "animal", even though that's of course a correct description. The notoriety of waterboarding comes from the fact that it is a torture technique, not from its occasional recreational use. Hans Adler 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler—you say, "It's misleading to leave out key information from the first sentence and use more general language instead, just to avoid it." But it is not "information", it is "characterization". We need not enter the fray. There is no need to characterize waterboarding in any way whatsoever. We can describe waterboarding in all its details, in all its variations. Then we can go on to depict for the reader the skirmish that exists—in government and media—surrounding the word "torture" in relation to waterboarding. That will entail the subjective experience of the victim—near-death, terror, drowning sensation, broken bones, long term effects. The reader can reach their own conclusion on whether waterboarding is properly considered torture or not. Bus stop (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is similarly no need to mention in the first sentence of the GW Bush article that he is a former POTUS. Instead, the first sentence could describe what he looks like, that he took part in highly controversial presidential elections, and mention his notable alcohol problems. The reader can reach their own conclusion on whether GW Bush is properly considered a former US president or not. Hans Adler 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding is more open to interpretation. Waterboarding can't very well be compared to an individual who held a political position. There can be differences of opinion as to how to characterize waterboarding, as can be seen in the debate which takes place in various places. But no one debates whether George W. Bush was president. Nor are we characterizing him as president. That is the difference between information and characterization. Bus stop (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Nor are we characterizing him as president." His main claim to notability is that he is a former US president, so we characterise him as such: "was the 43rd President of the United States". Waterboarding's main claim to notability is, at the moment, that it is a torture technique openly employed by the US. But notability is not temporary, so we are leaving out the US connection from the first sentence.

Of course there are people who claim that it isn't torture. If you are brazen enough and have enough power and money you can recruit people to say practically everything. Some of them will even believe it. (This became clear in some of the WikiLeaks cables: Apparently some US diplomats actually believe the canard that the US has high standards of data protection.) But that can't invalidate a scholarly consensus. Hans Adler 19:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Characterization" is open to interpretation. When one says that George W. Bush was president of the United States, one is not "characterizing" him that way. One is stating unequivocally that he was president. That he was president is not something that is open to interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. He was a shrub. Shrubs are not born, nor are they citizens, so he fails the "naturally born citizen" criterion, and his presidency was not legitimate. Yes, that's not a strong argument, but it's as strong as the idea that slowly suffocating a helpless prisoner is not torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we not get distracted with comparisons? As far as I know, no one's trying to argue that waterboarding isn't torture. Despite the accusations of POV pushing to some other users, the personal bias of users who go out of their way to make sarcastic comments about presidents being 'animals' is certainly questionable. Swarm ^X 21:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes waterboarding is a form of torture as defined by international law, most national law, preponderance of expert opinion on the matter. It seems like this comes up again and again (don't think i've ever edited this article, but i'd swear i expressed an opinion an an rfc just like this in recent months). If there's a problem of a matter of settled fact being brought up again and again, engaged editors here might need to seek remedies, though i don't know all the background on this page.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• RFC Comment: I don't see any problem with saying waterboarding is torture, it's not un-neutral to say so since sources describe it as torture. I don't see a problem with mentioning G.W.Bush's dithering on the subject too, but that perspective shouldn't dominate. Waterboarding has been done for a long, long time before GBW came along and has been consistently described as torture.--Dailycare (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• RfC Comment: "waterboarding is torture" is neutral. All the significant controversy is over the legal definition of it in the US at a particular time, isn't it? The normal English meaning of the word torture is just "applying particular techniques to deliberately cause pain or suffering to an individual" and no-one seems to disagree that waterboarding does that; so it is fair enough to use it as a description in the summary. It isn't going to mislead anyone about waterboarding in general. The reader will quickly come onto the third paragraph of the summary which describes the controversy about it not legally being torture, during Mr Bush's presidency, maybe. Lessthanideal (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
• "Waterboarding is torture" is neutral. It appears to be what nearly all sources say. The only sources that might lead us to doubt this are self-justificatory or in defence of someone else's self-justification. That is not a good basis for Wikipedia to introduce doubt as to the meanings of words. On a similar basis, we would presumably need to address to first sentence of the article on oral sex to clarify that there is a possibility that it might in fact not be a form of sexual activity. --FormerIP (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The intro presently reads:

"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning.[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[3] It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[5] The term waterboarding was coined in 2004.[6][7]"

I think the intro could just as well read:

"Waterboarding consists of immobilizing the subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages, thus triggering the mammalian diving reflex causing the captive to experience the sensations of drowning.[1][2] In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex.[3] It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage and, if uninterrupted, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years.[5] The term waterboarding was coined in 2004.[6][7]"

The only difference is that in the second version the words "…is a form of torture that…" have been removed. There has been a debate at the highest level of government as to whether the legal definition of "torture" includes "waterboarding". The two topics—waterboarding and torture are inextricably linked. In recognition of the relation between the terms in that debate we should be refraining from employing one word to describe the other. Bus stop (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Has been is the key point here. Under a short period of time during the Bush administration there was a debate between portions of the government if waterboarding was LEGALLY considered torture when applied to those 3 individuals. Lets be clear here. During the debate at the 'highest level of government' wasterboarding was torture if applied to our soldiers, our citizens, other peoples soldiers, other people's citizens, terrorists and everyone else EXCEPT for 3 people that specifically were allowed to be waterboarded by the POTUS. Further, it was still considered torture unless it was performed at a specific location, by specific people, with specific monitors, in a specific manner. So even under your best possible interpretations, Waterboarding has been considered torture to the US government on EVERY ONE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD EXCEPT FOR 3 PEOPLE. And, during the Bush administration, the US was the least inclusive major government in the entire world about waterboarding being torture with its 3 exceptions out of 6 billion. That certainly sounds like a high level debate to me. 151.213.204.62 (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The text Bus stop proposed is good. In the first paragraph, describe the action. The second paragraph of the lede could say that legal, medical and scholarly experts have stated that waterboarding is a form of torture, and then say that several Bush Administration officials responsible for authorizing the waterboarding of prisoners have asserted that it is not torture. Of course the text should be more detailed and well-referenced. We aren't on any side of the issue. If we report the facts accurately, the truth will shine through. Jehochman ^Talk 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's neutral now, with "torture" in the first sentence. I think the article needs to say very quickly why waterboarding is done, and "torture" at least implies the reason. If "torture" is going to be removed from the first sentence then how about replacing it with "interrogation technique"? In other words, "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that..." and then continue as it is. Then I would agree with Jehochman's suggestion about how to introduce the "torture" issue at the beginning of the second paragraph. (Ideally it should be in the first paragraph, but it should be after the description of waterboarding, and that is so long that the first paragraph is already long enough.) Neutron (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No. "Interrogation technique" is where this started fifty comments ago. PhGustaf (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. We've been there before. "Interrogation technique" is not only a propaganda euphemism, it's also factually wrong. Waterboarding has been used for other purposes than interrogation. In particular, the Khmer Rouge used it to extort (usually false) confessions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I was just suggesting a compromise based on what I saw in this section, since I came here in response to the RfC. Maybe I should have stuck with the specific question asked in the RfC, to which my answer was (and is) that I think the first sentence as it is now (with the word "torture") is neutral in light of the sources. Neutron (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's neutral with the word torture in there, at the very beginning. It is more neutral with the word torture left out. You don't have to spoon-feed the reader. The reader will understand that it is torture without uttering the word torture at the outset. Simple, accurate description conveys that it is torture. A lot of punishing treatments short of waterboarding would qualify as torture. We should not be taking a stand on the question that was raised in government concerning whether waterboarding was torture or not. Refraining from doing so makes our article of higher quality. It is only a matter of when in the article we address the issues that have been raised—specifically that waterboarding might not be torture. We should construct the article in a way that allows the reader to reach conclusions about this on their own—without our coaching. In order to build that neutrality into the article we should refrain from alluding to waterboarding as torture at the very outset. Bus stop (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility is to use wording such as: "Waterboarding has been used in an attempt to extract information from a person against their will, or in general to make them more compliant with their captor's demands. Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards and pouring water over the face..." Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Aren't those several uses of torture? Why not just use torture? And onto your primary point, flute begins with a flute is a musical instrument. Applying your logic to that article, we would have to explain that its a pipe with holes cut into it to allow controlled sounds to be implemented. While most agree that it is a musical instrument, many feel it is a good disciplinary focus for young minds(this is why I learned a musical instrument because I certainly hated playing one). This isn't spoon feeding, its applying the common definition of a word to a process that wp:rs repeatedly demonstrate is torture. The US Government's position, during the Bush administration, that waterboarding was torture when applied to 99.9999999% of the total worlds population. Both presently and prior to the Bush administration the US government considers waterboarding torture in 100% of cases. Are you making the case that with the 3 exceptions during the Bush administration, waterboarding's entire history of use as torture should be overridden? Removing common use definitions from well sourced terms weakens the ENTIRE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Imagine if the evolution page had to pay this much lip service to Intelligent Design or the Age of the Earth had to censor itself to avoid offending the Young Earth Creationists? 151.213.212.246 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The wording that I suggested above can simply be left out. Waterboarding can simply be described. There is no need to characterize it as torture. This article is not comparable to an article on flute. (I don't think it's even comparable to an article on evolution.) We are later going address an issue in which some argue that waterboarding is not torture. By refraining from labeling it torture from the outset of our article we demonstrate our agnostic outlook on that question. We also lend credence to the possibility that waterboarding might not be torture. Isn't that what WP:NPOV is all about? Neutral point of view means leaving the decision to the reader. There is nothing lost in failing to characterize it as torture from the outset. I doubt that any reader is going to confuse waterboarding with pleasure bathing as they read its description. Bus stop (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, we are using common definitions as specified in virtually all of the sources and in virtually every demonstrated use of waterboarding. If it was even 90/10 I might see where you are coming from, but that's the issue. If waterboarding is performed correctly it IS torture. The might not is so poorly supported by only a handful of sources against the overwhelming mass that firmly declare that it is torture as to make the discussion worthless. NPOV stands for neutral point of view, not NO point of view. We are required to follow the reliable sources and the overwhelming majority of sources declare that waterboarding is torture. Further those sources are frequently without reproach, represent broad opinions of entire disciplines such as medicine, civil law, military law, international treaties, historical precedents and more. The not torture viewpoint in contrast is supported by a handful of sources from a very limited range of legal opinions many of the best of which have been withdrawn. To validate that viewpoint is to weaken the encyclopedia as a whole. Further, neutral point of view does not mean leaving the decision up to the readers. It means presenting information as stated by reliable sources regardless of ones personal opinion of the information. That means we call a flute a musical instrument and we call waterboarding torture. 151.213.192.41 (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It reads as a form of browbeating to to answer a question that supposedly the article is about to address in an openminded sort of way. The article is not of so narrow a scope as you suggest. We are not just describing waterboarding. We are going on to address several other topics. One is whether waterboarding is torture. Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you may need to review the article. The other topics are that its torture, it has been used extensively for the purposes of torture during its existence, and that many people have been prosecuted as torturers for doing it. Heck the word torture is used 201 times during the article to describe waterboarding. The last section covers its status of torture in the rest of the world world (it is) and then specifically in the US (it is, unless it is applied against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at which point is my or may not be legally considered torture). The fact that we can specifically name everyone in the whole planet who it may or may not be torture against speaks worlds against your argument. 151.213.192.41 (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Re-word per Bus stop: our own classification of torture is not necessary for encyclopedic purposes. If we use avoid the word "torture", we neatly sidestep a number of issues, including NPOV, OR, and the simply highly-charged nature of the argument. It's simply better for the project and the article that way. bahamut0013^words_deeds 17:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC Comment: it's obviously controversial whether waterboarding is torture or not, with many military legal scholars saying it is not, even if the people who have taken over this page don't like those sources. The current leading sentence is clearly not neutral. Wikipedia policy is to present the arguments and let the reader decide; this is what we should be doing here. It would be fine to say it's "considered a form of torture by many", for example, but a blatant assertion as if it were a fact is misleading. Warren Dew (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Many is a very vague term and can mean more than 5 or an overwhelming majority. Many military legal scholars also say that waterboarding is torture, composing the overwhelming majority of the profession as well as all historical precedents. This is why we should avoid considered by many, it is a vague statement that can also mean anything more than 5 which is certainly how many people will interpret it. Attempts have been made in past leads to cover the sheer overwhelming weight of sources that indicate consider waterboarding torture. They were less successful than simply using the common definition of torture in the description. 151.213.192.41 (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• All governments and official bodies, including the current US Government, that have issued an opinion state that waterboarding is torture. Even the GW Bush administration, which wrote secret memos justifying its use, later withdrew those memos and stopped using it. The Republican nominee for president in the last US election, who had experienced torture as a prisoner of war, said emphatically that it is torture. And John Yoo, who wrote the Bush torture memos says the memos take a narrow view of what is torture, only considering legal status under one US statute and supposed limitations in the US Senate's ratification of the treaty banning torture. [12] And questions have been raised as to whether waterboarding as practiced by the GW Bush CIA went beyond the guidelines that were approved in the secret memos. All this should be discussed in the article, of course, but the leed should not be watered down by giving undue weight to the views of one segment of one political party in one country. --agr (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing whether waterboarding is torture or not. I think it is illogical to state that waterboarding is torture and then to address a question as to whether waterboarding is torture or not. The lead consists of three paragraphs. Apparently the editorship considers the incident in which it was argued that waterboarding was not torture, to be important enough to warrant mention in the lead. The argument can and perhaps should be made that mention of that incident is not important enough to warrant mention in the lead. But as it stands I read in the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead that, "During the presidency of George W. Bush, U.S. government officials at various times said they did not believe waterboarding to be a form of torture." I feel that if that sentence remains in the lead then the first sentence of the first paragraph should read something approximately like: "Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a subject on his/her back with the head inclined downwards. Water is then poured over the face into breathing passages…" That wording provides an appropriate introduction to the controversy that will be introduced in the third paragraph of the lead. Bus stop (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with properly summarising the article in the first sentence. The insane attempts to sell waterboarding as a potentially legal practice were notable enough for mention in the lead (although this assessment may change in twenty years or so), but they were not credible enough to cause any reasonable doubt it's a torture technique. What's so hard to understand about this? Hans Adler 19:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

How reasonable would it be to excise "criminal" from the first line of our Mafia article because Al Capone asserted that the organization was a "benevolent society"? PhGustaf (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be "reasonable" if 1. "benevolent societies" and criminality are mutually exclusive and 2. well-sourced articles made such a claim. Do you think benevolent societies can't harbor criminals? Feel free to cite your sources. 220.255.1.105 (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in question, "During the presidency of George W. Bush, U.S. government officials at various times said they did not believe waterboarding to be a form of torture", is not correct. During the Bush presidency, no public official admitted to using waterboarding or made any public statement that it was not torture. A more accurate statement would be "During the presidency of George W. Bush, U.S. government officials secretly waterboarded three alleged terrorists and the Justice Department issued classified memoranda, which it later retracted, interpreting the legal definition of torture narrowly and saying that limited use of the waterboard would not meet that definition."--agr (talk) 21:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so. Public officials did in fact claim that waterboarding is not torture. "The CIA sources described a list of six 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' instituted in mid-March 2002 [ranging from] The Attention Grab [to] Water Boarding . . . . The sources told ABC that the techniques, while progressively aggressive, are not deemed torture, and the debate among intelligence officers as to whether they are effective should not be underestimated. There are many who feel these techniques, properly supervised, are both valid and necessary, the sources said. While harsh, they say, they are not torture and are reserved only for the most important and most difficult prisoners." Speaking to ABC News -- a public news source -- qualifies as making a public statement. 220.255.1.127 (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC Comment: The categorical statement that "waterboarding is torture" is far from "neutral." It is POV. I've provided well-sourced articles written by subject-matter experts taking the contrary view; sources that haven't been seriously disputed (dishonestly characterizing those sources as "insignificant" on the basis of anonymous, unverifiable comment threads doesn't count). A NPOV-lede would be: "many consider waterboarding to be a form of torture," not a categorical "is" torture, given that we have sourced authorities who disagree on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.138 (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You cited http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/05/no-torture-no-prosecution.php, an un-peer reviewed op ed by one law professor who was a Lieutenant Colonel in the US Army Judge Advocate General's Corps. He argues a necessity defense, which has nothing to do with whether waterboarding is torture. Indeed if it wasn't torture, there would be no need for a necessity defense. He also cites the European Court of Human Rights ruling, Ireland v. United Kingdom, which said five specific interrogation methods were not torture, but did not consider waterboarding at all. Note that in 2006, eight sitting and four retired Judge Advocates General of the military services have said waterboarding violates international law.[13] We should not give much weight to the contrary opinion of a singly former JAG lieutenant colonel, based on a legal case that did not consider waterboarding. You also cite a book that says past US attorneys general disagree about waterboarding. The current US Attorney General, who has the legal authority to rule for the US Government on the matter, says it is torture. Our article discusses the use of waterboarding in the United States and the attempts to justify that use, but we should not give undue weight to a few dissenting opinions. See WP:UNDUE. --agr (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since when did reliable news sources and publications under wikipedia rules require "peer review"? Oh wait -- there is no such requirement. Under your obfuscatory standards, neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times would qualify as "significant" because they are likewise "un-peer reviewed." The fact remains that the reliability of the sources cited has not been seriously disputed. JURIST is published by the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and is a well-known legal publication. Accordingly, it's not "insignificant." Also, your claim that the article "has nothing to do with whether waterboarding is torture" is simply false. Here's what it says: "Even the worst of the CIA techniques that were authorized – waterboarding - would not constitute torture." Plainly, it explicitly has to do with "whether waterboarding is torture." That you see the need to misdescribe what the article says is telling. The other objections you raise are OR and invalid -- not that they would be credible if OR were allowed, seeing as you failed to even describe the article credibly. As for the Attorneys General, the other citation notes that a plurality have said it isn't torture -- 2 out of 4 AGs have said that it isn't torture, with 1 stating that it wasn't clear if it was illegal, and 1 saying that it is torture. If we "should not give much weight to" the opinion of a single JAG on the basis of numbers, then the plurality of AGs saying it isn't torture would likewise imply that they are due some weight on the basis of their plurality (rather than no weight at all). Be consistent. Finally, there is no undue weight being accorded to the contrary opinion. The proposed change was never to assert the categorical opposite that "waterboarding isn't torture" -- that would be making the same mistake you are making. Rather, the proposed change was to something that captures the relative weight of the sources, like: "most consider waterboarding to be a form of torture, while some do not." Why are you so resistant to NPOV and jettisoning the categorical "is" torture (that was editorialized into the lede) for something less categorical? Please check your biases at the door before answering. 220.255.1.155 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:RS#Some_types_of_sources on the need for peer review of scholarly works and why newspapers are different. As for attorneys general, the one in office is the one that speaks to the current status of waterboarding in the US government. Past disputes on the question are mentioned in the introduction and well covered in the article, which more than meets the NPOV requirement.--agr (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Who said a JURIST article was a "scholarly work" rather than a source of legal news? It's the latter, so your objection is meritless. Not that scholarly works published in law reviews are necessarily peer-reviewed -- that is not the convention in American law schools, for most law reviews are student rather than faculty-edited. Whether current or past, AGs are still significant figures in the law whose views are accorded some weight rather than none (especially if their views are known and reported in verifiable/reliable secondary sources as they have been). The categorical "is" elides that disagreement and fails to capture the relative weight of the sources; indeed, it pretends that there is no legitimate split in legal opinion -- a straightforward violation of NPOV. The sources are reliable and not seriously disputed. There is no justification for editorializing the lede not to reflect that difference in well-sourced legal opinion. 220.255.1.171 (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the use of the word "torture" in the article's first sentence is acceptable, I want to comment on this discussion of sources. Articles expressing opinions about what the law is, or should be, are generally not "peer-reviewed." Maybe someone can come up with some exceptions, but they would be few and far between. It is not the general practice, whether you are talking about opinion-articles in newspapers or in law reviews and journals. I'd also point out that the latter are generally accepted as scholarly publications within the legal field, despite the lack of peer review. The "peers" of an article-writer (i.e. other law professors or legal scholars) do have a recourse if they disagree with an article, and that is to write their own article and try to have it published, sometimes in the same publication and sometimes elsewhere. Now, in the case of the particular article being discussed, the real question is how much weight to give it. It is a source for the contention that some people have asserted that waterboarding is not torture. But does it get enough weight to overcome the neutrality of the word "torture" in the first sentence of the article? I don't think so. Unless there are some pages of this article that I didn't see, the opinion regarding waterboarding does not appear to be based on any research, and doesn't even explain the reasoning behind the statement. It is more like an off-the-cuff remark. So I guess I get to the same destination as agr, but not because of a lack of peer review. Neutron (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it has "enough weight" -- it's a well-sourced opinion of a subject-matter expert in the relevant field. Your opinion that the source "does not appear to be based on any research" is itself OR and invalid. You get to the same destination as agr by ignoring the pertinent wikipedia rules governing reliable sources. 220.255.1.144 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think a compromise is in the offing. To sayu that it can be defined (or is) but some people (and cite this) digress.

