Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

SIMULATES drowning?

If water is being forced down the torturee's lungs, I would argue the torturer is trying to induce drowning. Drowning does not need to happen underwater . 144.92.23.231 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Has it been done to you that you are so sure mr. randy? Silly goose. Sprinklestardust (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)SprinkleStarDust

That's a big "if". Don't trust any of the anti-American spin. It's doubtful that any water actually enters the lungs.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

What is "anti-American" about a description of waterboarding? The procedure is not solely associated with the U. S. It's not clear what you're trying to say -- are you saying (a) waterboarding in general does not involve water entering the lungs (historical evidence suggests it does), or (b) what American interrogators have done recently is different from waterboarding in that water doesn't enter the lungs even though they call it "waterboarding"? Or something else? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone with considerable experience rebutted a few of Nance's comments nicely, and he says no one gets water in the lungs. He also points out that most drowning victims don't get water in their lungs even after they're dead.

And yes, there is a propensity for these articles to be anti-American. Just look around.

Let's pretend for the moment that he's wrong and that water does go into the lungs when the military trains its personnel to experience waterboarding. Who says the CIA does it the same way? Why do the anti-American assumptions always become the default position?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me try and clarify the issue here. Are you claiming water doesn't enter the lungs (e.g. because you believe this would kill the person) or water doesn't enter the throat (i.e. the face is covered to keep water out)? And are you saying this about the definition of waterboarding as practiced in history, or are you saying this about the procedure that American interrogators call "waterboarding" that they have carried out on prisoners? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying water doesn't enter the lungs using any method of waterboarding. The Captain's Quarters post I linked says it wouldn't happen. I recognize that it's not a valid source but it's a top tier notable blog, and there aren't that many authoratative sources on this anyway.

The Waterboarding.org site seems to concur, although it's not a valid source either. Both of these sources could be wrong but it appears less likely.

I'm also saying that water does enter the throat with the techniques that are known to us. The problem with this is that we don't really know if this happens when the CIA does it. You all seem to be assuming that they use the same technique. While that may be somewhat likely, is is by no means certain. Perhaps it took over two minutes to break KSM because they had to develop a new method their lawyers could approve. The only thing we really know is that if they did develop such a method, they wouldn't post it on Wikipedia.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay. So would you accept an article with statements along these lines?

• Our best information about the practice of waterboarding, as used in history and various places in the world, is that water is introduced into the breathing passages of the prisoner.
• We don't know whether water enters the lungs. (Perhaps we can investigate further how much risk of death this actually poses. "Pint after pint" is probably an exaggeration since it would drown a person, but it's possible that a small amount of water enters the lungs.)
• We don't know exactly what procedure the CIA has used. However we do know that officials have called it "waterboarding".

I would be in agreement with these points.

—Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

They sound like true statements to me except that I think we could get rid of the part about water entering the lungs. The ex-SEAL in the CQ post is pretty emphatic about it not happening, and waterboarding.org concurs on that. I'm inclined to think the sources that say it does may simply have confused the lungs with the sinuses. That seems like an easy error to make.

Maybe we should list those sources and see how technical their descriptions were intended to be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The sources we've considered say some water enters the lungs, as well as that prisoners have died from undergoing the procedure. Regarding asking the editor's permission to place such sourced text into the article, no matter what the sources say, this editor will most likely continue to insist that these things can't possibly be true (and that, if they were true, the CIA couldn't, wouldn't, and shouldn't divulge them, because it might compromise their mission if they chose to use the technique at some later date). And why is it ignored that the water also enters the head through the nose? (the body is inclined so that the water flows into the nose). Badagnani (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you think it relevant that prisoners have died then you might also think it relevant that none have died when the CIA does it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What??? The CIA practises waterboarding? That's completely inhumane! Whoever endorsed that should be tried for human rights violations! Fuzzypeg☻ 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't believe the CIA always divulges accurate or complete information about its activities (a practice for which you have stated your support). It would be most appropriate, thus, if you would qualify your statement by saying "the CIA claims..." Their secret prisons, for example, have still not been made public. Thus, any claims they make would likely be an example of PR more than full, transparent disclosure of their activities in this regard. Badagnani (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but let's be more precise than that. It's not usually the CIA itself that's claiming anything. Virtually everything of what we think we know about CIA interrogation practices has been through unofficial leaks. KSM hasn't done any interviews since his capture. If we really follow your line of thinking, it becomes thinkable that these stories of waterboarding may be a disinformation campaign to 1) force al-Qaeda to abandon any plans KSM would know about; and 2) appeal to GOP voters.

It must also be acknowledged that the prominent critics, like Amnesty, are either highly partisan or they derive their income through fundraising campaigns that rely heavily on stories like these to magnify the sense of outrage, and thus, to maximize their income. They have a huge self-interest here. Do not ever assume that people who claim to care about human rights actually do.

-- Randy2063 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

'Anti-American' or not doesn't even come into play here. My propensity is to not trust the account from Captain's Quarters Blog - largely because my trust in the military in general is rather dubious, but, for a moment, let us look at the methods generally used by both the US and other regimes which have used waterboarding:

ABC News '6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.'

However, cellophane is not always used. Waterboarding.org, a neutral site, says this -

Restrain the interrogation subject on a board. Incline the board about 15-20 degrees so that the feet are above the head. Optionally, put a damp cloth over the face to keep the water clinging to the face (Khmer Rouge technique), or put plastic wrap over the mouth but not the eyes or nose to prevent water from escaping the throat and sinuses (CIA technique).

Pour water onto the inclined face so that the water runs into the upturned mouth and nose. The water stays in the head, filling the throat, mouth, and sinuses with water. The lungs don't fill up with water so your prisoner doesn't asphyxiate, but they *do* feel their entire upper respiratory system from sinuses to trachea filled with water, "simulating drowning". You're drowning your subject from the inside, filling their head and neck. The lungs stay out of the water, keeping oxygen in the blood and prolonging the glubbing. "His sufferings must be that of a man who is drowning, but cannot drown."

Key points:

* Keep the chest elevated above the head and neck to keep the lungs "above the waterline". * Incline the head, both to keep the throat open and to present the nostrils for easier filling. * Force the mouth open so that water can be poured into both the nose and mouth.

Saran wrap, damp cloth, or any facial covering is not essential, but sometimes used as a bonus multiplier. If someone coughs to try to blow the water out of their throat or mouth the plastic catches the water and keeps it in. The cloth or plastic also acts as a one-way valve, opening to let more air out and then closing again to prevent inhalation. Eventually you end up with collapsed, empty lungs, no ability to inhale more air, a throat, mouth, and nose that's still full of water, and no capacity to get the water out since you're already fully exhaled. "CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in." (In practice, "14 seconds" is roughly the amount of time one can exhale slowly through the upturned nose. This keep the water out, temporarily. When your breath runs out the water starts flowing in.)

There are a lot of variables to play with: the angle of the board, the volume of the water, the pressure of the plastic wrap, how much inhalation to allow, and where to keep your prisoner on the line between "waterlogged wheezing" and "deep gurgling". There's an asphyxiation hazard, but modern interrogators have doctors on hand with blood oxygen monitors to make sure their subject stays oxygenated enough to remain conscious. If the prisoner begins to asphyxiate to the point of unconsciousness the doctors have five to six minutes to resuscitate your prisoner before brain damage occurs, which is more than enough time especially with the equipment prepped.

It's possible to kill someone this way if you're not careful, but the point of coercive methods isn't to kill you, it's to keep you on the agonizing border between life and death. Tortures produce the most intense suffering when they cut, shock, burn, or otherwise abuse their prisoner without him losing consciousness. Doctors are present to prolong the torture and maximize suffering. They know the blood oxygen level which allows maximum consciousness and maximum panic, and advise the interrogators how to adjust their techniques to keep their subject in the "sweet spot".

Inhaled liquid is an immediate, life-threatening situation. It'll kill you faster than third degree burns, faster than a lost eye or a lost limb. If you've ever inhaled water you know that even the smallest amount of liquid in the larynx and trachea is an immediate, hardwired hotline directly to the panic portion of the brain that death is imminent. Survivors of near-drowning experiences report that the sensation of water flooding down the larynx and trachea as they struggle to breathe is the most terrifying aspect of the experience. Waterboarding does not "simulate" this experience, it re-creates this experience.

so no, it is not drowning, but it is suffocation via liquid in the airway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.228.37 (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course you must trust the military to some extent. Most of the valid information on U.S. treatment of detainees originates from someone affiliated with either the military or the CIA. Most of whatever B.S. remains comes from statements from the fascists that they've released, none of whom had been waterboarded. Besides that, the site you cited doesn't disagree with the one I linked. As you quoted, the lungs don't fill with water.

I didn't say you needed to trust that site anyway. I'm just showing you another view.

And of course this is driven by anti-Americanism. Just follow the edit histories of these articles and look at how they started out.

The first mention of the U.S. was added within two edits of its creation. It was incorrect, of course, as the editor who added that believed they waterboarded people at GTMO. (I don't think anyone responsible or semi-responsible ever made that claim.)

Track the edit histories further and you'll see that this one was later merged from a parallel article called water boarding. That one took seven edits from its start to mention the U.S. Naturally, that editor had incorrectly believed it was used at Abu Ghraib. (No one semi-responsible ever made that claim either.) So, we had two stubs on waterboarding, and they both screwed up their facts.

And of course, if you look at the edit history for torture, you'll see that it took them only five edits to mention the U.S. (They also put "scare quotes" around "war on terror", which is pretty funny in itself.)