Should be pretty straightofrward(Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

• Against any change to the well-established status quo; particularly against the proposed change. --John (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas—you say, "we should not give undue weight to a few dissenting opinions." If that is the case, then why is one of the three paragraphs in the lead devoted to what you are calling a "dissenting opinion"? The three paragraphs of the lead should basically support one another. I felt that a description in paragraph one without the word "torture" would be in accord with what is conveyed in paragraph three. Perhaps we should consider removing the third paragraph from the lead. Some of the arguments above are implying that the notion that waterboarding is not torture represents an undue weight issue or a "dissenting opinion". Removing the third paragraph is not my preferred solution. My position is that this article is about more than just the description of waterboarding. I think the article is also about related issues. While we may be victims of WP:RECENTISM it seems clear that the notion expressed in some quarters that waterboarding is not torture is an issue that this article wants to address. We shouldn't be contradicting that notion in one paragraph while presenting it in another. Bus stop (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

robab

Busstop has a point, after all waterboarding has been used as torture for 400 years now and 2 of our 3 lead paragraphs cover since 2007? We need to get out of the WP:RECENTISM bandwagon here and condense the last two paragraphs into one and put in a third paragraph dealing with the history of waterboarding from the Spanish Inquisition onwards. Probably something like Waterboarding was one of many tortures developed during the Spanish Inquisition. And then cover its use, as torture, for its history. 151.213.192.41 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to reopen this topic simply because of the loaded terminology of the word "torture". Regardless of who considers waterboarding to actually be torture, the word torture carries with it a certain negative and biasing connotation that I don't think has a place in a neutral article. The more proper thing to do would be to refer to it as an "interrogation technique" and allow the reader to decide for his or herself, after reading the article, whether or not the technique constitutes torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.17.249 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you serious? Since when is it wrong to use words with "certain negative and biasing connotation" in articles about individual criminal practices? What's going to be next? "Child abuse is a sexual practice which in spite of being considered as deviant by many experts and being illegal in many jurisdictions is still practised throughout the world"? Hans Adler 10:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• (response to RfC) Yes it is. See article, references and talk page archives for the multiple reasons. On the USA point of view. There is precedent by the judicial branch of government to establish that it is torture. Also the executive branch has stated under two different administrations that it is torture. The legislative branch has implied that it is torture by signing international treaties. But to establish that it is torture in the USA you only need the reference to the judicial branch opinion.--LexCorp (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

It might not be perhaps an exhaustive list, but I think this should be added to to the examples in fiction section:

"In the 1965 French film Pierrot le fou, main character Ferdinand Griffon (played by Jean-Paul Belmondo) is subjected to waterboarding by gangsters trying to find the location of Marianne Renoid (played by Anna Karina)".

This is per the film page. This may also help improving the representation of the worldwide popular culture point of view about the subject. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, 186, for the suggestion. It says so on the article's page, yes--but to be included in such a list one would really need a reliable source. Do you have any secondary sourcing? Drmies (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yessir, I do, here is a review of the film from Interview Magazine stating "and the scene in which two goons use Marianne's red dress to waterboard Pierrot is especially striking". It also appears that, upon making further research, another of Jean-Luc Godard movies (from 1960, The Little Soldier) features waterboarding too. (Source, "That film was Le Petit Soldat, Godard's thriller about the Algerian war, which in one pivotal scene features the 'enhanced interrogation technique' we know today as waterboarding.") Upon finding this, I think both movies' use of the technique should be added here, something like:

"Two films by the French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard feature waterboarding. 1963's Le Petit Soldat, about the Algerian War, features the technique during "a pivotal scene" of the film (insert source of LA Weekly). Pierrot le fou, from 1965, includes a scene where main character Ferdinand Griffon (played by Jean-Paul Belmondo) is subjected to waterboarding by gangsters trying to find the location of Marianne Renoid (played by Anna Karina). (insert source of Interview)."

Hope this helps. --186.82.60.241 (talk) 05:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. This is precisely the kind of thing that such lists should have. But it's getting late for me--I hope that someone here can have a quick look at the linked references and follow up. If not, I'll look at it tomorrow. Thanks for your contributions, 186. Consider getting an account! Drmies (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Deanmblake, 10 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The Spanish Inquisition section may be supplimented with information obtained at the Museum of Torture in Spain where the curator advised a visiting Prof. Eric Street of the University of Dayton, a friend of mine, that:

the linen cloth inserted into the victim's mouth had a knot in it. The purpose of the water torture was to force the victim to swallow the knot so his guts could be wrenched out by threatening to pull the cloth thus potentially severing the esophogus from the stomach. The victim was forced to give himself an enima beforehand to save the torturer's and executioner the trouble of cleaning up after torture. If the victim did not confess his sins, his severed stomach acid contents would digest his internal organs, blood congealling thus blocking any spillage, and there would be no outward mark on the victim's body of the cause of death, thus satisfying certain tenants of then Catholic law regarding mutilation and killing. Its important to put waterboarding in this context as the Church has never condemned waterboarding by itself as torture by itself nor condemnded the actions of the Conquestadors in performing this 'full treatment' on Native Am. Indians who replied in kind by pouring molten gold down the throats of their prison guards in response, given the opportunity. The Indians are characterized as 'uncivilized'for their acts, but not the Spanish for theirs. Information obtained at the Museum of Torture in Spain where the curator advised a visiting Prof. Eric Street of the University of Dayton, Ohio

Deanmblake (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Dean Blake

We would need a reliable published source in order to consider this request. And assuming you talk about this Eric Street, he is a musician, not a historian, and hence most probably not an expert on the Inquisition or waterboarding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit

Twice the article states that the U.S. hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners of war. This is not accurate. The source indicates that the U.S. hung Japanese soldiers for "techniques that INCLUDED waterboarding". Research shows that Japanese torture techniques on American and allied soldiers during World War II included providing half-rations of food, denying medical treatment, beating, forced kneeling with a broomstick inside the knee joints, repeatedly dragging a prisoner behind a car tied by the thumbs, "see-sawing" across a prisoner whose stomach has been filled with water which forces the water out and often kills the victim, and, following torture, execution, usually by decapitation. See Japanese Methods of Prisoner of War Interrogation, ordered published in 1946 by order of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, at http://www.6thinfantry.com/static/JapaneseTortureTechniques.pdf. Research uncovers no instance where the U.S. executed a Japanese soldier solely for waterboarding. Accordingly, the article should be revised to indicate that the U.S. executed Japanese soldiers for techniques that included waterboarding, but not for waterboarding alone.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave148109 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Not torture

The opening line is nauseatingly non-encyclopedic. Please change. 129.63.129.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC).

Waterboarding is not torture under U.S. law. Until the controversy over the matter is settled, wiki should take no position on this and therefore should not declare in the first sentence of this article that it is so. Please change this and stay out of the advocacy business please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.34 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The mention of torture in the first line is not neutral. Waterboarding is not torture.

Jimmer1123 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Jimmer1123

Yes it is, per common sense, Wikipedia:Common knowledge, and several hundred reliable sources. Also see debates on this very page and in the archives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Common knowledge applies to matters of uncontroverted and generally known fact, like the fact the moon orbits the earth. It doesn't apply to matters of definition, especially in an area as controversial as this one. Again, you fall back on "reliable sources;" but you are playing the old game wherein a source is "reliable" or not depending on whether it agrees with your position. So for example [[14]] is not "reliable," despite its being the view of a United States attorney; whereas "newsmedia in other countries were opining" does count as a "reliable" source- and in the subsection 'Legality," no less, as enforced by the Guardians of the Article.

One might hope (in vain, naturally) for the establishment of Wikipedia:Ringfencing; if so this page would constitute a prime exhibit. Solicitr (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If the then United States attorney would have made his judgment (which is not really in the source but I remember it) before the fact of us using water boarding as an "interrogation technique" it could be taken more serious and maybe seen as reliable; But he did so after the fact (and BTW, before more information about how it was carried out and used was revealed) when it was in the interest of our government to have it "legalized" to put it mildly. So anyhow, we go with the common international description which is water boarding equals torture (like we do too when applied to other countries who engaged in such "interrogation techniques". Can it be justified in some occasions? Maybe; But not by law and definition.TMCk (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sophistry. Any flimsy justification will do to exclude content that contradicts your definition and some interpretations of law- especially since this article is absolutely rife with after-the-fact opinions.

Now: justify the "reliability" of "newsmedia in other countries were opining."--Solicitr (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pull a strawman won't work. Try justifying your point of view with some independent and convincing sources; Or try to experience the real thing (with professional supervision) and share your thoughts then. Don't mean to be harsh on you; Just trying to make you think more about this TMCk (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"independent and convincing sources": more sophistry. There will never, ever be a source that you (all) will admit to be "convincing." You are in effect dealing three-card monte: the game is rigged and you've palmed the Queen. This entire article is a monument to the Assumed Premise. "Or try to experience the real thing (with professional supervision) and share your thoughts then."- Talk about fallacious arguments! Have YOU ever undergone waterboarding? By your logic, you aren't qualified to comment either. You are determined by God to have it graven in stone that "Waterboarding IS torture" because that's your opinion and you won't even admit that other opinions exist; you won't even tolerate an NPOV lede like "Waterboarding is a form of coercive interrogation and/or punishment which many authorities consider to be a form of torture" because that would create a rift in the facade of pretend unanimity you feign exists. --Solicitr (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you just switched into blabla soaping where there is no response for. Please refrain continuing this path as you well know that WP is not a forum, etc. Provide a valuable argument in favor of the article or desist. You won't get another response )at least from my side) with posts like the one you just made.TMCk (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that there is anything like a reasoned response even to valuable arguments. Any argument that cites reliable sources disagreeing with your view is simply dismissed out of hand and summarily excluded, based on nothing more than ipse dixit and Herr Administrator Schulz's obdurate refusal to concede -- the NPOV debate being a prime example. So we are left with the absurd spectacle of an administrator characterizing anonymous internet comment threads as "expert," while giving short shrift to a law professor who is an actual expert in the relevant field (and therefore a reliable source). You can hardly blame Solicitr for showing some exasperation in the circumstances. 220.255.2.38 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it is torture in the sense the purpose is to cause discomfort to the victim, it still needs to be mentioned that, in the U.S. it does not legally qualify as torture. I'm not implying I want us to say "it's not torture," just merely that the U.S. does not legally accept it as torture, which is not subjective, but indeed a solid fact. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

No, its not solid fact. It's simply wrong. Do you have any reliable sources for your claim? On the flip side, being slowly drowned does not qualify as "discomfort", either in the US or elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's simply not true that it's not legally torture "in the U.S." There may be methods for a single criminal authoritarian government to change the legal landscape in this way, but if the Bush government even tried they have not been successful. (I guess they failed because they tried to change the situation while pretending not to do so.) Hans Adler 10:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I find this entire conversation (and the article's introduction) far too US-centric. Can I remind everybody that the US comprises less than 5% of the world's population. Let's get some perspective here please. --Brian Fenton (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

^..This. Also Waterboarding is torture even in the US as determined by the judicial branch, recently by the executive branch (under Obama but also previous administrations before Bush) and implied by the legislative branch due to signing of international treaties. Furthermore it is well referenced in the article.--LexCorp (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia based its definitions not on U.S.-centric legalities, but on.... well, on actual definitions. Waterboarding would qualify as "torture" by any reasonable definition of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.185.109 (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Webster's definition that applies in the context of extracting information is: ": the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure." Very few will claim their waterboarding produced intense pain. It produces, rather, intense panic and the feeling one is drowning. Hence waterboarding obviously does **not** qualify under this reasonable definition. DaleEastman (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please revert the "torture" change by DaleEastman (7 May). My account isn't permitted.--Muaddib131 —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC).

Since Wikepedia's policy is one of neutrality, why is the discussion focused on 'Is it torture or not?' That is a legitimate debate that people can argue and discuss. Wikepedia is not a place to debate and argue, it is a place to inform and educate. The Wikepedia article should simply clearly state the facts 'Waterboarding is a controversial technique which many, including X,Y, and Z, consider torture while others such as A and B refer to as enhanced interrogation'. Or maybe just remove the word torture and 'enhanced interrogation' from the opening paragraph completely, simply explaining the topic using neutral words. Rodchen (talk) 07:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Your question has been asked and answered many time on this talk page. Please review the archives. (Whether asking someone to read our archives is a form of torture or merely an enhanced editor education technique is a question I will leave to others.) --agr (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Waterboarding is as clearly not torture to many as it is "torture" to others. But even more clear than that, is that claiming it is "torture" is a violation of Wikipedia's policy against inclusion of points of view. The fact that there is discussion here is glaring evidence the "{consensus" claimed is only a fantasy in some editors' minds. And as the point of view that it is torture seems to be prevalent on the left side of the political spectrum, such inclusion causes the article to be branded as bised as well.

On a media where even Usama bin Laden can't be called a terrorist for fear that POV will offend someone's sensibilities we need to apply the rule evenly and temporately from both angles. Waterboarding can't be called torture here. DaleEastman (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture by any standard and by the vastly overwhelming number of reliable sources. Also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

In other words you think that under the OtherStuff rule you should be able to keep whatever labels you choose and delete the ones you don't like. I don't know if there is a rule about such arrogance at Wikipedia, but there is a rule about labels WP:LABEL that you should review before you repair this article that is an embarrassment to the community. Both such labels need to be eliminated. The use of the word "torture" is both puffery and a contentious word and your claim above that waterboarding is torture "by any standard" also a violation as an unsupported attribution. Physician heal thyself. DaleEastman (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer you don't ascribe thoughts to me. I do think that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS implies that we do not need to drag any discussion on how to label (or not label) Bin Laden into this article, where it is likely unhelpful. "Torture" is not "puffery", and there is no significant disagreement in reliable sources that waterboarding is indeed torture. As I wrote above: What do you call the slow deliberate suffocation of a helpless victim if not torture? And while I'm a doctor, I'm not a physician. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I recognize there are people who feel strongly about whether waterboarding is torture or not. My comment is two fold: First Wikedpedia is to be neutral and educational. It is not to take 'sides' in debates. Second, wikepedia does not need to 'take a stand'. It does not need to state whether it is torture or not - it should just describe what it is, from a neutral point of view. The issue of whether it is torture or not should not even be discussed.

I noticed the 'Obama article' does not say 'Obama is a Homo sapiens who was president starting in 2009' nor 'Obama is a mammel who was president starting in 2009'. Both are true statements, but it is sort of silly to state such. So likewise, it is silly to open this artile with either 'waterboarding is torture' or 'waterboarding is enhanced interrogation'. It should simply state a neutral, agreed by all, statement regarding what waterboarding is - 'a procedure in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of .... '.

Who disagrees with that statement? I suspect nobody. So why not use it? Rodchen (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

As the FAQ at the top of this page points out, there have been numerous, extensive discussions about this topic, all with the same result: The definition stays. There has also been an RFC with this result. Of course your argument isn't new either. Here is what I said in response to a similar argument about half a year ago:

There is similarly no need to mention in the first sentence of the GW Bush article that he is a former POTUS. Instead, the first sentence could describe what he looks like, that he took part in highly controversial presidential elections, and mention his notable alcohol problems. The reader can reach their own conclusion on whether GW Bush is properly considered a former US president or not. Hans Adler 07:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. If there was any controversary over whether GW Bush had been president, I would suspect that that is exactly how the first sentence of his article would read!

Why has there been 'numerous and extensive discussions about this topic'? Because consensus has not yet been reached. And because the opening statement continues to violate Wikepedia's principle of neutrality. I suspect it will continue to be debated and argued until it is changed to a neutral stance.

For example the OJ Simpsom article does not say 'he is a murderer'. I suspect probably most people think that, and according to most evidence he is, but it still is not stated. But since some people disagree with the statement, it is not included in his bio.

So, I come back to the question, without arguing whether waterboarding is torture or not, which has been debated extensively, why not simply say it 'is an act / procedure which ....'

As I reviewed the archives, the discussions immediately went back to 'is it torture or not'. Why should the article not be written in a neutral way which is agreed to by all? Rodchen (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because under the adiminstration of George W Bush waterboarding was torture for everone on the entire planet except for 3 people? Because over 99% of the sources say that its torture? Because all of the legal opinions that said that waterboarding was not torture have been withdrawn? Because we apply common definitions of words? Because the neutral word is torture, the POV words would be interrogation or war crime? The even more POV would be enhanced interrogation or crime against humanity that the president should well have known was illegal based on his own tenure as Governor of Texas where he sentenced people to prison for the crime of torture for waterboarding? In short, before President Bush wasterboaring was toture whenever it was applied and to whomeever it was applied to. Under Bush, for 2 years of his term, waterboarding may or may not have been torture when applied to 3 individuals, but remained torture for the remaining population of the planet. After Bush, its torture again. We are talking about .000000000005% of the worlds population where the subject was in doubt for a period of less than 25% of Bush's presidency. There really isn't much of a debate except form a very small minority of very partisan people. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read the archives you will discover this is still a much debated topic. I think that quickly and immediatly disproves your comment! Rodchen (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the process of waterboarding is basically forcing the helpless victem to inhale water and then having the torturer watch the body of the victem until he demonstrates the symptoms of the advanced stages of drowing and then let him breath again before he dies. If you time this wrong the victem can die. This process is repeated until the victem tells his torturer what he wants to know. In what situation is that not torture? 161.150.2.58 (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Trained person performing it (they don't pick a person off the street to do this) and a doctor within arm's length. That's why. PokeHomsar (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So you get a 'skilled individual' who can recognize the signs of someone suffocating to death so they can stop short of them dying and have a doctor close if they screw up. That still sounds just like torture. 98.22.228.179 (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for inclusion

it would be pertinent to include the recent information that waterboarding techniques led to finding Bin Laden. http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/03/waterboarding-which-obama-campaigned-against-led-bin-laden-kill 138.4.46.91 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This site says otherwise. http://www.drudge.com/news/143856/rumsfeld-no-torture-bin-laden-source 98.22.212.127 (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The CIA director seemed to disagree with the drudge retort. These say waterboarding did play a role: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/cia-director-leon-panetta-confirms-that-waterboarding-led-to-osama-bin-laden/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/waterboarding-detainees-yielded-clues-that-helped-find-bin-laden-cia/article2010468/ http://nation.foxnews.com/usama-bin-laden/2011/05/03/cia-director-says-intel-waterboarding-led-bin-laden-raid http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/rumsfeld-waterboarding-played-major-role-al-qaeda-intel

It should be added. Though I sadly doubt it will. Rodchen (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, torture has always been a good means of extracting information from someone, assuming you can check its accuracy. Of course, according to the sources above its one of many sources that required a great deal of work to effectively track down to prove anything. Course, one does not know how much false intelligence we got out of the torture victims either. It should be mentioned in the context of the entire enhanced interrogation program but its not nearly cut and dry enough to go into the lede, so make its own section. The 'waterboarding is torture' crowd doesn't believe that waterboarding doesn't work any worse than any other form of torture, they just believe that its torture. Don't confuse the issue. 98.22.212.127 (talk) 11:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is what the CIA director actually said "...they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question." The argument for waterboarding has generally been framed in the "ticking time bomb" sceanario, where information is needed immediately, say to defuse a nuclear weapon, and there is no time to use more traditional interrogation techniques that don't involve torture. Information that leads to the location of a terrorist leader 8 years later hardly fits that justification. --agr (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

At the very top of this discussion page is this paragraph:

Does the lead with the phrase "Waterboarding is a form of torture" follow Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines? There have been extensive discussions on this topic over several months, and the consensus view is that according to the sources that exist, the phrase "waterboarding is a form of torture" is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources. For further details on how this conclusion was reached, the interested reader is referred to the discussion archives.

Notice the question is NOT answered. The paragraph answers the question 'Is waterboarding torture' or 'Is the statement waterboarding is torture an accurate assertion'.

However, the paragraph does not answer the question of whether the statement 'Waterboarding is torture' follows Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

As I reviewed the archives, each time someone suggested removing both 'torture' and 'enhanced interrogation', discussion immediately returned to discussing whether waterboarding is torture or not.

Why has there not been a discussion regardingly simply whether it is neutral or not? Given the continued discussion, it seems evident to me that it is not neutral. So why not make it neutral, and simply describe waterboarding from a neutral point of view without using words which there is objection to? Rodchen (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We've been there for ages. "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is a plain fact, as attested by innumerable reliable sources. Facts may not be convenient, but they are neutral. We don't need to mince words. It's "A hammer is a tool meant to deliver an impact to an object.", not "A hammer consists of a head and a handle" (which is usually, but not universally true). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Enhanced interrogation is a term coined by the Bush administration that was not used before or after to describe the technique, however waterboarding is a form of interrogation. It is also a form of coersion, blackmail, punishment and a few other nasty things. Because all of those techniques are forms of torture, calling waterboaridng torture is the most appropriate. Consider which is more accurate, "by torturing someone with waterboarding you are able to: interrogate, coerse, blackmail, punish etc". Or "by interrogating someone with waterboarding, you are able to (torture, punish, coerse, or blackmail) them". Looking at our sources it seems that the former, describing it as torture, is waterboardings demonstrated main use through countless examples since its development. Unless you have something new to add, the POV tag should be removed within a day or two. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Stephan, you perfectly illustrate my point. I am not saying that 'Waterboarding is a form of torture' is not a plain fact. My comment is it is not neutral.

Thanks for the other post also. Great idea. You use several different words which could just as easily be used in the opening line which would be equally true, but also build consensus. So why not use them?

How about the opening sentence being 'Waterboarding is a interrogation tool'. It is, right? Who disagrees that it is an 'interrogation tool'. I suspect nobody. So why not use that term. Why pick the word 'torture' when there are other words which could be used which are more neutral?

Also, you use an interesting word 'punishment'. Has waterboarding ever in its history been used as a form of punishment - as a way of torturing somebody to make their death as painful as possible. At least within recent years it has not been used as a form of punishment but as a form of interrogation, and so since waterboarding is not used as punishment, then calling it torture really is inappropriate, and calling it a form of interrogation is actually not only neutral, but also more accurate. Rodchen (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So you haven't actually read the article or the archives, I say this simply because you are rehasing old points here but let me clarify. All of the uses I suggested were also uses for torture and WP:DUCK indicates that if all of your uses are for torture than you describe something as torture. Concensus in the archives has always been that because all of its uses are uses for torture, it is best to describe waterboarding as torture. If you want to get technical one of waterboardings use is as an interrogation technique but its more accurate to say something like "Waterboarding is a form of dry drowning that simulates death, its most common use is as a form of torture used while interrogating a subject." Waterboarding was used as punishment in WWII, as stated in the article. There are other examples of its other uses also in the article.

The main problem with your stance is that the lede reflects the article, not your viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of the article clearly dissucess waterboardings development as a form of torture and its application as a method of torture. Do you have any new sources that overrides the hundreds of sources we already have that say without question that waterboarding is torture? Again, this has been debated ad nausem and the best answer based on the sources we have is waterboarding is torture as opposed to 'enhanced interrogation' through 'simulated death'. You will need new sources to redevelop concensus. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Debate on this topic immediately goes to whether waterboarding is torture or not. But that is not the question at hand. What is the question at hand? The question is whether stating waterboarding is torture is neutral or not.

All your comments were defending the statement as accurate. Is that the question? NO!!!! The question is whether the statement is neutral. If you wish to reopen the debate regarding whether waterboarding is torture or not, please do that in a new section. In this section we are discussing whether stating such is neutral. It is my opinion that it is not. Rodchen (talk) 23:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Then it comes back to sources. Do you have any new sources that indicate that the vast and overwhelming majority of opinion that waterboarding is torture are false or misleading? Wikipedia is a source based encyclopedia, therefor based on the overwhelming majority of sources and supported by the text of the article, we have to call waterboarding torture. In order for the article to change and then the lead, you will need to provide sources the indicate otherwise. Consider, the article is a big long list of how, when and why waterboarding is torture. There are bits discussion waterboarding's status as torture in the US during the Bush administration and bits saying that under Regan, Bush 1, Clinton and Obama it was. Plus that's just US opinion, world opinion was always that its torture. The lead reflects that. You are basically saying, is it neutral for the lead to summarize the article. The lead of the article will not change until more sources are provided that say otherwise. RTRimmel (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No, actually it comes back to, or maybe I should say stays at 'is stating waterboarding is torture neutral'. Is abortion murder? Yes. Does Wikepedia say such? No. Why? Because it is not neutral. Many people refused to acknowledge it as murder, and so Wikepedia explains it in neutral, non-bias terms. Is OJ a murder? Yes. Does Wikepedia say such? No. Why? Because it is not neutral. Many people refuse to acknowledge he is a murder, and so Wikepedia write a bio in neutral, non-bias terms. Is waterboarding torture? Yes. Does Wikepedia say such? Yes. But it should not because it is not neutral. Rodchen (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

So we have your opinion that its not torture or that torture is a biased word versus sources and experts. . . AGAIN do you have any sources that say otherwise? RTRimmel (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe if you look through the archives you will find and hear many people object to the wording. [15] is one of many articles that deals with the subject of waterboarding, and the discussion of whether waterboarding is torture or not. Do you have any source that states that saying waterboarding is torture is neutral or not bias? Rodchen (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... again, if you read the page you would notice that [[16]] has 150+ sources that say its waterboarding. RTRimmel (talk) 02:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I know its waterboarding!!! That is what we are discussing! What is your point?? My point is saying waterboarding is torture is not neutral. Can you give me some source which states that saying waterboarding is torture is neutral? Rodchen (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

My bad... the link was to waterboarding is torture, which of course you didn't follow obviously because of my terrible error. Several sources say if anything is torture waterboarding is and I accidentally confused the two. And I don't have to give sources that say waterboarding is torture, I just have to provide an overwhelming number of sources that describe waterboarding as torture... and there are 156 of them on that page. You are rehashing old points again. Giving this much credibility to a minority viewpoint is WP:UNDUE and if followed would require edits of Evolution and the Holocaust article to give more credibility to creditless deniers. Since someone wisely remove the POV flag I'm going to consider this discussion over. If you'd like to pick it up, head to the archives I think there is one just like this in there, several such discussions even. RTRimmel (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit from Adam G

In the article, at the end of the introduction, it states:

"On May 3, 2011 Obama Administration CIA Director Leon Panetta admitted to NBC reporter Brian Williams intelligence gathered through waterboarding was crucial to the success of the May 1, 2011 raid that succeeded in killing terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden.[21]"

Stating that Panetta thought waterboarding was "crucial" is a blatant misrepresentation of what Panetta said during the interview. It is clear that he questions its efficacy, and he proposes the possibility that the same information could have been obtained by other means:

---

Brian Williams: "I'd like to ask you about the sourcing on the intel that ultimately led to this successful attack. Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding, that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?"

Leon Panetta: "You know, Brian, in the intelligence business, you work from a lot of different sources of information, and that was true here. We had a multiple series of sources that provided information with regards to the situation. Clearly some of it came from detainees and the interrogation of detainees, but we also had information from other sources, as well. So, it's a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got."

Williams: "Turned around the other way: Are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to the successful mission?"

Panetta: "No, I think some of these detainees clearly were - you know - they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying, that the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches, I think, is always going to be an open question."

Williams: "So, final point, one final time: Enhanced interrogation techniques - which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years - that includes waterboarding?"

Panetta: "That’s correct."

---

This interview is available at the source listed on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Grise (talk • contribs) 14:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, so we have a 'smoking gun' situation here were 8 years later the information that may or may not have been waterboarded out of a detainee allowed us to swoop down and track a courier that eventually lead us to bin laden. In all honesty, they probably did waterboard the information out of the detainee... torture has a way of doing that. RTRimmel (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I added a quote for John McCain. It's a bit long, but pertinent to the above request.--agr (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Flag

So its been a week and nothing novel has been raised about the status. Can we remove the flag now or do we have some new sources I haven't seen that would merit us changing the long standing consensus. If we are going to change the lead I like the "Waterboarding is a form of dry drowning that simulates death which is most often used for torture" line, but feel waterboarding is torture is more NPOV. RTRimmel (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a good and reasonable compromise. Rodchen (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's misleading. Waterboarding isn't also a sport, recreational activity or meditation technique. Apart from derived uses such as trying out if it's really so bad or trying to prove how tough one is, torture is the only way in which it's used. Making an article POV before removing an unjustified POV template is not a good idea. Hans Adler 15:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't considered it from that angle. Most often used should be removed per WP:Weasel so "Waterboarding is a form of dry drowning that simulates death which is a form of torture" Maybe we should flip it around to "Waterboarding is a form of tortue in which dry drowning is used to simulates death." But dry drowning is overly complicated and how do you simulate death so maybe simple it down to "Waterboarding is a form of torture in which water is poured over the face of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning." That says the exact same thing just in more clear and easier to understand words while avoiding NPOV and weasel flags. That sounds like a good and reasonable compromise. RTRimmel (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that nothing novel have been raised, that the tag should be removed, and the article intro should be remain as it is. Raul654 (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gone. --John (talk) 06:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Given the lengthly discussion over time, the neutrality of this article is still in dispute. Please read the archives to see the significant dispute editors have. Rodchen (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A dispute doesn't become significant (at least not in a relevant sense) just because one side never gives up. Otherwise all our articles on fringe topics would always have POV tags, since most fringe supporters are simply not the kind of persons who will give up just because they are faced with reason. The same applies here. The idea that waterboarding is not torture is a clear case of fringe both on an international level and also in a pure US context when you consider this question in the long term. One US president insisted on applying this torture technique and therefore started a campaign for reinterpreting it as something else. Ultimately he failed. (This Orwellian attempt to present torture as acceptable was symptomatic for the unusual collective self-centeredness and hypocrisy of US society – one of the most important reasons for the widespread anti-Americanism that led to the 2001 attacks. The US' reactions looked almost as if designed to increase the danger that similar events will occur in the future.) Hans Adler 08:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So then when should the tag be removed? The tag specifically says 'The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.' Please abide by Wikepedia directions. Rodchen (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am inclined to cut the Gordian Knot. In every manufactroversy there is somebody opposing consensus. The mere existense of contradictory comments is apparently evidence of a controversy, and as such becomes an argument to place a POV tag. The situation at hand is very simple, this debate has been restarted a thousand times. Every time we find that the position of the overwhelming majority of experts (note: I am not including pundits, politicians, WP editors, and other individuals with an axe to grind without the necessary qualifications) is that waterboarding is torture, homeopathy is placebo, vaccines do not cause autism, the earth is not flat, et cetera. It cannot be the case that anyone pushing the restart button gets rewarded by allowing what amounts to unconstructive editing to repeatedly derail those article. Please acquaint yourselves with denialism and cognitive dissonance.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for Edit regarding Waterboarding use

According to the cited references, the article states: Alleged Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. but it should state: In recent years, the CIA used waterboarding on three Al-Qaeda suspects (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) during the 2002 to 2003 time frame. Rodchen (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I changed the intro per above request; alleged suspect is redundant. --agr (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Classification as torture

Let's say that it is "generally regarded as torture".

Although apparently only US Republicans and CIA operatives (of unknown political affiliation) refuse to call it "torture", it would seem not to be a universally accepted point that waterboarding is torture. There are also those (such as the APA) who want similarly to extend the definition of torture to include hooding; forced nakedness; stress positions; slapping or shaking; and isolation.

These are certainly coercive - everyone agrees on this, starting with the advocates of such techniques. In fact, the only reason US anti-terrorist interrogators do these things is to get information on what the "terrorists" are doing or planning: i.e., "We'll make him talk."

For the intro to say simply that it is torture isn't neutral. This would discourage readers from going any further and discovering that there is a controversy. In fact, it would violate our undue weight policy, by implying that a greater percentage of advocates (i.e., 100%) take this position than actually do.

(By the way, for what it's worth, I don't have a position on whether anything "is torture". I'm just trying to make sure that we describe all viewpoints fairly, per NPOV.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum. There is no requirement that a fact be universally accepted for it to be stated as a fact in Wikipedia. The Earth article uncritically stated that the earth is around, and does not give any credence to those who claim it is flat. Likewise, a few Bush administration lawyers (who were brought in for the express purpose of giving legal justification for what is clearly illegal activity) not withstanding, everyone regards waterboarding as torture. Raul654 (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Even the main Bush memo drafter, John Yoo, has expressed doubts about approving waterboarding: http://www.mainjustice.com/2010/02/22/yoo-forgot-he-approved-waterboarding/ --agr (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Some will never confront reality no matter how much it's pocking their nose.TMCk (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling it torture is neutral, because it is torture. As previously discussed at great, great length here. We quite rightly don't carry a disclaimer on the lede of the 9/11 article stating that some people think it was an inside job either. People who don't believe waterboarding is torture are in the same loony category as those who think 9/11 was an inside job. --John (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like to comment on a commnet, but John, saying that people whose opinion differ from yours are "loony" does not bolster your argument. There is nothing in your comment but opinion. Opinion doesn't count here. Uncle Ed said it best. The LEAD should refer to the technique as "coercive". If you want to discuss the "torture" appelation later in the article, fine. The term has become too politically charged to be in the first sentence. When I saw that, it called into question for me the remainder of the article. The whole problem is that the term "torture" does not have a strict enough definition for wiki to use it. Since it is open to SUBJECTIVE interpretation, it does not belong in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.159.226 (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP goes by the sources and represents a world wide view on the subject.TMCk (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Using John Yoo as a reference with respect to APPROVING waterboarding says NOTHING about its classification as torture. In fact, John Yoo has pointed out that 20,000 of our own military have been waterboarded as training for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. Does the US torture its own soldiers? The fact is "Waterbaording is a form of torture" is a politically charged term, intentionally used to slant the discussion, and absolutely does not belong as the lead. It's categorization as torture is ambiguous. I have offered the alternative "waterboarding is a coercive interrogation technique (some argue torture)" as the lead. This phrase, in fact, SETS THE TABLE for discussion, it doesn't try to stiffle it as the current lead does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 12 September 2011

The US does indeed apply torture technique to its own soldiers. I could not immediately find a highly reliable source for this fact, but the following speaks about the same practices in the British and Australian forces:

Similarly, British SAS training includes a 'Combat Survival' course where trainees: 'receive lessons and lectures in interrogation techniques from people who have been POWs, tortured or have other experiences … At the end [of the training] every SAS man has to withstand interrogation training. The men are blindfolded, put in stress positions and interrogated for over 48 hours. White noise (sound) is also used. After a week on the run, cold, dehydrated and exhausted, the mind sometimes starts to play tricks and reality becomes blurred.'