--Randy2063 (talk) 04:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all so pointless. Stop reading journalism and cite laws and the Geneva Convention for a more believable source. Waterboarding was illegal til recently, why not look at why it originally was? Also look at what people who have been waterboarded say. There is no point in arguing whether it is ok or not. Simply put what it IS and what the controversy surrounding it deals with. Thanks.--Wick3dd (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I found an article interviewing CIA trainees, I am not sure if you all have used it or not. Basically, I am not trying to say one thing or another, I just want this edit warring to be done.http://www.theweekdaily.com/news_opinion/briefing/28686/briefing_drowning_on_dry_land.html --Wick3dd (talk) 01:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Rightwing spokesmen like James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal are pushing the meme that waterboarding "only simulates drowning." A quick check of the online version of the Meriam-Webster dictionary includes this definition for drowning: to suffocate by submersion especially in water (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/drowning). The same source defines "suffocate" as: "to make uncomfortable by want of fresh air." It is not necessary for a drowning experiences to end in a fatality. As seen in this discussion the claim of "simulation" may also be based on the mistaken belief that drowning only occurs when someone, unable to hold their breath any longer, succumbs to the demands of the breathing reflex and attempts to take water into their lungs. This is actually very difficult to accomplish. Due to a respiratory reflex called laryngospasm (which works for the conscious as well as the unconscious victim) it is not uncommon to discover, during autopsy, that a drowning fatality, pulled quickly enough from the water, has little more than a teaspoon or two of water in his or her lungs. See especially the wikipedia article on drowning. There is nothing simulated about the experience of suffocation by immersion in water (i.e. drowning as defined by Merriam-Webster) during waterboarding. Suggest that we change the sentence to say "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that uses controlled suffocation to gain the cooperation of the interviewee" GageParker (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

History

I understand there are Chinese antecedents of waterboarding (not what is called in English the water torture). Lycurgus 23:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Some new observations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Again I feel we are going in circles. Please let's review the current situation.

I Regarding the use of the definition used by the US.

1. The US is one country and centering this article around the dissenting opinion of its administration, some of its politicians and pundits from one country violates undue weight.

II Regarding the DoJ/Bush administration being an authorative source.

1. See point 1 of the previous section.
2. Some facts:

• 1996 The US adopted the War Crimes Act (WCA). This defined any breach of the Geneva Convention (GC) as a war crime.
• 2002 Gonzales et al. opined that with the WCA in mind it was possible that a future aministration might prosecute individuals for actions taken in the War on Terror. (My translation: people are engaged in acts that can be seen as war crimes)
• The opninion continues to explain how to limit the risk for such a criminal case. (Mind you, not shock, horror, we should at all cost avoid even the appearance of committing war crimes, no, the legal loopholes are discussed!) Since the WCA refers to the GC it is suggested that by eliminating them (read: the GC do not apply to enemy combatants) the WCA no longer applies.
• 2002 The Bush administration rules that detainees in the WoT are not covered by the GC.
• 2006 The Supreme Court ruled that the GC do apply and all detainees are covered.
• 2006 The Military Commissions Act (MCA) was adopted in response to the previous point. It contains a section in which the WCA is retroactively rewritten to ensure that those individuals discussed by Gonzales (2nd bullet) are no longer punishable under US law.
• 2006 It is revealed that the Bush administration has ordered the screening of communications of US citizens 7 monthsd prior to 9/11. The actions are apparently so radical that the top echelon of the DoJ threatened to resign if it was not changed. Nobody knows what the administration did to evoke this reaction nor are we privy to the legal rationale behind it.
• 2007 Gonzales resigns following several contradictory statements, which at times are at odds with the known facts, during an investigations regarding the alleged reshaping of the DoJ into a political wing of the Republican Party.
• 2007 The intended new AG refuses to state whether waterboarding is or is not torture explicitly stating, as one of his reasons, he does not want to open up the doctrine of command responsibility for the people involved.

The above seems to infer that the legal minds are very interested in legal ways to evade accountability yet not in determining the legal boundaries and how to adhere to them. With that in mind I have difficulty accepting the authority of the legal minds involved.

With the above in mind I have the following suggestion regarding the introduction:

Waterboarding is a form of controlled drowning used to extract information. Since the Spanish inquisition it has been considered torture. The US itself has prosecuted individuals for using this technique. During the War on Terror the Bush administration, a limited group of US politicians and commentators have opined that it might not be torture and as such would not violate UNCAT.

The technique, legalities and such can then be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly I think that is going to far, as I can't think of any limited group of politicians who think it is not torture. I think we are confusing this a bit, there's some who think it is okay in some circumstances without regard to whether or not it is torture. Also I really don't like the euphemism controlled drowning; I agree where you (and just you) are going with this (ridicule?), but still consider the term weasely despite the good intentions. Calling it torture upfront is hard, but I believe it is the most NPOV thing to do as it is clear as day. The fact that it makes people uncomfortable is not a consideration so long as it is true, sourced, and provides the most relevant description. I am required to AGF for editors, but I certainly see no requirement of Wiki to assume good faith of or show good faith to the US regime, especially as it stands accused of torturing, and has caused the deaths of 800,000 by 2007 people in this so-called war on(of) terror[Lancet]. I'm not even convinced that this is used primarily for information gathering, or indeed whether it even could be used to do that. Sorry, but thanks for trying to make progress, I respectfully strongly disagree. Inertia Tensor 08:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

---

That article you cite is a joke. What does it have to do about the topic at hand anyways? Are you trying to tell us that since the U.S. has supposedly killed 800,000 Iraq citizens, (even though the article you post says 650,000. Just a small error in your favor I guess; no matter though since both figures are WAY OFF, and thankfully at least the article does confirm that these numbers come from estimates that are highly disputed ((and wrong)) ) therefore the techniqes used in getting informations from these vile terrorists MUST BE TORTURE? I'm just trying to understand where your coming from Inertia Tensor.

Unsigned poster 71.109.210.214 using verizon DSL in the US, that number was been revised upwards statistically to reflect the passage of time as it is quite old, and the deaths continue. I cite that to show why there is no way I can AGF that (terrorist) government. And by the way, the number is not off, unless you know more than John Hopkins and Lancet, is there some special insight you'd like to share with us? Btw both sides are engaging in terrorism - some more than others... Inertia Tensor 04:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am not trying to tell you the US has killed 800,000. I said "has caused the deaths of 800,000" - that is a different thing in English. It's actions have caused the death of 800,000 - there is a slight difference there. Interesting that you think Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is a joke; per chance were you at that rodeo when they filmed Borat? Inertia Tensor 04:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Inertia Tensor: I guess you like to cherry pick your "statistics". I guess I'm going to have to show you why this has been so widely disputed; or as you requested, my "special insight."

"The figure is considerably higher than estimates by official sources or the number of deaths reported in the media." Did you miss that part?

"In the past, Mr Bush has put the civilian death toll in Iraq at 30,000..." Thats quite a disparity, isn't it?

"Six-hundred thousand or whatever they guessed at is just... it's not credible, Mr Bush said." Really? Why does he think it's not credible. Let's see what method they used to come to that total:

"The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people in dozens of 40-household clusters around the country." Wait a second, they surveyed only 12,800 people (1850 households) to come to this total, yet the population of Iraq is 25+ million.

"Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families since early 2002, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards." Amazing! The (1850)families they surveyed had 82 deaths total, 14 prior to the invasion. That means there were 547 deaths that took place amongst the surveyed, in a total of 40 months after the invasion (629-82 = 547). And don't forget that the average of 82 deaths per 14 months has to be applied to the 40 month period, then we can "guess" how many of the deaths COULD be a cause of the war amongst the surveyed: 40/14 = 2.86 2.86 x 82 = 235 235 natural deaths would have occured in the 40 month period of the survey. As I worked out above, there were a total of 547 deaths in the 40 month period. 547-235 = 312

Of the 12,800 Iraqi people surveyed, they had an extra 312 deaths in a 40 month period! (Not to mention the fact that the article states that only 80% of the deaths had death certificates to go along with it, so this could be inflated by up to 20%)

And from 312 deaths, they (and YOU) are able to "hypothesize" that there have been 650,000 dead civilians?! 800,000?? Pitiful, try using your head next time. This is propaganda, and I'm sorry you believe in it.

My advice for you would be that you try and work out these so-called facts for your self, instead of believing every newspaper/newscast you see. Not sure if you know, but here in the U.S. 80-85 percent of the media is liberal, so a lot of the facts we get here are skewed. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.210.214 (talk • contribs)

We can either trust the methodology of The Lancet and Johns Hopkins, or we can trust the opinions of an anonymous poster who does not sign his/her posts. Then again, this discussion page is for discussing improvements to the Waterboarding article. Please keep the discussion focused on this purpose, thanks. Badagnani 06:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani acts as if I am the only person who disagrees with the John Hopkins survey. Just saw the wiki page on it, you'll find a lot of reliable sources there that back up my claim that this study was a joke.[[1]]

Please, stay on topic. If you wish to debate the number feel free to participate in the relevant page. Regarding Mr Bush, I trust John Hopkins and The Lancet before I even consider listening to somebody (Mr Bush) who has not one iota of medical/statistical knowledge. Second, you will find that the controversy exists within the political arena and not the scientific, for obvious reasons. OT comments closed from here.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Pointless me saying this, but: you could all as a last resort try presenting both sides of the argument (torture/not) no matter how preposterous you see one side of the argument to be; on the basis that if one side is that preposterous, the reader will spot that right away. Put another way: let the readers make their own minds up. 84.13.116.4 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Waterboarding#Some_observations_.28from_entities_.26_people_we_can_use.29_-_Sources_Discussion . Inertia Tensor 09:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

How about this?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

One can hope. they now however tend to let nationalism be used as a cover for almost anything - so I doubt it. I wonder if Baltasar Garzón will take note[2] [3]... Inertia Tensor 04:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is deceptive: "The US itself has prosecuted individuals for using this technique."