It is worth noting that the techniques of forced standing ('stress positions'), noise bombardment, blindfolding, poor food, and sleep deprivation are commonly recognized torture techniques – they form part of the 'five techniques' used by the British in 1971 in Ireland and clearly meet the definition of torture as described in Chapter 5. The instructors of the Green Beret training course deny that such training constitutes torture but 'the Army will not publicly disclose what the limits [of the physical and mental pressure put on trainees in the mock POW camp] are so it can maximize the anxiety for future students'.

We cannot therefore know exactly what the mock interrogations involve. However, when these techniques are applied to others they clearly do constitute torture. Former Australian Defence Minister Robert Hill admitted as much when he revealed that the interrogation resistance training of Australian elite troops involved techniques such as sleep deprivation and 'psychological tricks' that were in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

This is from J. Wolfendale, Torture and the Military Profession, Palgrave Macmillan 2007. Hans Adler 20:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

This has also been discussed ad nauseum. Those soldiers are been subjected to a training session VOLUNTARILY in a controlled environment by fellow military buddies. They no doubt experience some of the physical and mental suffering of real torture but they also know and are certain that no harm will come to them and that the duration of the exercise is limited. In summation a voluntarily training session demonstrating the effectiveness of a waterboarding torture session is not the same as a real waterboarding torture session.--LexCorp (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"This has also been discussed ad nauseum." Yes it has. And it's still not settled. Which is why the lead sentence continues to be biased. Sorry, the idea that waterboarding of terrorists is "real" while waterboarding of our own soldiers is somehow "fake" is laughable. However, rather than permitting this article (particularly in its lead) to reflect the fact that there are varying views, thus drawing the reader to the larger discussion, Wiki has allowed a single political view to have sway, thus stiffling debate. Too bad. It damages the credibility of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Added the following to article with citation:

Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School has stated in testimony before the U.S. Senate's Committee on Armed Services that there are fundamental differences between SERE training and what occurs in real world settings.[17]

I advise you read both the article and more importantly the testimony of Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg (link to hearing is in the article).--LexCorp (talk) 17:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The declassified Bush administration memos make clear that what was done to CIA detainees far exceeded what is done in SERE training, but that misses the point. The purpose of SERE is to train military personnel to evade capture and what to expect if they are captured. That includes exposure torture. Military training is not done by PowerPoint presentations. The earliest public report of this training said "A Navy spokesman admitted use of the ‘water board’ torture . . . to ‘convince each trainee that he won’t be able to physically resist what an enemy would do to him.’” It would be irresponsible not to use the real thing in such training. Perhaps the best evidence is the widely reported inability of SERE trainees to resist waterboarding. Are you seriously suggesting that young, fit, highly-motivated US Special Forces, the best of the best, succumb to anything that doesn't rise to the level of torture?--agr (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. And it is not me that says it but Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School. Read the article and the testimony.--LexCorp (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ecgberth1, losing a debate is not the same as having debate stifled. Debate on this issue cannot be said to have been stifled. It has gone on and on and on and is all archived for perusal. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

LexCorp, you argue that the further reference to the article about Dr. Ogrisseg is "unrelevant [sic]. unless we go into why he thinks so which is not the place of the summary." This part of the summary deals with whether waterboarding in SERE is appropriate for training. Dr. Ogrisseg's contribution is important. You introduced the article. The doctor's opinion must be fairly represented, even in the summary, not cherry-picked. The "but he still advised against waterboarding members of the SERE class." has been restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 01:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This part of the summary does not deal with whether waterboarding in SERE is appropriate for training. It is a direct response to the unqualified argument, in the previous sentence, by Yoo that equates torture to what SERE trainees experience while training. You are the one cherry-picking because you give the impression (by not qualifying it) that the recommendation not to include waterboarding in the SERE program has something to do with said argument when it does not. It is totally unrelated and Dr. Ogrisseg explains in testimony that he was against it because it "produces learned helplessness, a training result we tried strenuously to avoid.". Thus I am reverting to previous version.--LexCorp (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

LexCorp, you say "This part of the summary does not deal with whether waterboarding in SERE is appropriate for training." It ABSOLUTELY does and YOU'RE THE ONE WHO INTRODUCED IT! Read the previous portion of the paragraph. Initially, the paragraph dealt with whether WB is used or not in training ... period. That is the context in which the Yoo comment was offered by the other poster. The comment from Yoo reflects the fact that many soldiers were trained with waterboarding even though the DOD will not answer the question with respect to CURRENT practices. Your introduction of the article about Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony, in fact, is what introduces the "quality" issue. You introduced as a purported comment from Dr. Ogrisseg that there is a qualitative difference between WB in training and in real life, although that misrepresents what Dr. Ogrisseg says in his testimony. I read the entire transcript of the testimony of Mr. Shiffrin, LC Baumgartner, Dr. Ogrisseg, and a number of others. (grueling!) In fact, when asked about WB for interrogation rather than training by LC Baumgartner, in testimony he states "He replied that some people were asking from above about the utility of using this technique against the enemy for the same reasons I wouldn't use it in training. I replied that I wouldn't go down that path because, aside from being illegal, it was a completely different arena that we in the Survival School didn't know anything about" (and later) "and also giving my opinion about the waterboard with respect to training. I don't believe that it should be used anywhere, that was my stance that I was taking at that time." Your statement about what Dr. Ogrisseg testified to is not accurate. In fact, he states more than once in his testimony that he has no experience in the arena of real-life WBing. Even though it strays from the topic, it can stand, I suppose, since in your mind it offers some sort of "rebuttal" to Yoo's simple, factual statement that WB was used to train 20,000 soldiers. But the discussion is not whether there is a qualitative difference but whether it is currently, has been, or should be used. Dr. Ogrisseg speaks to that in saying that he advises against waterboarding members of SERE - that it should not be used. What your "impressions" are, are not relevant. Would someone else be interested in weighing in on this? Otherwise, LexCorp's disruptive edit to REMOVE additional information to try to make some sort of point, will send this article for dispute resolution. I have reworded this portion of the paragraph to better reflect Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony. Because of the way it shifts the discussion (as noted above) the entire Ogrisseg reference should probably be stricken and moved somewhere else in the article. Also, I think the actual testimony of Dr. Ogrisseg provides a much more accurate source than an article that is little more than someone else's opinion/summary about what he said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me start by pointing out that WP:AGF is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. I do not make disruptive edits. WP:PRIMARY explains that we have to be very careful when using primary source material and that any interpretation of primary source material must originate from a secondary source and not from us and it specifically forbids synthesizing primary source material by editors. Given this I restored the secondary source and its original wording and also suggest that you should find a direct quote from the testimony instead of "reworded this portion of the paragraph to better reflect Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony". As for removing Dr. Ogrisseg entirely from the summary I would agree if we also remove Yoo's comments given that the same arguments can be given for its removal. In fact I will be ok with the entire removal of the 3rd paragraph as it adds nothing about the main subject and it fails to summarize the article. Finally, let me also point out that your interpretation as to the function of the this part of the summary is not in agreement with mine.--LexCorp (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

LexCorp - Let me state categorically that I did not mean to imply bad faith. If you read this discussion page, however, you will not find that to be the case with every contributor. It is clear that some views will not even be entertained without a response dripping with ridicule. That's a shame. I know the rules of Wiki. If my frustration came out too harshly in this forum, I apologize. I pled for a third-party comment as we seemed to be at an impasse and I was not hearing fair, logical arguments, and truly, I mean no offense by that. For example, you say that you would agree to remove Dr. Ogrisseg's reference from the paragraph ... as long as we remove Yoo's comments "given that the same arguments can be given for its removal". That's the point. The same arguments can't be given. Yoo's comment speaks to whether waterboarding was used as a training technique within SERE. That was the subject of the paragraph. I get that you want to ensure that the point is presented that there is a qualitative difference between SERE WBing and real-life WBing. We can accomplish that with a simple qualifier and the appropriate references. I would propose this:
"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however there are qualitative differences between waterboarding for SERE training and waterboarding used in interrogation (ref 22,23).
End of paragraph.
If that is acceptable to you, I will make the change.
As for removing the paragraph entirely, why would you want to do that? The "waterboarding" page would be of little interest to most folks if it were not for its use in the Bush administration and the steps the administration took to justify its use. Associated with that, is its use in SERE training, so that also belongs. Removing it doesn't make sense to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am one of those editors that think this article is the poster child of Recentism and that it should contain just a description of the torture technique that is waterboarding and a sparse summary of its historical application. Deferring all discussion on the current use and classification controversy to other articles such as Torture and the United States. That is my reasoning on deleting the 3rd paragraph. As for a compromise I would be ok with a slight modification to your suggestion:

"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however experts (in the matter) have stated that there are fundamental qualitative differences between the application of waterboarding for SERE training and waterboarding as used for interrogation in real world settings (ref 22,23).

My version is an improvement because it identifies the qualitative differences statement as originating from experts (in the matter) as opposed to Yoo's non expert statement. Again the word fundametal because it appears in the source and because it is fundamentally different to subject yourself to the treatment voluntarily than not. Also added the "in real world settings" to make clear the distinction. By the way the part in the parenthesis, namely "in the matter", is optional and if you agree to the compromise it will end in the article without the parenthesis.--LexCorp (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

On your first point, with respect to scope, those are much bigger fish to fry than we are about here.
As for your suggestions, these are not slight modifications, they are significant, and I think need some refining. I will break them down. First, "experts". So far, we're relying on the Congressional testimony of one expert. As shown in the section "U.S. Military survival training", other psychological experts were used to reverse-engineer the SERE process to use training WBing for interrogation. So I would argue for "An expert" instead. By the way, you state that Yoo's statement is non-expert. Why? Yoo stated that 20,000 SERE trainees were waterboarded. Nothing more. As DAAG, he was certainly in a position to know that. That makes his statement, by definition, expert. He did not make any statement with respect to the WBing itself or how it was carried out. Only on the number. Second, "qualitative" difference is acceptable, but "fundamental", no. That is because Dr. Ogrisseg talks about qualitative differences in his testimony. Nowhere does he talk about "fundamental" differences, in either the testimony or the article about the testimony. The term "fundamental differences" is introduced by Alex Knapp, the author. Mr. Knapp, is a political writer and hardly qualifies as "expert" on WBing. In my opinion, the secondary reference should be stricken. We have the original reference. Everything else in the secondary reference is a political writer's opinion. Not expert and it doesn't really add anything. When an article starts out "One distressing meme ..." you have the opinion of someone with an axe to grind.
The latter changes are good ones as they do clarify Dr. Ogrisseg's position. I would suggest the following:
"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however one expert in the psychological effects of waterboarding has stated that there are qualitative differences between the application of waterboarding for SERE training and waterboarding as used for interrogation in real world settings (ref 22,23). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.135.248 (talk) 02:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Your disregard of my secondary source (I could argue equally as for the source of Yoo's comment being the Laura Ingraham Show) and your preference for synthesizing Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony on your own concerns me as it is clear it is going to be difficult for us to reach a middle ground. To you it seems that the fact that SERE training is a voluntary experience is a "qualitative" difference but to me it is a "fundamental" difference. Dr. Ogrisseg's testimony uses neither thus I propose to include it in the sentence and leave it to the reader to make up his mind. You keep stating that Yoo's comment is factual but it is not. He made the comment under his (retracted) thesis that waterboarding is not torture and that if it were so the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to torture. In that sense the statement is not factual. It is a shame that we have allowed this cherry picked statement in the article without being accompanied with its proper context. The fact is that those troops are subjected to a training session (mockup of waterboarding). That is why it is important under NPOV to represent views from other people expressing their expert view that waterboarding is not the same as SERE's training exercise. Yoo is neither an expert in SERE training nor an expert in interrogation techniques nor an expert on torture. He is only an expert on judicial matters (and a discredited one at that). So he is not qualified to make statements as to what goes on in SERE training much less state that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding. On those grounds we really should just remove that sentence from the article as it comes from a non expert source which have been proven unreliable. Anyway I suggest the following:

"John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan(ref 21), however Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg former head of Psychological Services for the Air Force SERE School has stated that there are differences between the application of waterboarding in voluntary SERE training and the application of waterboarding as used for interrogation in real world settings (ref 22,23).

I hope this is ok with you. It is factual and avoids introducing POV terms like qualitative/fundamental whether they originate in the sources or are introduced by us. Also it is much better to identify the expert by naming him and stating his expertise.--LexCorp (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Better source

A far better source for the fact that waterboarding done to CIA detainees was not the same as the procedure used in SEER training is the US Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility final report http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/OPRFinalReport090729.pdf , page 84, last paragraph.--agr (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

GI Jane

I added a mention to the "Examples in Fiction" related to the film GI Jane. This was removed by Raul654, with the comment that dunking is not waterboarding. Apparently Raul654 has not seen the film in question (I saw it two days ago), because there are two separate incidents in the film. The incident that Raul seems to refer to is during the fight between Demi Moore and Viggo Mortensen, where he holds her head underwater to try and coerce the other men. This is clearly dunking.

However, there is another event, earlier in the film, where Moore's character is strapped face-up on a head-down incline board, with a cloth wrapped over her eyes and nose, as water is poured over her face. This is SERE waterboarding, pure and simple. Unless there is some strong dissent over this incident as portrayed in the film (e.g. the technique as shown is inaccurate), I will restore my entry within a few days. EJSawyer (talk)

I've seen the movie several times, but it's been a while since I last saw it. Yes, I was thinking of the scene near the end where the Master Chief (played by Moretensen) dunks her and mimics raping her. I had forgotten about the earlier scene until you mentioned it. Raul654 (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I have restored the entry. EJSawyer (talk)

your opinion please...

I haven't been following this article evolution that carefully. It used to contain a third level subsection entitled Animatronic_depiction_of_waterboarding_at_Coney_Island. It described the efforts of a conceptual artist, named Steve Powers to install a "waterboarding thrill ride" at Coney Island. This section was removed with the edit summary "rm section is in two other places".

Yes, the ride has an article of its own, and is covered in our article on the artist. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be covered here as well. The power of the wikipedia lies in how topics are interlinked. I suggest this thrill ride is relevant to this article as well. The thrill ride was a notable critical response to the USA's use of waterboarding, and, as such, merits some coverage in the article on waterboarding. Individuals can differ on the length or wording of this coverage, but I don't think there are grounds to argue there should be no coverage of the waterboarding thrill ride in the article on waterboarding.

I looked in the talk page archives to see if this issue has been discussed before here. I couldn't find an instance and I don't remember an instance.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

2012 Republican presidential primaries

Apparantly this is an issue in politics again, with notable people (maybe-presidents,others) having opinions. Would something on this be worthy of inclusion, perhaps as section 6.4? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/15/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-torture-banned-under-us-internationa/ Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Half the lead section is United States

...not only that, but it starts with "In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was..." initiating the paragraph with no sense that it is in the United States. The entire block of text relating to the US is unworthy to be in the lead section. --ZooFari 05:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The CIA is very well known internationally. After all, it acts internationally, e.g. when it criminally kidnaps people in Italy [18] while under surveillance by the local law enforcement forces, who are under the impression they are dealing with ordinary organised crime. It is no more necessary to contextualise the CIA as being a US institution than we need to contextualise Paris as being in France.

That the US is making up more than half of the lead isn't a US-centric bias so much as a case of WP:RECENTISM. Readers worldwide will immediately think of the US when they hear of this torture technique, because the US is the country that has popularised it. Hans Adler 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think it is a bit too detailed for it to be a component of the introduction. If it is as such, then it should be reduced to give a more broad perspective. I'm particularly talking about the last paragraph, which in my opinion is too specific and centered on the U.S. --ZooFari 03:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

After the Spanish-American War of 1898- clarification

at the the section titled "After the Spanish-American War of 1898", the fourth paragraph starts with a sentence I find confusing: "Though some reports seem to confuse Ealdama with Glenn,[108] he was found guilty". Changing 'he' to 'Glenn'. comments? Drorzm (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Legal memo recently disclosed

A memo written by a Department of State official during the Bush years has recently become available to the public. This memo provides a legal analysis regarding the use of waterboarding. You can find the memo here - [19] There may be something from this memo and the coverage to incorporate into this article. Remember (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

HUGE FALSEHOOD CONTAINED IN LEDE

There is a major problem with the lede that I would like to just remove, but since the article is so hotly controversial I should discuss it first here. The Lede asserts that in WW2 the USA hanged Japanese officers for waterboarding American POWs. This never happened. No Japanese officers were hanged for waterboarding US prisoners, there were a few of the japanese high command that were hung for massive war crimes such as initiating the invasion of China, the bombing of Pearl Harbour, the execution of US POWs, and bascially starting the whole war with the US. None of them were charged with waterboarding anyone. The source supporting this line in the lede is a quote from Sen John McCain, but McCain was simply mistaken, he spoke in error. There was a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, charged with numerous crimes which did include waterboarding as well as much more severe crimes like beatings, clubbing, and burning with cigarettes, and he was sentenced to 15 years in prison. That's it. No one was executed. The section "Legality - US Law" lower down in the article describes the Asano case. There is no mention is the entire article of japanese officers being executed, because it never happened except according to what McCain once said. I'm amazed that this line is in the lede and hasn't been removed, the fact that it is there at all shows that this article is still very NPOV and riddled with political bias. Any objection to my removing this line? Suggestions for how it could be modified if people think McCain's erroneous quote should remain in the lede?Walterego (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

For further information, simply read the wiki article about the war crimes trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#War_crimes_trials http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East#Charges which describe that the prime minister and six generals (including Tojo) were sentenced to death and executed for the class A war crime of "Crime against the peace" Walterego (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Crimes against peace is a class C I believe, in any case one of the war crimes was waterboarding. You can read the transcripts, but the viewpoint that they were not torture is based on an interview between Paul Begala and Ari Fleischer, Begala said it was toture and that's one of the reasons they were executed. Mark Hemingway stated that was wrong, and gave an incorrect rational as to why. Begala is correct according to the testimony at the International Military Tribuneral, though they called it water cure while describing what we would refer to as waterboarding. Given one minute of web searching has discredited your point I'd suggest we leave in the correct information. 161.150.2.58 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed in United Stated Law

"However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightninlew (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

John McCain

This article says "The Republican 2008 candidate for president, Senator John McCain who himself was tortured during his six years at the Hanoi Hilton". I.e. six years at the Hanoi Hilton.

The article on Hanoi Hilton says "Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who spent parts of his five and a half years as a POW there." I.e parts of five and a half years.

The article on John McCain says "John McCain's capture and subsequent imprisonment began on October 26, 1967." and "He was released on March 14, 1973." - making it a little less than 5 years 6 months. After capture "McCain was then transported to Hanoi's main Hoa Lo Prison, nicknamed the 'Hanoi Hilton'" and continues "Although McCain was badly wounded, his captors refused to treat his injuries, beating and interrogating him to get information; he was given medical care only when the North Vietnamese discovered that his father was a top admiral.[36] His status as a prisoner of war (POW) made the front pages of major newspapers.[37][38] McCain spent six weeks in the hospital while receiving marginal care.[33] By then having lost 50 pounds (23 kg), in a chest cast, and with his hair turned white,[33] McCain was sent to a different camp on the outskirts of Hanoi[39] in December 1967, into a cell with two other Americans who did not expect him to live a week.[40] In March 1968, McCain was put into solitary confinement, where he would remain for two years.[41]" - thus it sounds that The time at the "Hanoi Hilton" did last from about late October 1967 to December 1967 (including six weeks in a hospital). I.e. anything from a few months to less than five and a half year.

I have no knowledge of which of the above that fit with the facts, but not everthing does! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Episcophagus (talk • contribs) 20:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the text to "Senator John McCain who himself was tortured during his 5-1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam" which I believe is accurate per the above.--agr (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 October 2012

Hello,

Please change 'hanged' to 'hung' in the second paragraph, second line, tenth word from the left

Thank you NabYar (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: hanged is the correct term for hanging someone by the neck. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Fixing vague titles

The titles are very vague and inconsistent for the sections about when and where it was used. In most cases it's possible to say who used the technique, where, and when - and all without making the titles any longer.

Here's an example of a vague title:

• After the Spanish-American War of 1898

Did it happen in America or Spain? Was it done by the Americans or the Spanish?

Correct answer: it happened in the Philippines, and it was done by the US soldiers. So I changed the title to:

• By the US in the Philippines after 1898

Clearer and much more informative. Gronky (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent editing!Parkwells (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013

Addition to the "Examples in Fiction"

The movie "Zero dark thirty" shows waterboarding done by CIA agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu197a (talk • contribs) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edited Lead for chronology and sense

Edited to establish the Torture Memos were written in August 2002, and then the administration officials defended waterboarding and other forms of torture - they had decided to support them. Also, this article is confusing, as more information came out earlier - at least one of the Torture memos was leaked to the press in mid-2004 soon after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in April-May 2004. Arguably those abuses were aided by John Yoo's memo of March 14, 2003 to the General Counsel of DOD, five days before the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, which started March 19; Yoo concluded that federal laws prohibiting torture and other abuses did not apply to interrogators dealing with subjects overseas. (This memo was kept classified and secret until 2008.) This interpretation was later overruled, as was the Bush OLC interpretation that Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatant detainees. (Overruled by the US Supreme Court.) Under Pres. Obama, the OLC repudiated all advice on torture given to federal agencies from 2001 through 2008 before he took office.Parkwells (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Effects according to HRW

Should not be in the lead and if used should be attributed to them. Their view is not that which is widely held by experts. 108.172.113.23 (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? So what is the "view widely held by experts" then?TMCk (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Waterboarding/Sources 76.23.121.6 (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Split section "Waterboarding in the United States" to new article

Because of its recentness, importance to modern history, etc; and because this section takes up over half the article, Waterboarding in the United States (or perhaps Waterboarding and the War on Terror) should be split it into a new article. Please post your support/objections/suggestions over the next week, or just do it anyway. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should stay as is, it's true that the US use of it is beginning to dominate the article. That could be somewhat addressed by including other users of it in the article. However I think even with that it would heavily cover the US. This isn't neccessarily a bad thing, as the current use of it by the US has brought the issue so much more into public conciousness. If the US wasn;t doign it, it wouldn't be here. If the most notable users of something are dominating the article, but there still is an effort to have a worldview it's okay - Don't fix it unless it's broken. Also any movement of that content out is likely to draw down another edit war, as one side or the other is likely to say its either dimunating the facts, or an overdue sidelining of subject. Even if you think it does need that split, think of the risks of doing so. 76.23.121.6 (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012

Addition to the "Examples in Fiction"

Waterboarding is also displayed in the 2012 movie Safe House starring Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington, in the movie shortly after Washington's character (Tobin Frost) is brought in he is waterboarded in order to extract information.

Waterboarding is shown in the new Expendables movie with Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham as well as on the new the tv show Scandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.66.22 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Description

I feel that the description is lacking somewhat. "water is poured over cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning" - surely it should be stated whether water passes through the cloth into the airways? This issue isn't explicitly dealt with. I assume some water must get in the airways (since 'lung damage' is mentioned), but on the other hand - if 'cellophane' is used, then the water can't get through and torturees must be pussies for panicking so much (heavy irony being used btw). Could someone clear this up and clarify it in the text please, perhaps in the "Mental and physical effects" section? Thx, Malick78 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice about free image review of main image

I's being reviewed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:Waterboard3-small.jpg.TMCk (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead is US centric

Really, why is it so US centric? The first paragraph is totally fine, but then the other two and half read almost like Waterboarding in the United States. Something should be changed here. This the en. Wikipedia, not us. Wikipedia. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Used in Korean war in 1951

The memoir The Edge Of The Sword by the British man Captain Farrar-Hockley includes a detailed description of undergoing water-boarding in a North Korean interogation centre in 1951 after being captured. See chapter eight. I would quote the description, but I would not want it to be used as a torturer's instruction manual. 92.28.249.253 (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Lack of attribution to statement on its reliability

The statement "According to at least one former CIA official, information retrieved from the waterboarding may not be reliable because a person under such duress may admit to anything, as harsh interrogation techniques lead to false confessions" does not contain a reference that identifies the alleged CIA official or attributes the statement to anyone specific. From my web searches this would appear to be a case of circular references with no legitimate original source. I request this statement be removed if it cannot be attributed. --Memarshall (talk) 09:46, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read two sentences further. The person is named and the comment is sourced to this ABC News article, which has it on page 2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2014

section "Technique", 2nd sentence:

change "...and water is poured on to the person's head."

to "...and water is poured onto the person's head."

71.35.20.185 (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment: John A. Rizzo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is John A. Rizzo an expert on waterboarding that is, can he be considered a high quality reliable source. Please see above talk section too. Glennconti (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Please clarify the question. The first and the second parts are not equivalent and can have different answers (for me those would be "probably" and "no"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is my understanding that I cannot reopen the debate on the lead sentence without a high quality reliable source. Editors have been saying that John A. Rizzo is "highly compromised". To me that implies they disputing that he is indeed a high quality source. I just want to proceed with the debate and settle the question of John A. Rizzo's suitablity. Glennconti (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Ok. In that case, no Rizzo is not a high-quality source. He is (or was) a lawyer for one side involved in the dispute and hence has to argue for that side, quite regardless of his expert opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• No - An attorney hired by a client is expected to advocate for that client. There is nothing wrong with that, it's how things are supposed to work. In some situations they may even tell the client no, you can't do that. That does not make them less of an advocate. This is true whether the client is the CIA, Coca-Cola or your favorite charity. A client's attorney can be a good source for facts about the client's position on an issue, but never a reliable source on the validity of that position, regardless of their reputation, expertise or personal belief in that position.--agr (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• No for the reasons given by ArnoldReinhold above. Lawyers are expected to argue a case for their clients. They are neither expected to be, nor recognised as, impartial experts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Yes Rizzo was not hired to advocate a position held by the CIA. His job while at the CIA was to evaluate the Justice departments position, pass judgement on that position and then implement it in the department if he considered it legal. Glennconti (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment limited solely to his involvement he is a reliable source. However he would be a Primary source wouldn't he? Your really isn't suited as is for RFC. You really aren't offering any context. This question is better suited for the reliable sources notice board.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• Dude. Waterboarding is considered toture by the majority. Not just by the wikipedia consensus but that of the reliable sources. The Minority view that it is not torture is covered. John Rizzo is not a reliable source that can be used to change the first sentence of the lead. If you would like Rizzo's positions to be included elsewhere in the article then Be bold but your argument has done nothing to change the consensus. The point made by telling you to get a reliale source is that this conversation has been had a thousand times over. Check the archives. WP:EXCEPTIONAL Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Rizzo does not meet that standard. Waterboarding in context to the use that Rizzo is aware is physical coersion. Please close this RFC and comeback when you have something.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you really want to pursue this further try NPOV noticeboardSerialjoepsycho (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

• No in terms of what you want to do with it. --John (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extrajudicial prisoners

"In late 2007, it was widely reported that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners ..."

This claim is obviously false because there are no Extrajudicial prisoners of the United States.

1. They are being held under the Geneva Conventions until the war ends.
2. They have all had the judicial review that is required.
3. Many have filed legal actions within the US legal system and all are eligible to do this.

Raggz (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a LEGAL decision was made there, so obviously they have legal access. Does anyone object to dropping this phrase?

A consensus that water boarding has not been proven to be torture

Torture is illegal under US law [18 U.S. Code § 2340) anywhere in the world. It is also illegal under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. There is nothing to debate here without a finding by a court with jurisdiction that torture has occurred or that water boarding is torture. I'm fine with changing the page name to UNSUBSTANTIATED RUMORS ABOUT WATER BOARDING. Otherwise, let's get real and deal with the fact that despite many cases brought, no one has yet established torture by water boarding, it is all allegations that have not yet prevailed.

NPR does not call water boarding torture for the exact reason that we should not, because it is an unproven claim. Raggz (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus That Waterboarding is torture?

": I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that the views of Cheney and a compromised CIA lawyer should carry the day? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)"

Neither really matters. Both are merely opinions. May we agree in the lead to summarize all of the legal decisions that actually have found that water boarding is illegal? This is an encyclopedia article so opinions are usually not what we discuss.

Even if we ALL agree that water boarding is torture would we then violate policy to put our opinions into the article?

Raggz (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It is my understanding that NPR does not call waterboarding torture because there is not a consensus that concludes waterboarding is indeed torture. See this NPR link [javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(106215824,%20106215505,%20null,%20NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW,%20NPR.Player.Type.STORY,%20'0')] Why does this WP article assume waterboarding is torture? Is WP's position POV? Glennconti (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please also see this source that calls into question whether or not waterboarding is torture [20] Glennconti (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The source you cite is one of the lawyers who who wrote the legal opinions that the CIA used to justify the use of waterboarding, opinions later repudiated by the Bush Administration. And even he says he was focused on the what constituted torture under the US law making it a felony, not the ordinary meaning of the term.--agr (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. This experienced high profile government lawyer is asserting to this day that waterboarding is not torture. Apparently his opinions were backed up by the justice department. Cheney continues to say to anyone that will listen that waterboarding is not torture; how is that being repudiated? Glennconti (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Did you mean to say "Obama Administration"? Glennconti (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to open a can of worms but I do not agree that this article's lead is neutral and have added this new source here [21] to see if we can revisit the subject. I believe that the way NPR handles the subject is better than the way we do. Glennconti (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that the views of Cheney and a compromised CIA lawyer should carry the day? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

No I am suggesting WP will "carry the day" if it acknowledges that there is open debate on the question of whether or not waterboarding is indeed torture as NPR has done. If a republican wins the executive office some day such as Rick Perry, we will need to reopen this question as he supports waterboarding because he does not believe it to be torture. This smacks as political decision and the winds are currently blowing democratic. Glennconti (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If Rick Perry wins the White House will we have to rew From "Fringe": all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.---- Assuming for a second that waterboarding is not torture is a fringe theory, then it would deserve some weight wouldn't it? Where is the proportionately representation of the idea that waterboarding is not torture? The lede states as a fact waterboarding is torture. Glennconti (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)rite our article on evolution too? [22] --agr (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick there are many republicans that favor waterboarding as a method of gaining intelligence. As far as a suggested edit instead of saying waterboarding is torture we say the majority of people and experts believe waterboarding to be torture. Glennconti (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of unambiguous statements from recognized experts and organizations that waterboarding is indeed torture. We have minimal opposing opinions, and these overwhelmingly politically motivated and often from people directly involved in the practice. This falls under WP:FRINGE. The fact that there are "many XXX that favor waterboarding as a method of gaining intelligence" is quite irrelevant. In the 16th century, many people favored the rack as a method of gaining intelligence on witches. That does not mean that racking was not torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are afraid of. If 29 percent [23] of people say waterboarding is not torture, this is not fringe. Why not just say what we know about it being a majority opinion instead of stating it as fact? Glennconti (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, now you mention it, these people are somewhat scary. However, we are discussing an article which is about waterboarding in general, not just about waterboarding in the US. And your outdated (2007) poll does not refer, as you put it, to 29 percent "of people". The source says it's 29 percent of Americans. And maybe not even Americans in the proper sense... but merely 29 percent of people who live in the US. On the world stage this is a very small fringe view drawn from a group of people who would also be inclined to believe evolution is not science. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Almost any fringe theory will show significant support in opinion polls. Flying saucers are real, the mafia killed JFK, 9-11 was staged, Elvis is alive, you name it. According to a 2013 poll, 33% of Americans believe “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.” [24] Should we say evolution is "a majority opinion instead of stating it as fact?"--agr (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

From "Fringe": all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately.---- Assuming for a second that waterboarding is not torture is a fringe theory, then it would deserve some weight wouldn't it? Where is the proportionately representation of the idea that waterboarding is not torture? The lede states as a fact waterboarding is torture. Glennconti (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming for a second that 2+2 is 5, then 2 times 5 is 8... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Assuming for a moment that the Earth is flat, perhaps that opinion should be mentioned in the lead of our article on Earth, as long as I can find an ancient poll that backs me up. Sound ok? --John (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not yet concede "waterboarding is not torture" can be catagorized as a fringe therory. But, if it is, as you propose it deserves proportionate weight. Glennconti (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

As the FAQ at the top of this page says, "If you wish to change the assertion that waterboarding is a form of torture... [you] should support your proposal with high quality reliable sources, such as from medical or legal scholars, supporting why it would not be an accurate description." All you have provided here is an outdated poll of a group of people who have notoriously unreliable views on all sorts of matters. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please check the sources list at the top of this page. I have indeed provided a new source, as required. Please check the history for the John A Rizzo source from January of 2014. Glennconti (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John Rizzo is a highly compromised CIA lawyer with a strong COI in the matter. In what sense can his protestations be viewed as a reliable source? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

John Rizzo is an expert on the matter of waterboarding and was general counsel of the CIA during the time that waterboarding was performed under the Bush administration. What do you mean "high compromised" is that a euphemism for appointed by a different administration?

Please try to be coherent. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

All I am proposing is that we treat this subject like NPR does and I get every sort of attack back. Standing up for the minority is not so easy. Glennconti (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"Every sort of attack"? Your experience must be extremely limited if you think so. But back to the topic. "Highly compromised" means, in this context, at least to me, that he himself was significantly involved in the practice, and shares a significant part of the responsibility. Relying on his statement is a bit like asking Bill Clinton for a definition of "sex". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "responsibility"? Is this article some sort of indictment? There are those that say that "Waterboarding is torture" and there are those who don't. There are those that say the "responsibility" from Rizzo's and others actions is a safer USA and the death of Osama Bin Laden (supposedly these are the result of intelligence gained from enhanced interrogation[25]). Your POV is that these men are some sort of criminals. I don't buy your Clinton analogy. Rizzo has not disqualified himself as being an expert on this matter. Glennconti (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not some forum for you to disgorge dilapidated opinions. Please confine your discussion to reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I did provide a reliable source here [26]. It was CIA Chief Leon Panetta's opinion. You must have missed it. Glennconti (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

(Umm, let's keep this civil please.) Mr. Rizzo and his colleagues only argue that waterboarding does not qualify as torture under what they admit is a narrow reading of the US statute prohibiting torture and the stipulations under which the US ratified the United Nations Convention Against Torture. They do not argue that it isn't torture under the ordinary meaning of the word, or under what most ratifiers of the convention understood it to mean. We discuss those views early in the article and at great length in a separate article Torture Memos linked from there. That is plenty of weight given to their views. Also note that the UN convention, which the US ratified, says in article 2: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."--agr (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, Rizzo says under US law waterboarding is not torture. And you are saying that the ordinary person would say waterboarding is torture. Why does the ordinary meaning trump the US legal definition? And why can't we use a qualifier such as "waterboarding is torture under the common understanding of the term"Glennconti (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong. Rizzo only says that he does not concede the point - which may be a mere tactical manoeuvre. Also, he may be lying, or "dissembling". Like Clinton about sex - see above. It's not his expertise that is under question, but his impartiality and motives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's what Rizzo said:

On whether, in retrospect, he believes waterboarding is a form of torture:

No. I'm a lawyer, and torture is legally defined in U.S. law. If I had concluded — or, more importantly, if the Justice Department had concluded — that these techniques constitute torture, we would never have done them. So I can't say they were torture. I didn't concede it was torture then, and I don't concede that it's torture now.