In the case of the Japanese use, the U.S. prosecuted individuals who used the technique in conjunction with other forms of brutality, as well as on personnel who were protected under the 3rdGC or 4thGC.

They prosecuted their own for a similar reason. Regardless of whether it is or isn't technically torture, it's still prohibited under the Army's interrogation manual.

If you really have such a good case, why the deception?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2007 (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.

Circular empty talk

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.

---

Guys, I closed that horribly formatting subsection upon subsection section above. I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and I imagine others couldn't either given it's hyper-layered formatting. Really, due to WP:NPOV and WP:V non-negotiable limits, the torture issue comes down to one incontrovertible, and unfortunately non-negotiable (due to WP:NPOV and WP:V) truth:

Historically (including in the United States!) waterboarding is/has been considered an act of torture. We need to clearly and simply, and non-dramatically state that fact after describing the physical act of waterboarding. That some countries today in come cases consider it not torture (the George Bush administration) will be noted, as their current opinion, per sourcing limitations. Having reviewed this, Wikipedia can safely per historical sources and sourced precedents say that waterboarding is historically considered torture. That some dispute this notion today in various ways will be then noted. The current United States government view of waterboarding DOES NOT trump historical records that go back to and nearly predate the history of the United States itself, and the United States roll in the debate per WP:WEIGHT will be relegated to a subsection. The world doesn't revolved around our country's debate on this.

I propose the following for a structural redesign of the article:

1. Lead: Physical description of act (paragraph 1). Short historical global overview (paragraph 2). Short overview of physical/mental effects (paragraph 3). Short overview of the modern debates for the 20th/21st century--GLOBAL in scope, as Wikipedia itself is; the United States can have a sentence or two here only (paragraph 4).
2. Technique and effects: we can probably have 2-4 total paragraphs on what waterboarding is, and what it does to you.
3. History of waterboarding: we can probably have 3-5 total paragraphs on how waterboarding came to be, and historical uses.
4. Contemporary uses: a paragraph on each notable modern case. We can certainly allocate 1-2 just to the United States here.
5. Legality: this section is fairly solid. 2-3 paragraphs total.

Ballpark projected article length: 12-18 paragraphs.

Thoughts? I firmly believe my view above on the view of is/isn't torture is fully compliant with NPOV, V, and RS, which is unfortunately the only thing we are allowed to go by. Any shaping of any article that doesn't comply with all three is functionally vandalism, and unacceptable as it would compromise Wikipedia's integrity as a global neutral resource. Anything that does not utterly comply with NPOV and V will be removed by anyone from the article. • Lawrence Cohen 18:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I like this proposal a lot and fully support it. I would be careful to not confuse all forms of water cure and water torture, which have a long history, with waterboarding, which is very similar but different (since the point isn't to make a person ingest large amounts of water into the stomach but rather into the lungs). Remember 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You have my attention too - give it a go! What I really want to see gone is the confusion being sowed, sometimes deliberately (not here) between those who support waterboarding (without regard to what it is) and those who say it is not torture - big difference. Inertia Tensor 23:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In your 5-point plan, please don't delete/dismantle any content that has been carefully built up over time, without discussion and consensus. Badagnani 23:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. It would be first a restructure, only, and neutralizing of all tone and language, then later we can trim if needed (doubtful). I'll start knocking up a demo copy in a sandbox tonight or tomorrow. • Lawrence Cohen 00:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait Lawrence - that sounds different now to what you had proposed. I do not support 'neutralizing' tone for the sake of it - only if there is something inherently wrong with a tone should it be changed. No one has established that to be verifiably the case - which is exactly why I plonked up the sources discussion which you unilaterally closed with no agreement and I am reopening now - DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT CLOSING IT AGAIN. Order could certainly do with a lot of work as you said - but tone - NO. There won't be a consensus for watering it down to suit some other sensibilities. You just lost my support with this last comment. Inertia Tensor 04:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying something other than total observance of WP:NPOV is OK? • Lawrence Cohen 05:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that you will need paragraph 1a, describing the half-dozen or so different things being called waterboarding (those that are not the watercure and stomach filling.) They are very different and I suspect that those differences are part of what contributes to the heat of the topic. htom 22:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View is not the same thing as Neutralize is meant as in this case (or whitewash, sanitize). Neutral and factual yes, but being neutral does not mean not saying things that some people don't like for political or nationalist reasons. Inertia Tensor 01:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I assure you, I intend to whitewash nothing. Please be sure to AGF. Do you disagree with my summary that NPOV requires us to state unequivocally, as fact, that "historically waterboarding has been considered torture, but some modern governments disagree with this", as detailed by available sources? The wording I quoted may vary slightly, but the message, per NPOV, has to be that. Simply put, we can't imply that the current US (or whatever government) belief is more important than historical fact. We can't imply a matter of wrong or right. We are required say, "Waterboarding is this act (details on physical event).[1] Historically, waterboarding has been considered torture.[2] Today, waterboarding has been used in x capacity.[3] Some modern governments have stated beliefs that waterboarding is not torture.[4]" Something along those lines. Facts, reported by reliable sources, in a neutral, even boring and bland tone, with no histrionics or dramatic tones. We simply are not allowed, full stop, to do otherwise than to adhere to NPOV. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks! • Lawrence Cohen 21:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Indeed, presenting the fact that it has been considered torture for centuries while recently the Bush administration has a dissenting opinion should give the reader sufficient info to decide whether this reframing-trick is merely the Alice in Wonderland/1984 kind obscuring what we are talking about.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok AGF. let's see, give it a go. The DoJ has no weight whatsoever. In a fiery statement Thursday night after Bonds' indictment became public, the lawyer accused the BALCO investigators of unspecified ethical misconduct and said the Justice Department "doesn't know if waterboarding is torture and can't tell the difference between prosecution and persecution."http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/17/MNU7TE98P.DTL Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The US Department of Justice is certainly a reliable source about itself and the views of the current American Presidency, so we can note that they don't feel waterboarding is torture isn't torture in the United States context. Keep in mind that just because they say this, and just because we report that they say this about themselves does not make waterboarding any less torture based on the fact that something like 90%-95%+ of the sources say it is torture. Frankly, I'm seeing 1-2 sentences on that specific view, in that light, only meriting inclusion--the US DOJ view will not unduly WEIGHT this article. Waterboarding is torture based on historical evidence and torture, and will be reported that way on Wikipedia. We also will note that some American attorneys and government officials don't think it is. Their minority and fringe viewpoint is notable enough to mention. • Lawrence Cohen 16:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph I suggested way up earlier on this talk page. I'd like to re-offer it for consideration. Can we come to a consensus on something like this, or with this as a starting point?

The overwhelming majority of expert opinions hold that waterboarding is torture [multiple references]. However, prominent figures in the United States government, including George W. Bush and Michael Mukasey, have specifically refused to give an opinion on whether waterboarding is torture in response to direct questioning, and the British Foreign Office has stated that it "would depend on all the circumstances" [4]. Andrew McCarthy wrote "I don't believe it qualifies [as torture]" though it does qualify as "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" treatment "in almost all instances" [5].

(I think this could be improved a bit by also mentioning that waterboarding has historically been used as a method of torture.) Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is important to include the reason given by Mukasey for refusing to state it is torture: it would open up criminal liability regarding war crimes, for those involved.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The rampant bias in this article cannot be fixed without explicitly extracting all discussion and speculation about what is merely the definition of a word. Word definitions evolve for all words and expressions. The article should describe the process and say nothing more at all. At the very most it might mention that there is speculation and discussion about whether or not a process that produces no objectively measurable harm should be within a changing definition of a word intended only for emotional response, i.e., torture. Best of all from a pure neutrality perspective is total extraction of any text beyond description of the process of waterboarding. Anything more than only that description of process is blatant bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.88.126 (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Go back to Malkin's website, please. We're working on writing an encyclopedia. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Torture is not "a word intended only for emotional response." It's a serious crime defined under U.S. and international law.--agr (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2007 (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.

movement of introduction paragraph

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.

---

When I came to this article simply to find out more about the subject, and I feel that the paragraph in the introduction section beginning with "The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. " is out of place.

I am simply suggesting that this be moved to a "current controversy" or similarly titled section further in the article. It seems to me that specific paragraph is less of an introduction on the subject of waterboarding, and more of a current event summary. It removed from the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia, changing it to a news journal of sorts. This section is also largely irrelevant to people who are simply looking for a description or history of the process.

as I assume no edits made to the page at the time could possibly be in consensus, I will not add an editprotected tag to this. it is simply a suggestion, it is unlikely that I will be back to make the edit myself once the page is semi or unprotected, so someone else please make the edit if it is deemed appropriate. -aliencam (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Per WP:LEAD "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."--agr (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2007 (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.