Read the first word of the response to the question of whether water boarding is a form of torture."No." Glennconti (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC) It just doesn't get any plainer than that. Under US Law waterboarding is not torture; then or now. (according to this reliable source) Glennconti (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Rizzo is just one attorney who was hired to advocate for his client, the CIA, hardly a reliable source for the validity of that client's views. And the opinions he supports were subsequently repudiated by the Inspector General of the Justice Department and the President of the United States, so his view has no legal significance anymore, if it ever did. More importantly, torture is a crime under international law, and numerous experts have said waterboarding is torture under that standard.--agr (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. He was not hired to advocate for the CIA. He was there to determine if in fact waterboarding was torture. If it was determined waterboarding was torture he would have disallowed its use as he had done for other methods. Both he and the Justice department determined waterboarding was not torture and therefore allowed its use. The people that repudiated him were politically motivated. You see waterboarding is not a popular method and pandering to the vote the President and his administration stopped its use via executive order (See 2008 Democratic Party Platform Torture(Waterboarding) & Guantanamo Bay [27]). Rizzo is a reliable source and the fact that he is in the minority does not silence his voice. His views deserve proportional treatment as NPR currently allows. Glennconti (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What percentage of the world's people live in the US? This view represents a minority view from someone with a COI who was hired to defend one regime's use of this torture. Why should it have more weight than the entire rest of the world over the entirety of recorded history? --John (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is a minority view. The view that "waterboarding is not torture" is currently given no weight by WP in the lede sentence. It is a minority view that should be given some weight. As I have already said there is no COI and he was not hired to defend torture. Rizzo is a reliable source to represent this viewpoint as it is held by him and others. Glennconti (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The weight he is given just now is about right. I won't respond further here; please read the archives. --John (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

From the Archives: The original request called for legitimate sources presenting evidence of a valid dispute. It appears to me as if this section contains several sources that qualify. I therefore think that a changed wording to "Waterboarding is an extreme interrogation technique generally considered to be torture." is justified based on the non-fringe opinions evincing a genuine dispute. Opinions? -Lciaccio (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC). Seems like a completely reasonable solution. Glennconti (talk) 18:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Waterboarding cannot be a form of torture because if it were, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be sitting in jail based on the following from this article, "The United States Supreme Court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." However, the United States has a historical record of regarding water torture as a war crime, and has prosecuted as war criminals individuals for the use of such practices in the past". Bush and Cheney clearly are not sitting in jail. Commenters here who question the contention that opinion is split on whether waterboarding is torture or not, call for sources that it is not, while relying on "Human Rights Watch" and "New York Magazine" as THEIR sources! In fact, this article is, and always has been full of contradictions and worst of all, biased on the subject of waterboarding, and a travesty against truth and accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources, not on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You are free to believe what you wish, Andy, but based on the citations to support the first paragraph of this article, that is not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecgberht1 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You might try to read more carefully. Human Rights Watch hosts the source, but it was written (and signed) by more than 100 law professors and senior jurists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This article seems more an attack on America (in particular the GW Bush regime) than an article on waterboarding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.187.102 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 26 October

Wikipedia is showing its political colors by leading off with the statement that "waterboarding is torture". Wikipedia claims neutrality, but this article is clearly not neutral on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture. Credible newspaper sources have remained decidedly neutral on this issue, out of respect for the Bush Administration belief that it is not torture. If all credible newspaper sources are neutral, then why isn't Wikipedia? Answer: Because Wikipedia has a liberal bias. As far as this article is concerned, NPOV is a myth. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The article cites a multitude of expert sources on the subject which state clearly and unambiguously that waterboarding is a form of torture. The fact that some sectors of the right-wing U.S. media chose to ignore such expert opinion is of little relevance to an international encyclopaedia based on the best available sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You have just proven my point. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Change the lead

"Waterboarding is a form of torture, more specifically a type of water torture, in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning.

PROPOSED CHANGE

Waterboarding is in the opinion of many a form of torture, more specifically a type of water torture, in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning. There are however no findings by any court with jurisdiction that it is torture.

It is true that many do hold this opinion and it is also factual that these legal arguments always fail in court. Torture is a crime. If it is a crime, then the trial courts are the experts and none of them have found for this claim.

Why not just tell the truth? Raggz (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

What you propose has been discussed and rejected many times. See the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) at the top of the talk page.--agr (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that this is why the article is on probation? It remains a fact that water boarding has not been found to be torture. Many hold an *opinion* otherwise. We should be reporting the facts rather than running opinion polls. I think that we need to tell the truth.Raggz (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to this supposed legal ruling from a U.S. court? It doesn't appear to be discussed in the article. In any case, Wikipedia does not base content around the failure of a particular country to apply the same law to its own citizens when acting on behalf of the state that it does when dealing with allegations concerning the actions of others against U.S. nationals. The consensus amongst experts from amongst the international community is clear - waterboarding is a form of torture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Break Up The Article?

This appears to be and article about two things in places: waterboarding, and a debate about whether it is torture. It is a danger to life but it is not torture, unless it would be used in conjunction with some other practice or with severely painful pressure during asphyxiation stages, or painful ignored retention of too much water entered into respiratory tract (=system) during confessional or cooperative stages, or any suppression of natural body reactions to asphyxiation, instead of overall if used, it may also be a danger to mutual morality of interrogators and suspect in case no form of body cover even of light non-transparent fabric and psychic torture at that level endangering suspect confessional ability even for the simple reason of imprecise penance. Perhaps the article should describe only waterboarding, what it is, and it's history, and there could be a separate article about the political controversy over it's use in the US. The controversy is an interesting product of contemporary US politics, but will eventually be a historical footnote due to the fact that it is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.33.195 (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Shut this article down. It is not an encyclopedia article.

EXAMPLE: "Adverse physical consequences can manifest themselves months after the event, while psychological effects can last for years."

This is a story where one accused terrorist makes these allegations. This claim is not supported by a reliable source, it is in fact original research at best. It would be best to close this article and to not permit a new version because there is no ability to write an actual encyclopedia article here.

Here is a link to an actual encyclopedia article on this.

Raggz (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the Encyclopædia Britannica has no issues with unequivocally describing waterboarding as a form of torture. And no, we don't divide articles about a single subject into two because some people don't like part of the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Timing

Why does it only take 14 seconds to get results. Can't the subjects hold their breath? --41.151.57.143 (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Waterboarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090426200132/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/general_politics2/58_say_release_of_cia_memos_endangers_national_security to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/58_say_release_of_cia_memos_endangers_national_security

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Waterboarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120114091943/http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/breaking-news/story/1134305.html to http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/breaking-news/story/1134305.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110616201432/http://www.modbee.com/2028/story/677448.html to http://www.modbee.com/2028/story/677448.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Drowning

Does the victim ever drown due to water going through the cloth and into his mouth? 92.40.75.251 (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The victim may dry drown. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 13:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Waterboarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220210424/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081004115855/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/paperchase/2008/02/cia-chief-confirms-use-of-waterboarding.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/cia-chief-confirms-use-of-waterboarding.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071220210424/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu:80/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105062019/http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002 to http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525210652/http://www.mcclatchydc.com:80/homepage/story/68643.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68643.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101108052518/https://treaties.un.org:80/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en to http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Introduction length

Not sure how many would agree with me, but it seems that the introduction of this article is rather long and various parts (especially regarding the USA/politics) could be rearranged into sections below the contents box. Thoughts? GiggsIsLegend (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump: torture works

President Trump is correct in his personal view that "torture works'.

Quite so. with torture it is possible to make people confess to anything. for example, Hoess, in charge of Auschwitz was severely beaten several times, whipped, forced to drink alcohol and kept awake for three days by two British sergeants who prodded him with axe handles. He signed a false confession that four million people had been killed at Auschwitz, and mentioned a concentration camp that has never existed. He 'confessed' in English which he did not understand. He stated before he was hung that, with the methods that were used against him he would have confessed to several more millions.

The 'official figure', also based on nothing, of Auschwitz deaths is now estimated at a similarly impossible 1.5 million (20-30,000 tons of coals would be needed to cremate only one million people. Less than a thousand tons arrived. The task would not have been completed until decades after 1945 because even modern crematoria require more than an hour per person.

Yes, torture works but victims usually tell torturers what they want to hear, regardless of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.97.8 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

- Nothing like two Trump supporters discussing Holocaust denial. Insane.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.110.100 (talk) 09:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC) 

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2017

There is a section called "Classification in the U.S." It mentions Christopher Hitchens and Erich Muller as examples of people subjecting themselves to waterboarding and deeming it torture. It then talks about Sean Hannity offering and never doing so. There are many celebrities that have subjected themselves to waterboarding and deemed it not torture. On Dec 21 2016, Steven Crowder underwent waterboarding by a trained army ranger and confirmed his belief that it is not torture. [28] In the interest of sharing the whole-truth, there should be examples on both sides of something Andrew McCarthy said "reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture". 206.195.208.253 (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A fake comedy show is not a reliable source. To quote from one of the comments on the page: This is the farthest thing from waterboarding. This is essentially ”experimental sex” with a safe word. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Torture was ‘the norm’ in the North[ern Ireland], says university lecturer

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/torture-was-the-norm-in-the-north-says-university-lecturer-1.3185382 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14ba:8300::e558 (talk) 06:58, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Waterboarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/cia-chief-confirms-use-of-waterboarding.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2007/10/endgame-on-torture-time-to-call-bluff.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120125084355/http://imgbase-scd-ulp.u-strasbg.fr/displayimage.php?album=713&pos=106 to http://imgbase-scd-ulp.u-strasbg.fr/displayimage.php?album=713&pos=106
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513103921/http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/3_1.pdf to http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/3_1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109055454/http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV-9&chapter=4&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090429055909/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=96287 to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=96287
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502015654/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/01/un-torture-investigator-calls-on-obama.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/01/un-torture-investigator-calls-on-obama.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513202105/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/injustice-at-guantanamo-torture.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/injustice-at-guantanamo-torture.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508105006/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/just-following-orders-doj-opinions-and.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2008/02/just-following-orders-doj-opinions-and.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2017

I suggest to add in the "examples in fiction" section: Waterboarding of Special Agent Leroy jethro Gibbs is seen in the film series N.C.I.S (season 15, episode 1) (2017, Sept 26). 109.7.6.226 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done [29] Wumbolo (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Waterboarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130102225743/http://archive.glennbeck.com/news/12122007b.shtml to http://archive.glennbeck.com/news/12122007b.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223034004/http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/19/report-bush-lawyer-said-president-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred.aspx to http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/19/report-bush-lawyer-said-president-could-order-civilians-to-be-massacred.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090801062138/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21200.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/21200.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090427140720/http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/ to http://lawreview.wustl.edu/slip-opinions/waterboarding-is-illegal/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110809003051/http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808 to http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602070424/http://library.thinkquest.org/C002071/webalbum/pages/torture1.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C002071/webalbum/pages/torture1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508045731/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/01/debate-on-waterboarding-is-artificial.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/01/debate-on-waterboarding-is-artificial.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politifi.com/news/Colbert-Waterboard-Kiriakou-CIA-Faker-173500.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509085549/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/europe-rights-court-upholds-absolute.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/europe-rights-court-upholds-absolute.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426063407/http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm to http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~warcrime/Japan/Yokohama/Reviews/Yokohama_Review_Asano.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140405090817/http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/asano_case.pdf to http://www.2008electionprocon.org/pdf/asano_case.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090509035759/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/waterboarding-not-authorized-under.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/waterboarding-not-authorized-under.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508004934/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/04/rights-group-calls-for-special.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/04/rights-group-calls-for-special.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06/any_lawyers_want_to_get_waterb.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gothamist.com/2008/08/06/waterboard_thrill_ride_splashes_dow.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Waterboarding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110508002019/http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/46974 to http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/46974
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/26/cia_man_retracts_claim_on_waterboarding
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politifi.com/news/Colbert-Waterboard-Kiriakou-CIA-Faker-173500.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506033147/http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080227_transcript.pdf to http://www.dni.gov/testimonies/20080227_transcript.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/06/any_lawyers_want_to_get_waterb.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://gothamist.com/2008/08/06/waterboard_thrill_ride_splashes_dow.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dry drowning doesn't exist, apparently?

Just reading and cross referencing some articles. Apparently dry drowning is medically discredited - I suggest perhaps adding a snippet in there, as the drowning article it links to includes the statement that the concept is non-existent in the very lede. When two articles are inconsistent with one another on such a crucial element such as the reality of a claim it's probably best we bring them both in line with each other. At present it appears this article is protected, and as I'm on a public computer I can't login, so here's hoping someone who sees this will make the requisite changes and include the two links provided on the Drowning page, as I have included above and will again here 121.210.33.50 (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

References

A fresh look: is the question of 'is waterboarding torture' really a settled question?

First of all, no court of competent jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, has officially ruled that the CIA's waterboarding of three Al-Qaeda detainees was in fact "torture." This is the threshold we observe and firmly enforce when writing about living persons. And Gina Haspel is a living person.

Second, there have been many developments and new articles written since this question was addressed. All of the sources I've read, which are not clearly biased in favor of the left, describe this as "enhanced interrogation" or "harsh interrogation." The fact that it is "controversial" is always mentioned, and "some experts believe that the CIA waterboarding technique is torture" is the sort of third-or-fourth-paragraph way to address the issue that I have consistently seen. Only intensely biased sources come right out in the first sentence and say "Waterboarding is torture," period, full stop.

The nomination and successful confirmation of Haspel as CIA director has generated a fresh wave of articles on the subject. I've conducted an extensive review and this is what they're saying: "Waterboarding is enhanced interrogation. It's controversial. Some legal experts insist that it's torture."

Don't pretend that the current lede sentence identifies a settled question. Wikipedia has pretended this is a settled question for 11 years. It isn't. And it never was. Only by focusing on a group letter signed by 115 left-wing law professors, most of whom are experts in patent law or family law or criminal defense, and treating it as 115 separate sources were the editors of 2007 able to pretend that a "consensus of experts" had been reached, as if that matters.

The Obama Justice Department, whose leadership was hand-picked by Barack Obama after he had campaigned on a "waterboarding is torture" platform, refused to discipline John Yoo and Jay Bybee for providing legal opinions that CIA waterboarding is not torture. The Justice Department refused to refer the matter to the state bar disciplinary commissions where Yoo and Bybee were licensed. In other words, Barack Obama's DOJ officially determined that Yoo and Bybee had not engaged in professional misconduct in advising the CIA on the legality of waterboarding.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013001411.html

This is as close as we're ever going to get to an official determination on the matter, and it flies in the face of those who claim "waterboarding is torture." I hope that we can have a civil conversation about this and reach a conclusion that establishes Wikipedia as a completely unbiased source on the matter. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Phoenix and Winslow:, thanks for your post, which has given me the opportunity to re-review some of the more recent reporting and scholarship. The consensus at the top of the talk page (based on Talk:Waterboarding/Sources) is that "waterboarding is a form of torture." When a U.S. court evaluates waterboarding, this will be taken into account and may be grounds to re-evaluate this consensus; however, international courts, NGOs, legal scholars, etc. may continue to disagree. Absent a U.S. court decision, we will continue to rely on published analysis by legal scholars and other reliable sources, the balance of which currently assert that waterboarding is torture. It is perhaps worth noting that several U.S. courts have been blocked from examining these questions by the state secrets privilege; the U.S. government invoked national security concerns to block lawsuits from proceeding, such as here (2010) and here (2017).

Regarding your second point, there is a section on Enhanced interrogation techniques#Decision not to prosecute exploring the Obama administration DOJ's decision not to prosecute, which is attributed to political considerations (avoiding backlash from the CIA/NSA/military) and not to unanswered questions over when pouring water into a shackled human's airways crosses over from ill-treatment to torture. As the article mentions, specific rationale not to prosecute other torture cases (including the cases of Rahman and al-Jamadi, who died while being mistreated in custody) has not been disclosed. As to the legal opinions permitting waterboarding: the Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury memos have all been attacked as "cherry-picking" and flawed legal reasoning (i.e. starting with a pre-determined conclusion and working backwards, while excluding precedents to the contrary), in particular for Yoo and Bybee. These criticisms were present in the OPR's report. The subsequent decision (at odds with the OPR's conclusions) not to refer Yoo & Bybee to their respective bar associations for disciplinary review was not made by a judge, but by David Margolis, a DOJ career official (not a political appointee).

(Margolis's report and his actions were examined by Scott Horton writing for Harpers. He argues that the decision to allow Yoo and Bybee to avoid potential disbarment or criminal prosecution was made to evade accountability for the DOJ, stating Margolis's report does not adequately address the merits of the OPR's complaints. Similar conclusions were reached by David D. Cole (now-director of the ACLU) in two separate pieces for Georgetown Law and New York Review Books, who went further, and by David Luban at Slate.)

As argued on the EIT page by a former member of the Obama transition team, the Obama DOJ did not prosecute for political reasons, and not because waterboarding was established as not being torture. Absent any cases adjudicating waterboarding, we must rely on RSs and current legal scholarship. The lack of consequences for Yoo and Bybee are attributed to one DOJ official; updating the consensus to "waterboarding is (possibly) not torture" based on his report would be to grant him undue weight compared to the rest of the source list.

My conclusion: For the aforementioned reasons, I don't think the absence of prosecutions is grounds to re-evaluate the current consensus, which states that "according to the sources that exist, the phrase 'waterboarding is a form of torture' is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources."-Ich (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You've carefully ignored the WP:BLP issue. Wikipedia policy is the product of a consensus of all Wikipedia editors, not just the ones who have been interested enough to work on the article. You seem to think that in the absence of a decisive court opinion on the matter, in a court of competent jurisdiction, we should leave the WP:BLP violation in place. Wikipedia policy explicitly requires the opposite. Absent a decisive court opinion stating that the CIA waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two others was torture, this WP:BLP violation must be removed. And I urge you to remove it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Upon further review, it appears that the actual edit to the article was done by someone named Fold 1997. You popped in on June 4 and did a technical edit. Then Fold 1997 magically popped in on June 5 (for the very first time in eight months) and actually performed the edit to the lede sentence, did nothing else, and departed again. He/she has now been gone for nearly three weeks again. And you, Ich, popped back in on June 5, did another technical edit, and explained to me here on the Talk page why the edit to the lede sentence had to be done. Hmmm. People whose nature is to be deeply suspicious might call that sockpuppetry. Do you know Fold 1997?? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Phoenix and Winslow:, if you think there's content further down in the article that violates BLP, I'm happy to discuss it here or on a BLP noticeboard. My focus was entirely on the consensus at the top of the talk page regarding the lede, mentioned in Fold 1997's edit summary and which you proposed reevaluating. Please avoid editing the consensus in the FAQ until more people have had the chance to respond to your concerns. Your first edit didn't mention any BLP-related objections to the content [edit: this was unclear. I mean to say: First, Gina Haspel's name appears nowhere on the page, so having this article as a BLP violation on Haspel is not an obvious connection. The language on her page includes the word torture in plenty of places, but is consistently attached to strong reliable sources, which I think fulfills BLP. Referring to her as a "war criminal" absent a court decision would violate BLP, but referring to waterboarding as torture based on reliable sources does not.], which is why I didn't address that in my prior response. A court decision will not necessarily settle the issue; for example, the U.N.'s Special Rapporteur on torture thinks waterboarding is torture and I doubt a U.S. court ruling will change his minds. The U.S. government has blocked its own courts from adjudicating the issue in the past, so a court decision will likely not be forthcoming. Until then, we must rely on a consensus based on the published reliable sources and legal scholars who have given opinions on this matter. These are discussed at length in the talk archives and on Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Please don't single-handedly change a previously established consensus without forming a new consensus, which is something that by definition cannot be done alone. For this reason, I would like to put out an RFC request so more people can join in the discussion.