Downgrade Full protection to semi

Anyone object to my asking for it to drop the Full Protection down to a Semi-Protection? It's been a while and things have calmed here somewhat. If it goes nuts again, it will just get reprotected again and we then will probably have to sit down until we hash out everything firmly. • Lawrence Cohen 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• No objection. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG Objection We need a complete proposed replacement to unprotect, as the warring will restart the moment it goes back. This wasn't just IP warring, and the last time it was unprotected as a result of some modicum of tranquillity it went ballistic right away. We need a consensus based replacement text to unprotect. This is unresolved. I want this to be unprotected, and I think and hope Lawrence can be the one to make it happen. I just don't think we are ready yet, as I believe we are already that that stage where we have to hash it out. Inertia Tensor (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support - No progress is being made. I think there could be some constructive process if it is unprotected. If not then we will protect again. Remember (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support, Inertia. I actually just got an idea on what might be the best way to sort this out. Posting a new section. • Lawrence Cohen 06:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

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.

---

The most contentious subject on this article so far is what the lead will say. So I have set up this section so that we can build a consensus on the lead. Here is how I propose that we do this (and feel free to argue for another solution): People will propose there various leads and then everyone interested in the discussion will state their opinion as either strong support, weak support, neutral, weak oppose, or strong oppose. People should vote on every version to facilitate discussion and negotiation. After we have got a consensus, we will ask for the page to be unprotected, insert the lead and monitor it for any vandalism. Hopefully, this we will be able to narrow down issues and finally resolve the lead (at least until a bunch of other interested editors come around).

Participants involved in resolving lead

1. Remember (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
5. agr (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed leads

Current version on page

Waterboarding is a torture technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment. It consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent. Waterboarding's use as a method of torture or means to support interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding in cases can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.

Numerous experts have described this technique as torture. Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States.

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports claim that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding." According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Waterboarding has become an issue in the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be the next U.S. Attorney General. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Mukasey refused to say if he considered waterboarding a form of torture, claiming he did not know the details of how waterboarding was conducted. Several Senators have indicated they will not vote for him without an affirmative answer.

Votes to support or oppose current version

• Weak Support - I like the current lead a lot, but I think we can do a little better. Remember (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• I can support this. Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• I don't support this. It does not "simulate" drowning, as if done correctly the person is actually drowning (with some actually dying). Also, I believe it should not be described as a "technique" (implying that there's some kind of art to performing it) but as a "form of" torture. I believe Mukasey is the U.S. Attorney (the proposed text says he is being considered for this job). Also, the U.S. did not simply "authorize" waterboarding as stated in the text, it actually used it. Badagnani (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a proposed version of the lead that address your concerns so that we can discuss it.Remember (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The concerns expressed above are the only modifications I would propose. Badagnani (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• I support the original lead more than the other versions because it comes right out and says that this practise is torture from the start. Whether torture is something one might legitimately do in some circumstances is a reasonable debate; whether this stuff counts as torture is surely not much of a debate. It clearly is. Let me assure all readers that if they ever catch me in the act of tying them to a bench, partly blocking off their airways, and pouring water down the rest, they can safely assume I'm trying to torture them. In the well known book "Nathaniel's Nutmeg" by Giles Milton, you can read how the Brits once took the island of Manhattan off the Dutch, in retaliation for the loss of the island of Run, during which this form of torture was used on British subjects. That the grudge was strong enough to lead to military action on the far side of the globe had everything to do with the fact that this kind of torture was already regarded as abhorrent, 100 years before there was a U.S. of A. to debate the matter. Solocavediver (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• No -- It's fixable but I cannot support this. There are a number of simple problems.

First, "Numerous experts have described this technique as torture." Let's name some names so that the readers know who they are. You have John McCain but he's a candidate for president. You can find more suitable ones with very little effort.

The part about Michael B. Mukasey isn't sufficiently relevant for the lead, but those who criticized him for this would probably be good choices for the names we identify here. The critics shouldn't have to hide behind John McCain.

Second, "Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States." That's a can of worms that doesn't belong in the lead. Those prosecuted have done other things as well so it's misleading to imply that that alone was considered torture.

Third, "had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States." This implies that all extrajudicial prisoners were subjected to waterboarding. The actual number was three.

Fourth, it should also say that this was reportedly done with legal guidance.

Considering the history of this article, I don't think I'm asking for much here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I thought "to force the inhalation of water into the lungs" had been discarded earlier.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sixth, I had relaxed a bit but the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's wrong to call it torture without qualification. I'll cite this possible solution more prominently.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - You should, by this reasoning, let the facts speak for themselves and change the title of Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a proposed version of the lead that address your concerns so that we can discuss it.Remember (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If I did, it would look a lot like yours, and I don't think it'll fly here. Somebody would try to round up another posse from the fringe theories noticeboard. Apparently, in this case a fringe theory is something that isn't accepted by the folk wisdom of the masses.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you support mine and that is what you would also suggest, then please state so under the votes to support my suggested revision. But I still urge you to provide your own suggestion that you can endorse. I think the only way we will be able to move forward is if everyone states their opinion clearly and openly. Remember (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, why is McCain not a suitable source? Because he's running for President...? Lawrence Cohen 18:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

McCain's views aren't typical. It's okay to use him, but the use of his name as a sole political source may be interpreted by others as a shield for the rest of the politicians to hide behind. I really don't think it's too much to ask that we get more names, particularly when the gripe against my view is that it's fringe. If it's fringe then the tough part should be how to limit this to just a few for the lead. And, quite frankly, I do prefer that those who take this view shouldn't be allowed to hide behind John McCain.

BTW: I'll reiterate here that we should look here: WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"And, quite frankly, I do prefer that those who take this view shouldn't be allowed to hide behind John McCain."

Possible political considerations involving Waterboarding, and things of this nature, have nothing to do with Wikipedia in any way and are not allowed as a factor in how articles are constructed. Lawrence Cohen 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That horse left the barn long before I got to this article. It appears to be the reason some want it called outright torture instead of merely commonly accepted as such.

In any case, the rest of my comment is still true. John McCain could be worth noting because he crossed the aisle to make that statement but he's hardly the only player. It shouldn't be difficult at all to come up with more names when you think that position is so overwhelming.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I simply want it called torture, because every source I've been presented with except for functionally 1.5 sources all say it is torture. I'm sure when I have time I could dig up more sources. How many would it take to satisfy you? I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult, but you seem to be arguing based upon your personal views on the rightness or wrongness of torture, or local partisan politics. You also mentioned on this page that the view I'm pushing for--which is the view of all our sources, save for 1.5--are "folk theory". Folk theory is consensus, and the consensus of our sources, opinions or otherwise, is that waterboarding is torture. That is why I want the article to say that. Lawrence Cohen 22:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult either. I could easily believe it's torture, but that's from my own perceptions of what torture is, and I recognize that it's a sliding scale. People won't always draw the line in the same place.

If you say here that it's based on consensus then why can't the article say that a consensus believes it's torture? Then we can list the types of people who've formed that consensus, who disagrees, and why each believes as they do.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Messy have constructed artefact of sudden need to protect. Possible OR in places, just a mess really. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Waterboarding would most-accurately be described as an "interrogation technique." Whether it is "torture" or not is a matter of opinion and is widely being debated in the U.S. right now. The intro to this article needs rewritten so as to remove the opinions of the writers.

• Comment - I think the tense is wrong in the last paragraph. It "became an issue" would be appropriate since he has since been confirmed as Attorney General Eric1g (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Remember's version of the lead

Waterboarding is a term used to describe the act of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to make the subject feel that they will drown to death. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and makes the subject believe death is imminent.

As early as the Spanish Inquisition a form of waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, intimidate, and terrorize. The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last long after the procedure. Although waterboarding can leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries as a result of struggling against restraints (including broken bones), and even death.

Waterboarding is widely considered to be torture. (See Classification of Torture section below for further details), and nations,including the United States, have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding as violating prohibitions against torture.

The use of waterboarding gained attention and notoriety in the United States when the press claimed that the Bush administration had used waterboarding to interrogate some extrajudicial prisoners of the United States.

Votes to support or oppose Remember's version

• Support (of course since it's mine). If you do not like this version please propose your own version or revisions for discussion. Remember (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Unclear, it is a form of torture, and that should be on top to aid comprehension. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the fact that it doesn't have torture at the beginning is there any other objects to the rest of the text? Remember (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I object strongly to the lead issue, but aside from that it is smaller stuff which is not such a big deal. This following bit could fall to OR claims, rather not have it "The advantage of using waterboarding as a means of interrogation is based on its ability to cause extreme mental distress while possibly creating no lasting physical damage to the subject", additionally it is said to be more than an interrogation process, and indeed it is under dispute whether it is really a (workable) interrogation process. Inertia Tensor (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I debated about adding this but I think your assessment is right. My proposal now strikes that sentence. Any other suggestions or problems? Remember (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the fact the practice leaves no (physical) scars has indeed been mentioned in the sources as one reason for its use. Badagnani (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, does this mean you think the sentence should be included? Also, do you support or oppose the above suggestion? Do you have any other comments on it? Remember (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- it's not perfect, and the sources need to be checked, but it skirts the core problem. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose -- Most of this is fine, but the description of the procedure needs to clearly indicate that water is poured into the subject's breathing passages, that this is what induces choking and gagging. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor's version of the lead

Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and also to punish, and/or intimidate. It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture.

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror. ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding." According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal.". US Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed the technique for terror suspects, saying it was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives.