I'd like to ask you to refrain from imputations such as "you've carefully ignored" or "you seem to think ... we should leave the BLP violation in place", as this kind of language neither accurately represents my positions nor engenders civil conversation. Regarding the insinuation about sockpuppetry: As you can see from my contribs page, I make a number of technical edits. I was reviewing my recent edits and saw that the page had changed since my last visit. Fold 1997's edit summary referred to a talk page consensus, which drew me to this debate here. I have no ties whatsoever to User:Fold 1997; the only other account I've ever used was User:Ichvonen, which I created for editing the German Wikipedia in 2012 and have not used since WP:SUL in 2015.-Ich (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to point to the consensus established for the lede on Enhanced interrogation techniques which also is clear about EITs being a euphemism for torture; it feels wrong for waterboarding to be listed as an EIT, and in turn the page EIT says "EITs are a euphemisms for ... torture". The style guide WP:EUPHEMISM specifically instructs editors to avoid terms that mask the meaning of words, such as "collateral damage" and prescribes instead "civilian casualties".-Ich (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is perhaps the most egregious example of the liberal bias in Wikipedia. The following common sense points are clearly true: (1) The Bush administration believed waterboarding was legal under US law. (2) US law prohibits torture. This would indicate to any common sense person that the issue of whether waterboarding is torture or not is controversial. Since Wikipedia articles aim for neutrality, they should not state as fact things which are controversial. However, the liberals who hold power at Wikipedia feel bound to use their power to promote the liberal cause. This creates glaring examples of bias, like this article. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Your first premise is not in evidence, and neither is the second. Yes, US law forbids torture in general, but it also forbids killing in general. Then there are exceptions ("The victim is not a citizen, the location is not under US jurisdiction, the actual torture is not done by federal employees, the victim is brown, far away, and there are no reporters present", ...). "Common sense" is not a good guide for complicated legal questions. And I doubt that "the Bush administration" had a unified belief about many things. Even if it had, in the middle ages people had a strong belief about witches. That does not mean that we today have to claim that there is a controversy about women riding broomsticks in the air and poisoning cattle in service of the devil. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

The following sources call waterboarding an interrogation technique (or harsh interrogation technique), not torture: dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionary, and vocabulary.com. If this article were to be truly neutral, it would start off with "harsh interrogation technique" or "interrogation technique", and then leave the question of torture to the section on Classification. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources disagree with the torture classification. This article is not supposed to be "truly neutral" (that seems to be and Dungeons and Dragons character alignment), it follows WP:NPOV by reflecting the weight of reliable sources. Also see [30], [31], [32]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It is not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. It is a question of the most common definition. The sources I provided have much higher Google rankings than the sources you provided, and are therefore more prominent as per WP:NPOV. Thus the sources I listed should be given more weight. I agree with your statement about "truly neutral" vs weight (NPOV). My sources have more weight. --Westwind273 (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bush administration believed waterboarding was legal under US law. That's not true. Prior to the Bush administration, US courts and other tribunals prosecuted a number of people for using waterboarding while consistently branding it "torture." M.Bitton (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than debate the Bush administration history, the quicker way to settle this is, as Stephan says, via WP:NPOV and due weight. The sources using "interrogation" have more weight than the sources using "torture". Thus the lead sentence should say "interrogation", not "torture". The issue of whether it is torture or not should be covered in the Classification section. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal Disclaimer: I happen to believe that waterboarding is torture. However, I believe that liberal bias on Wikipedia tremendously weakens its overall influence. If you are someone who wants more people to recognize waterboarding as torture, it would be much more effective to have the opening statement as NPOV, and then give all the reasons why it is torture in the Classification section. Otherwise, people of the center-right and right will not be open to the arguments in the Classification section. They will take one read of the first sentence and quickly dismiss this article as biased. The only way for Wikipedia to have broad influence in disseminating truth is to strive hard to follow WP:NPOV. --Westwind273 (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not our task to reason people out of positions they have not achieved by reason in the first place (with an apology to Jonathan Swift). We don't try to persuade, we describe. Try to assume the opposite position - why would anyone read our text if in the very beginning it presents a euphemistic position almost exclusively used by the perpetrators and their apologists? Google ranking is not a valid metric of "weight" - it overemphasises popular sources and underemphasises academic and professional sources. As for liberal bias: I hope you are aware of the fact that from a worldwide perspective (and Wikipedia is a worldwide project) on most positions the US Democrats are about 2000 cubits east of what most consider a moderate position - and that is on a map with conventional layout. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Should this article define "waterboarding" as a form of torture in the first sentence of the lead, or not?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article define "waterboarding" as a form of torture in the first sentence of the lead, or not?-Ich (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Should we change the previously established consensus, which is "according to the sources that exist, the phrase 'waterboarding is a form of torture' is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources."?-Ich (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) This is a malformed RfC. What do you propose changing this to? The current phrasing is inappropriate, but it's not much use asking for community input without a specific proposal. Vanamonde (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for your response, I wasn't exactly sure if RFC, WP:DR, or WP:3 would have been the best way to address this. The previous consensus quoted from the FAQ was: ...according to the sources that exist, the phrase "waterboarding is a form of torture" is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources. Correspondingly, the previous lede sentence for the article was "Waterboarding is a form of water torture in which water is poured over a cloth covering the face and breathing passages of an immobilized captive, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning."

Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) has changed the lede sentence to "Waterboarding is any one of several methods of enhanced interrogation performed by pouring water over the nose or mouth of an immobilized person, causing the individual to experience the sensation of drowning." From his statements above, my reading of his suggested new consensus is Waterboarding (particularly as employed in the context of the War on Terror) has not been clearly established as torture and should not be directly referred to as torture without "regarded by some observers" or similar qualifiers; directly saying "waterboarding is a form of torture" violates BLP because it indirectly accuses waterboarders of torture. User:P&W cites the absence of prosecution or disbarment under Obama as well as the absence of rulings by U.S. courts.-Ich (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, I would suggest replacing the question above with the question "should this article define "waterboarding" as a form of torture in the first sentence of the lead, or not?" 13:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Because a large section of this article happens to address the controversy over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture, it would simply be inappropriate and inconsistent to label it as torture in the first sentence of the lead. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

In other words, a Wikipedia article cannot contradict itself. Kerdooskis (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

The lede says "waterboarding is torture" and the body says "the Bush administration reclassified waterboarding as 'technically possibly maybe not exactly torture' through the OLC's 'intentional professional misconduct,' which has since been thoroughly repudiated." I don't think Wikipedia contradicts itself.-Ich (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, since the position that it is not torture has some weight (it is definitely a mild form of torture, when defined as such, compared to some other methods). I would also omit the "enhanced interrogation" euphemism out of the lead sentence (these euphemisms tend to change, and this particular one is US specific I believe). The torture yes/nk debate should be presented further down.Icewhiz (talk) 10:45, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  The whole idea that waterboarding might not be torture is entirely US specific. And I would strongly object to the claim that repeatedly nearly suffocating a person is "a mild form of torture". It is one that does not leave obvious physical marks, but that's the best one can say about it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, there are other countries that use "physical interrogation techniques" and attempt to label them as non-torture. Specifically, waterboarding is mild compared to Rack (torture) or Parrilla (torture) (not defending waterboarding, just saying that in the realm of torture - there are really brutal techniques).Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  The rack is medieval in the literal sense of the word. I really don't want to discuss the relative brutality of electroshocks compared to repeated slow drowning - they are both far beyond the pale. Most other countries that do use torture actually deny that they use torture, they don't try to redefine it. One of the problems of a major western power like the US trying to legalise torture is that that is providing exactly the excuse any tin pot dictator has wet dreams about... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  When we say the debate is entirely US-specific, it's perhaps worth noting that I went through most of the foreign language editions of Wikipedia and they all use (as far as google translate can be trusted) the word "torture" in the lede. If enwiki is going to deviate from every other wikipedia, it should have an ironclad case for doing so.-Ich (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Of course. That's what it is. --John (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Reliable sources agree. Some weak self-serving sources disagree. Flat Earth does not get equal time, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose very strongly. Believing that the earth is flat isn't a felony, Stephen. I can't even believe someone reverted the edit and that we're opening an RfC on this without first changing our long standing WP:BLP policy. This Wikipedia policy expressly militates against claiming, in the article mainspace, that any living person committed any crime unless that person has been found guilty of that crime in a court of competent jurisdiction. In this case we're not just claiming it in the mainspace. We're claiming it in the first seven words of the lede. No court of competent jurisdiction has ever ruled that the CIA style waterboarding of three Al-Qaeda detainees was torture. Torture is a hideous crime, with negative connotations similar to sex trafficking or child molesting. No court has ever found anyone guilty of committing this crime against the three Al-Qaeda detainees who are at the center of the modern debate on this topic. Nor has any court issued a declaratory judgment, or any other kind of judgment, announcing that these actions were torture — even without finding any specific person guilty. These accusations are smearing the name of Gina Haspel, current CIA director, and several less well known CIA interrogators and other personnel who was involved in the harsh interrogation program that some human rights advocates and other lawyers, but absolutely zero courts of competent jurisdiction, have described as torture. In particular, these less well known (and in fact, virtually unknown) CIA interrogators are not exempted by WP:WELLKNOWN and therefore WP:NPF applies. These are not public figures. Under the section of policy titled WP:BLPCRIME we find the following word for word quote.

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.

Accordingly, I must very strongly oppose the continued presence of these libelous words anywhere in the Wikipedia mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC) -- This user was indefinitely blocked while the RFC was in progress,[33] in part due to disruptive editing on this topic.[34]

Repetition is not making your argument any better. We are not accusing anyone of a felony, we are describing the act as what it is. How absurd your argument is becomes obvious when applying it to Kim Jong-un - alive, never been convicted of a felony, so we cannot talk about Human rights in North Korea? Or so-called extraordinary rendition - we can't call it abduction? Just because the US fell back (in part, hopefully temporarily) into an age of barbarism after 9/11 and historically has refused to prosecute members of the government or most people acting "under orders" (the classical Nuremberg defence), and does not recognise (most?/any?) international courts, does nor mean we have to censor our encyclopaedia of well-known and widely sourced facts. Have you ever looked at (the strongly censored summary of) the Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture [35]? Our WP:BLP is there to protect individual people against unproven allegations, not to shield state actors from inconvenient facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You conveniently forget that Kim Jong-un is exempted from full protection under WP:BLP by WP:WELLKNOWN. He is a public figure. Individual CIA interrogators are not. Several war crimes accusations in both the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq have produced prosecutions and in some cases convictions, such as Lt. William Calley. The alleged (and unproven) motive you claim for not prosecuting anyone for this particular claim of torture does not excuse the fact that no one has been prosecuted for, let alone convicted of torture as a result of these three waterboardings. And the fact that no one has been convicted militates strongly against including the unqualified claim "waterboarding is a form of torture" in the lede sentence. The Senate Intelligence Committee's report is an intensely partisan document, thrown together rather crudely by the Democrats a few days before the new GOP majority took control of Congress and the committee. It was intended more to score political points than find facts. Most journalists summarizing it jumped straight to the "Conclusions" section without bothering to read the huge volume of "Amendments," which gutted most of the "Conclusions," resulting in a large amount of inaccurate news stories about it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Where in our article do we even mention individual CIA agents? We talk about the act, not the actors. Notice that we do have articles on other forms of crimes, too. Your WP:BLP argument is hollow on both ends. The number of convictions for war crimes in Vietnam was, of course, trivial compared to the number of openly acknowledged crimes, and nobody in the political chain has been convicted nor, to my knowledge, even been prosecuted for e.g. the bombings of Cambodia and Laos, undeniable and obvious war crimes. Calley was the one fall guy - and he served less than 4 years of house arrest, which seems like a comparatively light price for someone personally convicted of 22 killings, and responsible for an event for which even the US army acknowledges 347 killed, with a couple of mass rapes thrown in for good measure. The US has been historically extremely reluctant to prosecute crimes performed by its agents, direct or indirect. Sadly, it is not alone in that, but that does not make it better. It's also irrelevant to the fact that waterboarding is widely described as a form of torture by experts from a wide range of political backgrounds - including e.g. John McCain, a leading Republican senator, and David Miliband, foreign secretary of one of the staunches US allies, not to mention scores of law professors and judges. And of course there are courts that have decided that waterboarding is torture - e.g. the European Court of Human Rights, which as decided against Poland, Romania, and Lithuania for cooperating in "the CIA's abduction and torture program" [36][37]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Your speculation about the "real" reason why nobody's been prosecuted for waterboarding the Al-Qaeda detainees is just that. Speculation. The fact of the matter is that nobody's even been charged with torture, let alone convicted, and that is the fact that Wikipedia policy sees. Your "wide range of experts" are, in effect, accusing several Americans of committing the crime of torture. Or conspiracy to commit torture (with Bush & Cheney as the masterminds of the conspiracy). No one denied that the waterboarding was done. The only missing part is whether CIA style waterboarding is in fact torture. The claims that it is torture are mere accusations, not proven in a court of law. Sure there are a lot of accusations. And they come from people who are well educated in the law. But these people also have a possible bias because they are human rights advocates. They have made human rights advocacy their career choice. The Wikipedia policy is very clear in stating that "Accusations ... do not amount to a conviction." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding of my position in your comment. Let me state the core fact again: We are not accusing anybody. We are simply stating the fact that waterboarding is torture, as considered by the large majority of experts, with about the only exceptions being some very few American talk radio hosts (not experts at all) and a negligible number of paleoconservative commentators (only a fraction of which are experts to begin with). Neither McCaine nor Miliband nor Hitchens nor indeed me are "human rights activists", unless you water down the definition to cover everybody who thinks that human rights (as in "all humans are created equal, and are endowed with certain inalienable rights") are a good idea and indeed one of the prime foundations of modern democratic societies (in which case I would hope that that is the vast majority of educated people on the planet). And you are conveniently ignoring the fact that indeed courts have called waterboarding torture, as pointed out above. Not that courts are, in general, necessary to determine the meaning of words except in narrow legal contexts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "speculation": I addressed this in my very first response. Enhanced interrogation techniques#Decision not to prosecute has directly attributed assertions from a member of the Obama transition team and from Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor. They did not say 'the DOJ won't prosecute people for torture because waterboarding is not obviously torture'. They said: 'prosecuting torture would have derailed president-elect Obama's entire agenda and potentially caused a massive rift with the same executive branch agencies he would need to rely on to govern'. This makes logical sense and is supported by reliable sources. The lack of disbarments is also addressed in the aforementioned paragraph. I find this plausible and convincing.