Votes to support or oppose Inertia Tensor's version

• Support Obviously, I put it there. This was the last consensus achieved version, however it appears we need a new consensus. Inertia Tensor (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I don't mind labeling waterboarding as torture but I just don't think it should be the first statement in the article. This is for two reasons: (1) I think a description of waterboarding is more appropriate to be first as per general encyclopedic style and (2) it makes the article look as if it is specifically designed to rebut those in the United States who say it is not torture or refuse to say whether waterboarding is or is not torture and this makes the article appear as if it is not simply reporting the facts but instead advocating one position (even if it really isn't). I would be much more willing to accept the statement that "waterboarding is torture" early in the lead if there was a link in the lead to later in the article where the issue was discussed fully. As for other constructive criticism, I also think the lead should contain information on the real risks of physical danger to the victim. Also, I think the second paragraph should end after the second sentence because the McCain statement just reiterates the fact that waterboarding is torture and the Cheney statement does not technically deal with waterboarding since he was responding to a question about a "dunk in the water." Remember (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me mull this over - I think your and my points can be resolved. I especially agree with you on McCain - that is there as is because it was used to back up the lead when the torture word got white washed out by some. If the lead is somewhat stable we don't need to go listing sources in main text, unless highly relevant. Off to think. Thank you for a highly constructive answer. I would however also say to dump Cheney from the lead if McCain goes, as I believe that though later denials suggest otherwise - Cheney was talking about WB, and trivialising it. Officially we do not know either way - so like the other UNDUE Weight, he needs to get bumped down - in fact their is a far stronger case for bumping Cheney down that McCain - so certainly Cheney, maybe McCain. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Oppose "simulated drowning". Either it is the process of drowning or it is not. As drowning is "death caused by suffocation (from liquid)", it cannot be simulated as death cannot be simulated. I would recommend avoiding the use of "simulated" as it is meaningless in this context. Possibly: "Waterboarding is a form of torture which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning."Nospam150 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - As long as there is controversy over whether or not it is or is not torture, we need to couch it as such. Let it says "an interrogation technique which many regard as torture" or something to that effect. Myself, since it causes no persisting or lasting physical harm, I do not regard it as torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockhouse (talk • contribs) 16:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What controversy is there besides that involving the United States government? Because one government may or may not consider something torture has zero bearing on whether it is or not. We have no sources that support what you are saying either, beyond two pundits. Please provide sources or else retract your oppose as unsourced. We make decisions based on policy, not personal views. Lawrence Cohen 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead

Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been historically known accepted as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. The use of Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure.

Votes to support or oppose Ka-Ping Yee's version

• Support Here's my attempt; I'm trying to combine User:Remember and User:Inertia_Tensor's drafts while addressing comments by User:Nospam150, User:Remember, and User:Randy2063 above. I would suggest putting the United States controversy in a section of its own, and the legal status of waterboarding with respect to definitions of torture in a section of its own. Please feel free to suggest improvements. Thanks to all for your continued patience and constructive participation. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the right track. I would change "historically known as a method of torture" to "considered a method of torture," and I think the lede should mention the frequent reports that the U.S. has attempted to justify its use of waterboarding in secret legal opinions that say it isn't torture. That's central to the current controversy. This can be elaborated on in the section on U.S. use.--agr (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support I think this is the best compromise version. Only request. Change this sentence:

Waterboarding has been historically known as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.

to:

Waterboarding has been historically accepted as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.

With that slight change at this time I'd have no problem with this one. The wording on the historical consideration of waterboarding as torture needs to be be more solid and concrete per the weight of all the sources. The wording can be slightly different, but I think the most important thing for readers to take away is that before the current United States brouhaha, there was never any serious demonstrated consideration or doubt that waterboarding was considered torture. Lawrence Cohen 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence Cohen: I have edited this draft of the lede as you suggested. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Almost support -- "extrajudicial prisoners" implies it could have been all or many of them. That term is used for every one of the hundreds of detainees at GTMO. It also needs to say that the CIA did this with legal guidance and congressional oversight. You can add that the legal guidance is controversial or disputed if you like but we shouldn't give the impression that it was done without checking at all. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That extra level of detail can go in the United States section; the role of the article isn't to defend our country. It doesn't really imply what you're saying it implies, at all. It just says that the CIA used waterboarding. Lawrence Cohen 16:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you put "considered to be torture" and "wide range of experts" in the lead without a defense. I'd understand not going into detail but we shouldn't say it was done without concern for the law -- especially when most people already believe other things that aren't true about this. -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest: "The use of waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of someextrajudicial prisoners and that the U.S. has attempted to justify its use of waterboarding in secret legal opinions that say it isn't torture." I think the secret memo bit is a major part of the current controversy and this belongs in the lede.--agr (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What defense of the historical acceptance that waterboarding is torture exists? Are we actually going to suggest it wasn't considered torture in the 1700s and 1800s, retroactively, because the current US government administration may or may not privately consider it torture? Nonsense. Lawrence Cohen 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the same procedures and safeguards were used in the 1700s. But I'm not arguing that it wasn't and isn't popularly thought of as torture by the TV-watching masses. You can call it torture all day long if you like. The trouble is when you put it into an article. We shouldn't be convicting some people for something that's barely understood to have happened while at the very same time WP policy says we can't call Saddam Hussein a bad man.

It's not just Saddam either. WP is full of articles about GTMO detainees who are all given the supposed benefit of the doubt here because much of the documents are classified. So, fascism is given the benefit of the doubt but those who fight fascism are not.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Randy2063: I've edited this draft of the lede to address your comments (insertion of "certain" before "prisoners" and mention of authorization from the Justice Department). —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support - I think this version solves all the issues I had and I think it gets the issue across is a manner that is encyclopedic and NPOV. I strongly support this version. Remember (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - That's a very interesting opinion. However, this practice is clearly torture by definition, and all the sources going back hundreds of years state this. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War. Thus, if the technique is used by fascists, it is torture, and if it is used by non-fascists against non-fascists or non-fascists against fascists, it is also torture. Badagnani (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• So, what do we think? It's starting to sound like maybe this could be something we could all live with. I've tried to address your comments with my last edits — would you be all right with this version? (Keep in mind it doesn't have to be perfect; if we can just find something we can at least find acceptable, that's good progress.) I am excited and hopeful. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2007(UTC)

I would be very happy with this lead. Unless there are any other issues I would vote to unlock this article and substitute the current lead with Ka-Ping's version - Remember (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead is unsatisfactory, as mentioned more than once, in that it does not describe why waterboarding is done, or its most basic definition: a notorious and well known form of torture, dating back centuries and understood as a form of torture then, and now. Further, "historically accepted" is poor grammar because it implies that this practice has historically been accepted by various bodies. Badagnani (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that "historically accepted" is a poor choice because it introduces an unintended ambiguity. I would suggest "historically regarded as" or "historically condemned as" or "historically decried as" --agr (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Could you please propose an alternative wording of the sentence that you could support. Remember (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support As a passing editor wandering into this debate this version seems to be the best of those on offer. This version has the advantage of not only being NPOV, but by simply describing what is done and what the results are, the opening paragraph allows the reader to make up his or her own mind as to whether this is torture or not. The reader is simply left with the thought, what if this was done to me or my loved ones. However it is slightly let down by the second paragraph. The edit warring that seems to afflict this article is as a result of the recent controversy in the US, the best way to avoid the edit warring, would be to leave mention of the recent notoriety with regard to the US to a section towards the end, (its rather US centric to think that the most important aspects of this topic is the US contoversy.) Accurately describe what happens, its history and why it is used etc and by the time a reader reaches the end they will have made up their own minds if this is torture or not, there should be no need to expicitly say "waterboarding is a torture technique" or "waterboarding is considered a torture technique".KTo288 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Using this reasoning, this editor should "wander into" the Rack (torture) article and attempt to have its title changed, as, according to this reasoning, it really isn't clear whether the Rack (torture) is actually a form of torture, and the reader should be able to make up their minds about that without being dictated to. Badagnani (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Vote I really appreciate what you are trying to do here, and this is the best written led I've seen in a long time. My oppose is principle based on my well founded inability to AGF of everyone participating based on arguments, recent edit history, and denial of the obvious facts. Where torture is now in this rev is almost, but not quite acceptable, however I can see it getting cut out rapidly as it is in para 2. There are those here who simply refuse to accept what it is regardless of an absence of sources to the contrary. Some, but not all of them just want it editable... I thing we are applying UNDUE WEIGHT to unsupported fringe opinions here by not incorporating it in the forefront of the lead, and as such I oppose - very weakly - Sorry :/ This on balance shouldn't affect the decision to unlock, but expect some I told you so's.. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmm... I'm not sure what you are recommending here. Are you saying this version of the lede is not quite acceptable to you, or are you saying that, while the lede is acceptable to you, you are afraid it will not survive future edits? Do you have a change in mind that would improve it? Thanks. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is just to help you understand what i'm trying to do here. This version is not exactly written in the way i would most like it; my main goal was to write something that is well supported and likely to survive over time, while still being something i could live with. I consider waterboarding to obviously be torture, yet it seems likely that if "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." are the first words in the article, they will quickly trigger another edit war. Therefore, i decided to go as far as reasonably possible in giving supportable details about the procedure and experience of waterboarding, so that readers understand it clearly (and thus, those who share my perspective on torture will conclude that it is obviously torture). For me, the description of the experience and the citation of expert opinion, together, make up for the lack of a direct statement that waterboarding is torture. I hoped that this approach would satisfy both camps in this debate.

At the moment, I see concerns that remain to be addressed from User:Badagnani and User:Inertia Tensor. I'm hopeful that we may be very close... can we work together to resolve these? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I oppose, it is weak. I am not going to get this exactly My Way, not will anyone else. so I'm just registering my disapproval of it, but think it should still proceed. Changing to Neutral Vote. Inertia Tensor (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support This lead has it all, a purely factual discription of the process first off followed by who considers this to be torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 06:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support...Fully —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.28.240 (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's as if the intro begins with the second sentence, and one is left wondering what happened to the first (i.e. it begins with a description rather than a definition). The first paragraph is too technical. GregorB (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is how I thought about it, but couldn't verbalize until I read this comment. I agree with this. Badagnani (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support Whether the technique is used as an inducement to answer questions, or to punish those who are targeted by the administrators, or both, the technique remains the same. The motives of those involved are different that what they are doing. htom (talk) 00:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

GageParker's version of the lead

Waterboarding is a form of interrogation which uses suffocation to gain the cooperation of the interviewee. By covering the restrained subject's head with wet cloths and pouring additional water over the face, the laryngospasm reflex is induced (that is the larynx or the vocal cords in the throat constrict and seal the air tube) making it impossible for the subject to breath.

Votes to support or oppose GageParker's version

• Weak oppose- I like the first sentence, but I would need to see some citation to support the physiological claims you are making (because I don't know if they are true). In addition, while this is a good first sentence, we need to resolve the whole intro and this doesn't provide enough to fully evaluate. If you add further information, I think you will get more feedback. Remember (talk) 14:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose- It's torture, plain and simple, needs to say it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen's modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been considered a method of torture since its early recorded use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used for interrogation purposes, to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure. The new controversy surrounded the confirmed use of waterboarding by the United States government on alleged terrorists, and whether the practice was acceptable.

Votes to support or oppose Lawrence Cohen's modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead

• Support To try to break any semblance of an impasse. Big addition:

"Renewed controversy surrounded the confirmed use of waterboarding by the United States government on alleged terrorists, and whether the practice was acceptable."

Before anyone grumbles, it's a pretty accurate one-sentence summation of the current situation. It's confirmed from multiple expert sources, such as John Kiriakou. It will never require confirmation from active officers in the US government for us to state this factually. They have not denied it. So, this is a good compromise I think. It acknowledges that waterboarding is historically regarded as torture. If you subtract any political nonsense spin by a single modern government in the 2000s, there is no evidence to the contrary. One US Presidential administration can't change recorded historical fact and consensus. But, there is controversy over whether waterboarding is an acceptable practice. I'd argue that's the sum total of the arguments and controversy at this point, until the USDOJ or Congressional Oversight actually hauls someone up in legal proceedings over it. Support. I think this is the absolute best level we're going to get to, gives everyone a little piece of the pie, and strongly adheres to NPOV. We can crib any number of sources for that last new sentence from this page, or by basically mashing our hands on a Google News search (has anyone noticed how incredibly many results there are now, as of today, for waterboarding?). Lawrence Cohen 20:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Moderate support- I like Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead better since it describes the procedure first and then describes how it is considered torture in full detail in the second paragraph, but I know that other editors like it better the other way around so I am willing to defer (since someone will have to). Remember (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. More to my taste. Almost there. I still think the first paragraph (effects of waterboarding) is a bit too technical for an intro (my remark concerning Ka-Ping Yee's version too), but this is not that important. I may still write my version, but it seems to me now that it will not be necessary. GregorB (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling the lead will grow a bit to flow with better language over time. It's probably better to take a more just the facts, ma'am, approach for now. Lawrence Cohen 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't it say 1) it's historically been used primarily for interrogation purposes, and 2) the recorded history of this technique datesback at least to the Spanish Inquisition (not "throughout history," which is vague). Badagnani (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

All set, good suggestions. Lawrence Cohen 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. This seems accurate, complete, and well sourced, and is the best I have read among those presented. Badagnani (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Splendid! Would you mind posting again down below on the unprotection? :) Lawrence Cohen 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Shouldn't the first paragraph mention that the mouth is often covered with fabric or plastic, or the mouth stuffed with a rag? Badagnani (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• This is often the case but not an essential part of the procedure. I'm fine with or without this in the lede; in any case this is an improvement, and we can discuss further refinements later. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me! —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. This is the most factual and accurate out of the current proposals. Nospam150 (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Exterior37's version

Waterboarding is a controversial technique primarily used for interrogation purposes, which consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. Another potential consequence is that psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can possibly last for years after the procedure.

Historically, waterboarding has been acknowledged as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition. It has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations.

Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure. An ex-member of the CIA, who was the leader of the CIA team that captured the first major Al Qaeda figure, spoke out about the use of waterboarding, and claimed the use of waterboarding led to the disruption of numerous planned terrorist attacks.

Votes to support or oppose Exterior37's version

• Strongly supportNaturally since it is mine. I took text from a couple of the above entries plus added points that I felt were relevant to the lead. Namely, the recent interview of the former CIA agent which shows the effectiveness of the technique in getting confessions. The information he gives should be used in the lead to give the article more balance. --Exterior37 (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's okay but I like Ka-Ping Yee's better and I don't think the additions improve it. Also if we are going to include the CIA person's statement we should also include the fact that he said he thought it was torture (but justified) and that no further information has come forth to confirm that the use of the procedure disrupted any terrorist attacks (at least not as I understand the story) or if there has been confirmation, say which terrorist attacks have been confirmed as being disruptive. But thanks for helping try to create a better lead. Remember (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but why the double standard? Did you notice that there were no names given of the people who had negative psychological effects years after having this done on them? This could have easily been made up by that source as well. You're talking about information that is classified. We were fortunate enough to learn this much. He is a credible source and it should be used. --Exterior37 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)--Exterior37 (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with the information appearing in the article, but putting it prominently in the lead I think gives too much support for the idea that it did disrupt numerous terrorist attacks when we have no evidence of that fact besides this persons assertions. Also, I'm not exactly sure he even states that he has first hand knowledge that he knows that this information disrupted attacks based on this exchange: JOHN: Yeah, we disrupted a lot of them. BRIAN ROSS: And he knew about them? JOHN:He knew about some. But like I say, it was time-sensitive information. So that-- that wound down over time. BRIAN ROSS:And the ones that he knew about, were they on US soil? Were they in Pakistan? JOHN:You know, I was out of it by then. I had moved onto a new job. And I-- I don't recall. To the best of my recollection, no, they weren't on US soil. They were overseas." Remember (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Unfortunately, given the sheer weight of sources asserting that waterboarding is torture, NPOV requires that it identify waterboarding as a form of torture right off. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - my opinion on this is that an excellent article would pierce right through the debate on whether it was torture or not and just come out and say that it is torture, but that the White House, CIA and part of Congress want to label it not as torture so that they can continue to use it. And then the article should go ahead and show why they do, as it is not because of cruel intentions, but rather, they have gotten accurate confessions and vital information to thwart terrorist attacks. I respect those who want this article to expose Waterboarding for what it is, but at the same time respect those who see a greater good in potentially saving the lives of thousands by getting information from a terrorist that he otherwise would not give up. What if you were one of the people in the building planned on being blown up, or someone in your family? Would you then take a lesser stance on this issue if it was yours or your family's life that was being saved? I invite you to pause and reflect on that. I simply bring it up as bias is evident in this article overall, and neutrality should be the aim here. Also, the head of the CIA and a Congressman have now spoken out on the value of this and other rough techniques, which is referenced here (also, the House voted 222-199 to make it illegal, a close vote that should be kept in mind in the neutrality issue here.)[4]--Exterior37 (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an interesting opinion (that waterboarding, though "bad," ought to be used if the reason is "good"). Unfortunately, an encyclopedic Wikipedia article does not seem to be the place for such opinion or speculation. Regarding whether it "works" or not, any form of torture might "work," or it might produce unreliable information. For that reason, the U.S. military considers waterboarding torture, and prohibits it (along with all other forms of torture), for the reason that if U.S. troops are seen as torturers, U.S. troops are likely to be subjected to similar treatment when in enemy hands. Badagnani (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To say it's torture means that either you're deciding where the line should be drawn, or that there should be no line whatsover, and that anything can be called torture.

If neutrality was really the aim here then we should WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves. It truly amazes me how important some people think it is that WP should call this "torture". Look around at some truly horrible events, like the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings, and you might notice they don't stir up nearly as much outrage as the waterboarding of three fascists.

That LAT article doesn't mean anything. It's just a bunch of politicians maneuvering to pretend they care about one side or the other. We've already seen that they allowed waterboarding when they thought it was their necks on the line. (The politicians in Europe wouldn't be any different.)

People love to bring up the Spanish Inquisition but they have absolutely no context for that. Did the Inquisitors do it under the same conditions back then? Does anybody seriously believe it only lasted about one minute when they did it?