Regarding "court of competent jurisdiction": controlled drowning, via pouring water into a restrained person's airways, is prima facie torture. Waterboarding is torture whether or not individual CIA agents are convicted for committing it, or what a group of OLC lawyers thinks or thought about it. As mentioned above, the US Gov't has blocked legal proceedings through the "state secrets privilege", so until the same government that is accused of wrongdoing assents to having its conduct scrutinized, convictions in U.S. courts will not be forthcoming. However, even if the Supreme Court rules that tomatoes are vegetables (as they did in Nix v. Hedden, 1893), this ruling would be mentioned far down in the body of the article, instead of some kind of botanical "Teach The Controversy" wording in the lede: "A tomato is an enhanced agricultural product regarded by most legal authorities..." A group of people at the highest levels of the U.S. government decided to redefine torture so narrowly as to permit many types of grotesquely cruel and inhumane conduct (see for example: John Yoo#Regarding torture of detainees). Their positions were so wrong and untenable they have been revoked. (In the last 3 months of the Bush administration, Steven G. Bradbury (not a professional human rights activist) rescinded many of the OLC's memoranda regarding torture, and the rest were revoked under Obama.) This is not a tenable legal basis to argue waterboarding is not torture, or even to argue that the question remains open.-Ich (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. That's exactly what it is, and how it is described by the reliable sources. The strictly US-based pseudo-debate over whether waterboarding constitutes torture is nothing but a pathetic attempt at justifying the unjustifiable by pretending to question the meaning of the very thing for which a number of people have (in the past) been convicted in U.S. courts; a pseudo-debate that is essentially irrelevant to the centuries-long established definition of the term. M.Bitton (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The previous consensus was correct; I have written above why I think so and reliable sources overwhelmingly agree that waterboarding is torture. The War On Terror should be addressed in the body of the article, but waterboarding is torture. (Note: I listed this discussion on the RFC page).-Ich (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. That's exactly what it is, and how it is described by most reliable sources. What else do you call the intentional creation of extreme physical or mental anguish, in order to make an individual more compliant and answer your questions? It is so described in all WP:RS I have seen. However, just as informative as the 'label' would be background info as to which bodies have declared it to be torture and which orgs banned its use. I agree with others that this is simply a (largely dead) US pseudo-debate, which even US govt sources have ceased to try to justify. BLP arguments are spurious, we don't euphemise theft because some unnamed persons might be accused of having stolen as a result of our definition.Pincrete (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The following sources call waterboarding an interrogation technique (or harsh interrogation technique), not torture: dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, and Oxford Dictionary. These three sources are the top three search returns on Google for "dictionary". Prominent law school professors such as John Yoo (UC Berkeley) and Alberto Gonzales (Dean of Belmont University law school) believe that waterboarding is not torture. Additionally, notable professionals such as James Woolsey (former Director of the CIA), Jose Rodriguez (former Director of the National Clandestine Service at the CIA), and Ted Cruz (US Senator and former Texas Solicitor General) have stated that waterboarding is not torture. If this article were to be truly NPOV, it would start off with "harsh interrogation technique" or "interrogation technique", and then leave the question of torture to the section on Classification. --Westwind273 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources generally advises against using dictionaries as sources. Yoo and Gonzales were both personally involved in the Bush-era torture programs; citing them is like uncritically citing L. Ron Hubbard when talking about Scientology. WP:NPOV means: "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Insisting on "Enhanced interrogation" is a euphemism and whitewash; it violates NPOV by giving undue weight to torture apologists.-Ich (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  You are misreading WP:Dictionaries as sources. As explained on that page, the dictionaries I listed are considered secondary sources for Wikipedia, and thus they are a preferred source. You are also misunderstanding significant parts of WP:NPOV, namely “biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone.” In fact, virtually all of the sources listed on Talk:Waterboarding/Sources who believe waterboarding is torture are biased against waterboarding as an interrogation technique. You can’t accuse my sources of being biased when your sources are even more biased. Additionally, no one is insisting on using the word “enhanced” in the first sentence of this article. You are making that up as a straw man. Finally, your mention of L Ron Hubbard is ridiculous. No respected university or branch of government considered him an expert on religion or theology. --Westwind273 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

  No one disputes that waterboarding can be used as an interrogation technique— all forms of torture have been used in this way. The fact that some dictionaries describe it as an interrogation technique does not mean they are denying it is a from of torture. Our essay WP:Dictionaries as sources warns “while dictionary definitions are usually reasonably precise, they are not quite mathematically precise for every word.” We cannot infer anything regarding torture from the definitions cited. We know from the testimony of Khmer Rouge survivors that waterboarding was often used to extract lengthy false confessions from prisoners and as a form of punishment for violating prison rules. So even ignoring the torture question, “interrogation technique” is a misleading euphemism. The infamous (and repudiated) torture memos argued that waterboarding belongs in the category of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment” which they claim is a lesser category than torture. Even under that interpretation, “interrogation technique” is a totally inadequate description.--agr (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

  Many who have written here (including you) are setting up a false straw man. You imply that those of us who do not want the first sentence to say torture, instead want the first sentence to say that waterboarding is not torture. We want nothing of the sort. "Interrogation technique" (or "harsh interrogation technique") is a way for the first sentence to take a neutral position on the question of torture or not torture. It does not specify one way or the other. As for WP:Dictionaries as sources, I think the entirety of that page stands for itself. We could go on endlessly quoting individual phrases from that page (similar to how evangelicals endlessly quote individual sentences of the Bible), but the fact remains that the dictionaries I listed are secondary sources to Wikipedia, and are thus preferred sources. Putting it bluntly, those highly reputable dictionaries chose "interrogation technique" because it is neutral, and Wikipedia should do the same. Your reference to the torture memos in fact proves my point. There are many interrogation techniques (such as sleep deprivation, endless elevator music, etc) that are harsh but are frequently not considered torture. I would specifically point to Sleep_deprivation#Interrogation, which takes a neutral position on torture vs not torture. Drawing the line between harsh interrogation and torture is inherently a judgment call that Wikipedia should not be making at this time, given that the Bush administration was less than a decade ago. This dispute is too recent in history for this article to be taking an opinion in its first sentence. As it stands, the first sentence of this article is probably the most blatant example of the liberal bias of Wikipedia editors affecting the content of an article. Putting "torture" in the first sentence is the liberal Wikipedia community's way of using Wikipedia to make a political statement. This is quite disappointing, given that the vision of Wikipedia was to be a neutral repository of information, not a political megaphone. --Westwind273 (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not making a political statement, it is making a factual statement. Controlled drowning by pouring water into a restrained human's airways is torture. Before 9/11, the U.S. prosecuted plenty of non-U.S. nationals for doing so and court-martialled its own troops who employed it. The sources on the main Waterboarding page make this abundantly clear.-Ich (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  Look at http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rack Definition #6, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rack Definition #2, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rack Definition #3. All these definitions use the word "torture". Now ask yourself this question: Why do these highly reputable dictionaries all use "torture" when describing the Rack, but none of them use the word "torture" when describing waterboarding? Could it be because the issue of whether waterboarding is torture is still controversial? The answer is a resounding YES. The liberal bias of Wikipedia is so easy to see in the first sentence of this article. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  It may be politically divisive, which is why some publishers will try to avoid the issue. But look at the Cambridge Dictionary, Collins,MacMillan. Why would these respectable mainstream dictionaries describe waterboarding as torture if it is factually controversial? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The MacMillan, Collins, and Cambridge dictionaries are all published in the UK. This isn't a coincidence. In the UK, the question of "is waterboarding torture?" might be settled. But in the US, it certainly is not. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that Waterboarding has been used for many purposes other than interrogation and that WP:Dictionaries as sources says we can't rely on the absolute precision of definitions. We have many articles that state facts that some political groups find controversial, including Age of the Earth, Evolution, Armenian Genocide, and Tiananmen Square Massacre. Even the infamous torture memos were not discussing torture in its ordinary meaning but instead were only discussing whether waterboarding is covered under what they claimed were more exacting standards in the federal anti-torture law (18 USC 2340) and the International Convention on Torture, the later with reservations supposedly raised during its ratification by the US Senate. And those memos were later withdrawn.--agr (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You're missing an important point: none of those dictionaries is saying or even suggesting that waterboarding is not a form of torture. (a) Dictionary.com is not even a dictionary per se, let alone a "highly reputable" one as you seem to think. Besides, it gives two definitions, one of which describes waterboarding as a "form of torture". (b) The 2013 Oxford English Mini Dictionary describes waterboarding as "torture".[38] (c) Merriam-Webster is owned by Britannica, an encyclopaedia (just like WP) that describes waterboarding as a "method of torture".[39] M.Bitton (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary.com is arguably the most reputable of all the dictionaries mentioned so far. Dictionary.com is owned by IAC, a Russell 1000 company that includes Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, Edgar Bronfman, and Chelsea Clinton as members of its board. Now if you think Chelsea Clinton is a conservative, you've really got some problems. Oh, and Dictionary.com happens to have the highest Google PageRank and highest Alexa score of any online dictionary. If you think Dictionary.com is not reputable because it does not have a print version, then you are hopelessly stuck in the 20th century. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, these are dictionaries published in the UK, or in the case of Merriam-Webster, owned by a British publisher (Britannica) which controls content. Westwind273 has identified a left-wing bias at Wikipedia and it extends to many, many articles. In the past I've compared the George W. Bush biography, which is packed chock full of criticism from left-wing groups, and the Barack Obama biography, where any criticism by any conservative is instantly reverted. There is a light sprinkling of criticism from left-wing sources for being inadequately left-wing. To this left-wing bias, I would add that there's obviously an anti-American bias. Any English language source that contradicts the American government's position, or the current state of the law in the U.S., is treated as if it's gospel. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Umm...I know that in the brave new world, everyone can have their own alternative facts, but Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. has been an American company since before WW2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

...and while where at it, Collins is owned by HarperCollins, a US company, which in turn is part of News Corp, again a US company, and hardly one that can reasonably be described as known for a liberal bias. Although I would be very dubious about any claim that the owners control or even know how the lexicographers work on individual words. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't even know why we are discussing this. Wikipedia policy is chiseled in granite. See WP:BLP and especially WP:NPOV. There are many different waterboarding methods, some far more brutal than others, and CIA waterboarding is definitely at the bottom of that scale. There are many different jurisdictions where the laws are different. India, the largest English-speaking country in the world, has not ratified the 1997 UN Convention against Torture and evidently, any interrogation technique that does not leave physical injuries is not torture under the laws of India.[40] So the two largest English-speaking countries in the world have not established, as a matter of law, that waterboarding is torture. And this is the English Wikipedia. IT'S COMPLICATED. And that means describing it is not susceptible to the simple statement AS FACT that waterboarding is torture. Not in the Wikipedia mainspace, and certainly not in the first six words. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Avoiding "torture" violates NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to a minority of sources. Just because India has not criminalized certain types of torture shouldn't be a reason to couch Wikipedia's language in the euphemisms of torture apologists. India has not criminalized Marital rape but that article isn't called "Non-consensual sex within marriage": the majority of WP:RSs say "marital rape" and Wikipedia mirrors their usage. I find the BLP argument specious: Saying "Waterboarding is torture" is not "information about a living person", but saying "John waterboarded Bob" violates BLP (absent a reliable source).-Ich (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's not complicated at all. Torture in general and water torture in particular have been well understood concepts for eons. Plus we have an international convention signed by almost every country on the planet (including India) that defines the crime of torture and makes it subject to universal jurisdiction, so that any country can prosecute even if it was not illegal where it occurred. Very few concepts have such a throughly established understanding. Phoenix and Winslow, you say above "Torture is a hideous crime, with negative connotations similar to sex trafficking or child molesting." Surely its hideous nature cannot depend on the local jurisdiction.--agr (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The relevant Wikipedia policy states very clearly, "[E]ditors must seriously consider not including material—in any article (Including non-biographical articles such as this one)—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." This article suggests that Gina Haspel and several relatively unknown CIA personnel are guilty of torture. Accordingly, Wikipedia policy — representing a consensus of the entire Wikipedia community — forbids stating "waterboarding is torture" as a fact. Look at the comments below. People are pretending that because Japanese waterboarding was torture, CIA waterboarding must be torture. Uninformed and poorly informed "upvotes" form the core of this RfC response. It is meaningless. Policy is policy, chiseled in granite. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that dictionaries are not good sources for the Classification section of this article. But dictionaries are the best source for the first sentence of this article, because the function of that sentence is most similar to a dictionary definition. The two most popular dictionaries that use “interrogation technique” (dictionary.com and merriam-webster.com) have Google PageRanks of 1 and 2, and Alexa Global ranks of 600 and 728. The two most popular dictionaries that use “torture” (oxforddictionaries.com and collinsdictionary.com) have Google PageRanks of 3 and 4, and Alexa Global ranks of 1,694 and 1,795. Clearly, the due weight of the most reputable and widely used dictionaries are in favor of using “interrogation technique”, not “torture”. In this context, the use of “torture” by Wikipedia in the first sentence of this article is a clear case of liberal bias. It seems that Wikipedia likes to follow the policy of due weight, except when that due weight does not align with the liberal editors’ political beliefs. This is sheer hypocrisy. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't select sources by Internet ranking. Torture is supported by the weight of numerous reliable sources, including prominent U.S. conservatives with expertise in the subject.--agr (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be inventing Wikipedia policy by yourself (a common trait among liberal Wikipedia editors). I suggest you read WP:NPOV, and especially WP:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight. Due weight is based on prominence and prevalence. Nothing in WP:NPOV discourages using Google’s PageRank algorithm or Alexa’s ranking for determining due weight. In fact, the Google PageRank algorithm closely matches Wikipedia’s due weight considerations in many areas, including the prevalence of links to that source by other prominent sources. I would specifically point out that WP:NPOV says that "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." PageRank and Alexa rank are objective and independent measures of the prevalence of people refering to these reliable sources. They are not affected by the liberal bias of the Wikipedia editor community. Liberal Wikipedia editors will always try to push for subjective measurements of due weight, and they twist this weight to their own viewpoint. The first sentence of this article is the poster child for liberal bias in Wikipedia. --Westwind273 (talk) 20:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page WP:GOOGLE explains the limitations of relying on search results or page rankings: it is a starting point, not an answer. It borders on deliberate distortion of NPOV to argue that dictionary.com should somehow carry more weight when formulating the lede than (for instance) the United Nations, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law (here), or President Obama. Even if page ranking were a valid approach, dictionary.com's waterboarding page has two definitions on it -- the first (from Random House) and the second (from Collins), which unequivocally states "a form of torture...". I'd be happy to solicit further input from WP:RSN if you disagree. PageRank may mirror Wikipedia's evaluation of reliable sources, and very likely incorporates information from Wikipedia, but just because they are similar doesn't mean they're the same. As per WP:GFG: "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." (emphasis in source).-Ich (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You are just endlessly twisting Wikipedia policy to meet your liberal ends. I think all of you secretly know that objective due weight favors “interrogation method” for the first sentence, but you can’t stand the thought of deleting “torture”. We could endlessly argue Wikipedia policy, but I think I have made a solid case that due weight favors “interrogation method” for the first sentence. I have said repeatedly that I am not talking about the Classification section, but rather just the first sentence. And yet you and others continue to set up false strawmen, quoting Wikipedia policy that is applicable to the Classification section, but not the lead sentence. Rather than continuing to argue endlessly, I think I will just let you live with your guilty conscience in the knowledge that you have created a biased article. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please don't impute that I am arguing in bad faith because I supposedly have a hidden political bias. For one, I am neither a liberal nor a Democrat; my political views are a general non-partisan respect for human rights and the rule of law.-Ich (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me also point out WP:AGF and WP:NPA, in particular "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it assuming good faith to say that people are using their own "alternative facts"? --Westwind273 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

If you refer to my comment above, I suggest you read it again. I'm not assuming anything, I'm pointing out that the purported "facts" are plain wrong (or "alternative", as per the current US administration). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Westwind273, there are several problems with your “solid case:” First, our intros are supposed to summarize the article. If the body of the article establishes that waterboarding is torture, the lede should reflect that. Second, dictionaries that don’t mention torture are not asserting it isn’t, they are simply silent on the matter. The many that do corroborate our lede. Finally it is well established that waterboarding has been used for far more than interrogation, e.g. extracting false confessions. If we had to avoid the word torture in the lede, an accurate description would be something like: “a procedure carried out on a physically restrained individual that creates an intense fear of imminent death by drowning.” I’m not aware of a single source that denies that is what happens. But we don’t have to avoid the word, and “water torture” fits that description perfectly, as supported by the many sources in the article.--agr (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

One more tidbit, Westwind273 cites the Oxford Dictionaries, whose definition of waterboarding does indeed begin: "An interrogation technique simulating the experience of drowning,..." The Oxford Dictionaries are an online service of the Oxford University Press. Their premier publication is the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). It is available online only by subscription, so it's Alexa ranking is likely low, but the OED is widely regarded as the definitive English dictionary. The OED's definition of waterboarding begins "A form of torture, typically used as an interrogation technique,..." If nothing else, this shows that the omission of torture in a dictionary's definition of waterboarding does not mean its publishers are suggesting it isn't torture.--agr (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Torture has been used for interrogation since ancient times. The phrase "enhanced interrogation technique" was introduced as a euphemism by U.S. officials who wanted to skirt international treaties and U.S. law banning torture, as throughly documented in that article. The G W Bush administration later rescinded the legal opinions that they attempted to use to support the notion that waterboarding was not torture. The current U.S president has indicated he does not care whether it is torture, saying "I would bring back waterboarding, and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” So there is no justification for our article to mince words on somethings so obvious as waterboarding being torture.--agr (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes This is a no-brainer, IMO. The deliberate causation of severe suffering is what torture means in the English language. Legally, international law defines waterboarding as torture. U.S. law (possibly, the Uniform Code of Military Justice) treats it as torture, as judged in cases from WWII (if I remember correctly). The claim that it can't be called torture until U.S. waterboarders (from the CIA, as if that mattered) are convicted of "torture" under U.S. law is a misunderstanding of the difference between language and legal language. WP has no legal authority and is not bound in any way to follow (as opposed to reporting) the legal opinions of any body; it is just the opposite: WP's job is to present the facts. Reporting that some persons wish to say waterboarding is not torture is reporting facts. Accepting their claim as a valid interpretation of English meaning is too much like refusing to say in the beginning of article on the planet Earth that the Earth is spherical. Zaslav (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. Abundantly sourced in the article. This includes, but is not limited to, sources that the US has prosecuted and convicted waterboarding as torture. Alsee (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, the old lead was obviously correct and well-supported. The made-up BLP issues are just that: completely made-up. The fact that someone did something bad does not mean that describing the bad thing accurately is a BLP violation for that person -- that would be insane. --128.164.177.55 (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes as it's widely considered torture. When it is not, e.g. by Ted Cruz, the rationale is the same as the rationale was when it was done (to avoid international law). NPR wumbolo ^^^ 13:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, per WP:NPOV. Weasely phrases such as considered by some are not appropriate. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes "Torture" is well supported by reliable sources and there is no need to include the minority viewpoint in the lead. (Anyone who reads the first sentence of Enhanced interrogation techniques will understand that the replacement text did not serve its intended purpose.) –dlthewave ☎ 02:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Wikipedia editors and wiki voice should have enough leeway to describe restricting someone’s movement and then causing them extreme discomfort as torture without any sources whatsoever, which specifically name it as such, without fear of contradiction. That the existence of any ridiculous “debate” (which by the way is wholly US centric) should prevent plain language from being used in the lede of our articles is ludicrous. The only possible objection someone could have to the word torture being used to describe this practice is a POV which flies in the face of common sense and amounts to an effort to curtail simple and clear language in order to obfuscate. If some govt feels the need to drown people to get info from them, they’d better get used to having their practices described bluntly in popular encyclopedias. WP:SPADE Edaham (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Intential infliction of extreme pain. The US prosecuted a Japanese soldier for inflicting it I on Americans in WW 2 and said it was torture. It does not stop being torture when the Bush administration starts doing it. Edison (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, of course - it is what reliable sources say. --bonadea contributions talk 17:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, per yay-sayers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, it is torture. Letupwasp (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. The reliable sources are extremely clear on this. The International Committee of the Red Cross has specifically identified waterboarding as torture (link). So has the United Nations special rapporteur on torture (link). Neutrality^talk 03:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019

Please Kindly add on the media representation of waterboarding the eight episode of season seven of Archer titled 'liquid lunch' Archer is subjected to waterboarding. 41.203.76.252 (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 22:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2019

The word waterboard is misspelled as waterboasring in this sentence: Waterboarding is used to interrogate Ranjith Subramanium, protagonist of the Sci-Fi "The Last Theorem" by Arthur C. Clarke. He was taken to a prison by US forces as a suspected terrorist, where he face many interrogating methods including waterboasring before being rescued by one of his friends. 68.3.229.252 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done: please see Special:Diff/929342144. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 05:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)