My point isn't that the Inquisition was far worse, which it was, but that you're drawing a line there that we don't have any business drawing in Wikipedia if we really cared about NPOV.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

For the tenth time, my apologies: if it's not sourced, Wikipedia doesn't care. If we have 25 sources that say waterboarding is torture, and 2 that say no/maybe not, it would be against policy to say anything but that Waterboarding is torture. To invoke Godwin's Law, if I had an article called Nazi that had 100 sources that said, "Nazis were historically considered bad," and 5 sources that said, "Maybe Nazis weren't so bad," would the article make a bright line distinction that Nazis weren't so bad? Of course not, it would be absurd. Please try to stop back from any personal politics, because no matter how eloquently they are presented, we simply can't use them as a basis for a single thing in an article. Sourced, or nothing. Let's please move on. This situation simply won't happen without adequate sourcing, and by that I mean more than two opinion editorials. Again: do you and Exterior have any? Lawrence Cohen 06:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. You have zero sources that determine it to be torture. The sources you do have are all making judgment calls. Some are merely sleazy lawyers or politicians or faux "human rights" advocates; others may have expertise in the procedure but not in the law.

The example you gave actually illustrates my point. I never said we should say it's not torture. As I have said a number of times, WP policy says we don't need to say whether the Nazis were good or bad. We should let the facts speak for themselves. I've pointed this out repeatedly, and yet you've never addressed it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This comment is inaccurate, because waterboarding is torture by definition in addition to the legal, military, and international authorities quoted on the matter. We are still waiting for sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Heres another source by someone trained to waterboard, who has done or watched 100's of waterboardings, guese what he says its torture too. [5] And hes the best and most authoritive source yet. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong again -- both of you. I never said it's not torture. I only said that doubt has been expressed, and that the sources you have aren't the final authority.

You have said that it is torture, and so you need sources that say that it is. All you have is opinion by people who don't have access to all the facts. I have nothing against saying that a bunch of lawyers, politicians, and military sources believe it to be torture but you need to make that qualification.

There's nothing new in your link. It's just another article on Nance, who we've seen a couple of times before. It's not even a particularly good article. (It says a couple of things that aren't precisely true.) If you're going to refer to Nance I would suggest you link directly to what he wrote on the subject.

Nance is an expert in waterboarding as the military performs it for SERE training. He doesn't work for the CIA, and he not an expert in international law.

I'm still waiting for comments on letting the facts speak for themselves.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is an encyclopedic article, which relies on verifiability and reliable sources. As such, it is NPOV to state that waterboarding is torture because all the sources state that it is torture, and the Onion and the "Uncyclopedia" state that it is not. Again, you state that "bad people" have done bad things, and they deserve to be waterboarded. That is your opinion, but, again, those are more appropriate for a personal blog than an encyclopedic article. Regarding whether torturing may produce some good results, again, that is immaterial to the subject. Josef Mengele conducted many experiments on small children during the Second World War. Under your reasoning, it would seem, "good" nations may perform such experiments because they might generate results that could conceivably have some success in saving many lives. Again, this is speculation and (as is the case regarding waterboarding) laws, both national and international, are already in place preventing such activities. I still have not seen you provide any sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, so I'm at a loss what your comments are aiming for. We do have standards here, and they rely on verifiability and sources. It would be great if you would provide some stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture. Your repeated line of thought that waterboarding may be "useful" or "good" in certain circumstances does not address the issue of whether it is torture or not. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I admire your condescending liberal spin, really. The two-valued logic of something being "bad" or "good" with no other analysis to how much worse a terrorist atttack is versus a terrorist getting waterboarded for thirty seconds, well that's brilliant and clearly past my perpiscuity. And then to compare it to Auschwitz, well that's just award winning positioning there. You must be right, there could be no reason whatsoever to place anything in this article as to results claimed to have been obtained with this procedure that may have saved thousands of lives. Let's just see how much anti-American sentiment we can stir up. Keep up the great work. --Exterior37 (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Stating that waterboarding is torture is not an example of anti-Americanism. Clearly, many other nations (including Imperial Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, Spain under the Inquisition, and Colonial France) have also achieved notoriety for their use of waterboarding as well. If some readers ascribe anti-Americanism to stating the facts that 1) waterboarding is torture, and 2) some U.S. personnel have practiced waterboarding, that would be solely their personal reaction to those facts, and not any kind of "spin" on the part of the article itself, which should be absolutely NPOV. Badagnani (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Everyone is reminded that arguing based on political stances is pointless, since such stances have zero place on Wikipedia. We can include details in this article, if you provide *sources*. Do you have any? If yes, list them--give us links. If not, the conversation is frankly closed. Wikipedia does not allow anything controversial or disputed in articles without sourcing, ever, at all. Please provide sources, or else stop making politicized and incendiary comments that make only the person posting them look foolish. Lawrence Cohen 05:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The description misses the point....that waterboarding is a form of torture. A point that history does not deny. A point that no official sources deny.Nospam150 (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

X's version of lead

Votes to support or oppose X's version

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.

Torture

It is important to qualify what is meant by torture. Why is it torture? How do we define torture? What aspect of waterboarding meets that definition of torture? It seems whether or not waterboarding is labelled "torture" is the point of contention. If we can agree on how to objectively definte torture, we can objectively say whether or not it is torture. Please qualify by what definition of torture you are using. Bigbadman (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

According to international law (quoted at our Torture article: "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." Badagnani (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more informaiton about waterboarding and its history. [[6]] See the wikipedia definition of Torture [7] Bigbadman (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture and America does not condone torture.--Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not even open to debate as to whether waterboarding is torture; IT IS TORTURE. The correct method, according to the offical US ARMY training film, is the full restraint of the prisoner, lying face up, flat on a board and blindfolded, with a towel twisted into a point, and shoved in the mouth and down the throat far enough to block movement of the epigloittus. The whole point of this is to keep the prisoner from swallowing, or breathing, and to keep the windpipe open-causing horrible reflexive gagging and choking. As the torturers pour water over the prisoners face, and onto the towel, the towel soon becomes saturated and begins to fill the mouth and dribble water directly into the lungs-with no possibility of swallowing. If that fails to work, plastic wrap is tightly wrapped around the head, a hole is poked open for the mouth, the nose and head are held firmly, and a small hose of running water is directed into the mouth-the mouth stays full, and thus breathing is impossible-until one has to reflexively take a breath-which pulls water into the lungs. I would invite anyone who says it is NOT torture to volunteer for a session-if they have the guts-and to tell your captors NOT to stand down if you cry "ENOUGH!" -for THAT is what a prisoner experiences, So these "tryout" water boarding sessions are a sham-the volunteer can opt out at any time- the prisoner cannot. Watching one twist and try to scream in pure agony is sickening. Which is why I would invite those who trivialize it to try a session-and to make it real by not allowing yourself the chance to 'opt out'-no 'safe words' or signs. I think you would change your mind pretty quickly.

'We dont torture-were a civilized nation'-Au Pairs 1986

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.69.62 (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is internationally understood to be a form of torture and has been verifiably practiced as long ago as the Spanish Inquisition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.26.140.137 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraphs mention experts that say it is torture. By any chance, has anyone found references to experts who say waterboarding is not torture? Is that paragraph presenting just one side of the issue, or is there only one nature of expert opinion about it?ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Saying something is not open to debate does not make it so. Reputable media outlets do not make such unequivocal statements on it, so why should a Wikipedia page be turned into a because-I-say-so lecture? Simply describing the procedure and its effects and stating that many experts describe it as torture, all of which is done in this article, should be sufficient to cover the topic in a Wikipedia article. Besides, anyone committed to convincing others that this is torture should recognize that a reader will be more open to looking at the rest of the article if the article does not start out with "Waterboarding is a torture technique". Even an ideologue should be able to recognize that there are those who will simply stop reading the article at that point. Just telling people what to think doesn't solve anything. Make the case. And this article would accomplish that simply by citing experts and those who have experienced it. Funfb (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a very interesting opinion. However, by definition waterboarding is torture, and has been acknowledged as such for hundreds of years (since the Spanish Inquisition, who made it famous), by everyone. It seems clear that the "crisis of language" regarding the term and its definition was engineered by the current U.S. administration simply because they would rather redefine the term than either stop practicing waterboarding or admitting that the U.S. has become a nation of torturers (like Japan, Cambodia, and other nations who formerly practiced waterboarding against prisoners routinely). The Washington Post states that the U.S. military considers waterboarding torture, and it has courtmartialed its own solders for perpetrating it. If you'd like to try to redefine torture, you should try to change the title of Rack (torture)--to have such a title, using your logic, would only turn Wikipedia into a "because-I-say-so lecture." Badagnani (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: "Reputable media outlets do not make such unequivocal statements on it, so why should a Wikipedia page be turned into a because-I-say-so lecture?"

1. Wikipedia articles don't consist of political spin. If they do, the articles are broken and will be fixed.
2. Please read this section of this page, for all the sources you can need that assert that waterboarding is torture.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles are the sole result of what sources we have to work with. As so far we have *TWO* sources that assert things along the lines that waterboarding is or may not be torture, and every other source says it is torture, the article will say it is torture. The still-unconfirmed personal views of members of the Bush administration are just that. Views, unconfirmed, and compared to the weight of all the other sources, a minority viewpoint. Read WP:WEIGHT as well. Lawrence Cohen 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea to cleanly hash this dispute out

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.

---

Since all the edit warring seemed to be about a small handful of details, I think all the attempted work above (no offense Inertia) was a bit unfocused. IP users can't watchlist pages, they'll have to look here to weigh in. If they don't, they don't. If the IP editors come back and edit war like mad again, it will be protected again, and we can't do much about that if they don't contribute here. We can deal with that (probable) possibility if it does come to pass when it does. So to figure out if the people actually watching this page have a problem, let's try this. So we don't try to do 1,000 things at once, everyone who wants something changed just list your top three here. It's a silly way to do it, but it'll be focused, and we can then just go over each other's concerns point by point in a section for each user. Just copy my formatting and for a first pass at this lets each limit this to just 2-3 points. I almost get the feeling we're debating everything (or talking about debating everything) rather than figuring out what everyone does or doesn't actually have a problem with.

My idea with this is to see if we actually have a valid reason to protect. I almost think now that we don't, and that this is all just because of various people with IP edits trying to advance a point of view. If thats the case, they're violating NPOV, which is vandalism, so we can semi-protect to force discussion. If you look at the editing history, all the warring is by IP editors trying to push edits that are not in compliance with WP:NPOV from my reading of it.

Reply to each user's section in threaded discussion with any concerns. If we don't get anyone with serious problems with the article that can't be fixed with trivial non-protected edits, I think we're fine to simply downgrade to semi-protection (long term semi, based on the insane warring of the past). • Lawrence Cohen 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, for taking part in this. I guess its a mini-RFC. It seems like the main concerns are coming out, lets run this to maybe Tuesday or Wednesday (to leave room for the holiday weekend in America, and people to catch up), then we can really dig in here on the results to see what is actually disputed. • Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Lawrence Cohen

• My only major concern is that the article clearly state upfront that waterboarding is historically (based on the variety of sources) a form of torture, but that some modern government administrations either dispute this (based on sourcing) or simply don't consider waterboarding torture. Basically, rigid NPOV enforcement and nothing less on that is/isn't torture bit.
• We shunt off the heavy emphasis on the United States from the lead section to a detailed sub-section about the United States. We shouldn't be dominating the opening of the article with our country.

That's it for me. • Lawrence Cohen 06:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:GregorB

I haven't been involved with this article thus far, but here are my thoughts anyway:

• The intro should say waterboarding is torture, because saying upfront that some claim otherwise breaks WP:UNDUE. It could be that waterboarding, indeed, is not torture; it could also be that Moon landing is a hoax, but I don't expect that view to be covered in the Moon landing article intro. On top of that, most of the sources that state waterboarding is not torture are not exactly impartial, making WP:UNDUE more egregious.
• Particular views (of US Government and other entities) or references to current events are indeed best left out of the lead section completely.

I feel that the "NPOV" version would invite more edit warring, but the same can be said for the version I'm proposing above, so I'm not really an optimist about unprotecting the article. GregorB (talk) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Remember

I look at this again when I have more time but here are my initial thoughts

1. I think the first sentence should just describe the procedure and refrain from categorizing it as torture/nontorture (which can happen in later sentences).

2. The article shouldn't say it is simulated drowning, since it more akin to controlled drowning since water enters the lungs. If we can't agree on simulated versus controlled we should avoid the terms all together.

3. We should mention that the forced ingestion of water and water into the lungs has a longstanding and widespread history of being torture (such as water torture and the water cure, but that recently some in the United States Government and some U.S. politicians have taken the standpoint that it isn't torture (or that even if it is it is justified) and then link to the discussion later in the page.

Suggested intro - Waterboarding consists of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water into the lungs. This procedure causes the subject to feel the early stages of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe death is imminent while often leaving no physical damage. The forced ingestion of water into the stomach or lungs has long been considered a form of torture (see also water torture and the water cure). Recently, some in the United States Government and some U.S. politicians have taken the standpoint that waterboarding does not qualify as torture or that even if it is torture that it is justified as an interrogation technique (and then link this last part to a longer discuss part on the page.

Remember (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a big mistake to define waterboarding as including forced inhalation of water. There are likely to be more than one technique in use. A number of sources, including the Life Magazine photograph from the Vietnam War, say cloth or cellophane is first placed over the victims nose and mouth. If we say waterboarding is defined by ingestion of water and therefore torture, it might be used as a justification for other "milder" techniques designed to prevent ingestion. All forms of waterboarding are torture because they produce an intense fear of death, not because of any possible physical harm. --agr (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big mistake, as the individual in charge of teaching this technique stated very clearly that this is one of the objectives of the technique. If you've actually read the sources we've been considering here, your comment just doesn't make sense. You can believe the official version promulgated by the administration attempting to get the public to accept this technique as "not so bad" or you can accept the testimony of someone to whom this was actually done, and who taught this technique in the U.S.'s own elite counterterrorism unit. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all there is no "official" administration position. They refuse to discuss it on the record. Second, I think you are missing the point. By defining waterboarding in the harshest mode, we leave room for people to argue that less harsh versions are not torture. And in any case, one person's testimony is not enough for us to ignore the other descriptions of waterboarding that are out there. The Fox TV reporters who underwent waterboarding did not report water inhalation, for example. Yet they found it quite effective and even characterized it as torture. There may be, and likely are, different methods used. We don't have to pick one. --agr (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Since there are apparently differing versions of waterboarding, we'll just list them as variants or something similar. Unless a source says this one is worse or less worse than that one, we absolutely will never say that. It would be original research. • Lawrence Cohen 08:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

User:OtterSmith

As I see it, there are three major problems with this discussion.

• Waterboarding is very poorly described, so poorly that it can be said to be undefined. I can think of at least a half-dozen different things that have been called waterboarding. None of them are pleasant. Some of them are physically dangerous to the victim. Some of them are actual interrupted drowning, others are things that seem to trick the body into feeling like it is in danger. Waterboarding is not a boogeyman, but it needs to be described so that the reader knows which techniques (whether one, some, or all) are being talked about.
• The legal status of waterboarding as torture needs to be accurately described for each of the different things being done. I suspect that some of the techniques are definately legal tortue, some of them are possibly legal tortue, and some of them are not. All of them are probably moral tortue, but that is a different question. The politics of those either condemning or practicing it are not part of the legal question (and are probably not properly part of the moral question.)
• American politics has no place in the article. If you can't talk or think about this without Bush bashing, you should disqualify yourself; likewise if you can't talk or think about this without Clinton bashing.
• "OMG Waterboarding is EVIL" is not helpful, even if true.

htom (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding is not poorly defined. It involve immobilizing someone pouring water over their head to make them believe they are drowning. There may be variants, but that's the basic deal. Tricking "the body into feeling like it is in danger", at least mortal danger, is of torture under U.S. law. No physical damage is required. --agr (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine what goes through your head when you think you are drowning. I remember getting choked out once. Everything went into slow motion, and it was as if my brain was on fire. It only lasted a few seconds, but it took thousands of hours as literally hundreds of nuerons fired at once and thoughts began racing. It wasn't really painful to be hand-choked, but it was hell. I can only imagine how horrible it must be to be "drowned". --Knappenberger, E.M. (SPC-R) (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Ka-Ping Yee

Thanks to Lawrence for trying to organize the discussion and to everybody for continuing to strive for progress. These are my main concerns.

• Waterboarding is not a simulation, and most definitely involves the introduction of water into the breathing passages. Most accounts of waterboarding involve a cloth (or nothing) over the subject's face; in the few cases that mention cellophane, a hole is poked in the cellophane. (The cloth or cellophane is used to intensify the effect, not soften it: it acts as a one-way valve, letting the subject's air escape, but forming a seal over the nose and/or mouth when he or she tries to inhale.) The article should make it clear that causing water to flow into the breathing passages is the whole point of the procedure; that is why, in every description, the subject is specifically positioned with the head tilted back.

• As far as I know, no government agency or representative has stated on the record that waterboarding is not torture -- so the article should not say or imply that this is anyone's official legal opinion. There have been quite a few evasive statements and refusals to answer by United States officials, and these are fine to quote or mention. But it would be going too far for the article to make derivations from what has been said and then present that as fact. Examples of such inferences to avoid: "X refused to say waterboarding is torture" => "X's official opinion is that waterboarding is not torture". Or "X says torture is illegal" + "X authorized waterboarding" => "X's official opinion is that waterboarding is not torture". When presenting official opinions, the article should offer exactly what has been said, no more and no less.

• I personally believe that "waterboarding is torture" is at least as true as "humans and apes have a common ancestor." That is, although some people may not accept it, it is firmly supported by evidence and sound reasoning (e.g. reasoning directly from legal definitions of torture). The opposing viewpoint is not on equal footing; in fact, arguably "waterboarding is torture" is on even firmer ground than evolution, since there are not even official authorities willing to publicly take the opposing viewpoint. I am willing to accept an article that does not contain the statement "waterboarding is torture", but not an article that presents a dispute between two equal sides. I would argue for a statement such as "the overwhelming majority of experts, legal authorities, and historical precedents consider waterboarding to be torture." As mentioned earlier on this talk page, perhaps a good solution would be to move all discussion of waterboarding's classification as torture to a section devoted specifically to legal status. This section would state the legal definitions, the historical precedent in literature and legal opinion, and quote the opinions of modern authorities.

Thanks for taking these into consideration. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for "a hole is poked in the cellophane"? None of the sources I found mention this. --agr (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's one: Mukasey Unsure About Legality of Waterboarding (New York Times, October 30, 2007) —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Inertia Tensor

Again, Thanks to Lawrence for trying to organize the discussion and to everybody for continuing to strive for progress. These are my main concerns.

• Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).

• I consider torture to be what it is - and the simplest most accurate consise description to a reader - torture should lead, with the mechanics of it following.

• I believe the whitehouse carries no weight as I would consider a murderer saying something is not murder to be noteworthy, but not carrying weight.

• Being neutral to fact, and being neutral to a side are different things. We are not meant to be neutral to perpetrators - we are meant to be neutral to fact.

• No whitewashing, unreasonable glossing over things, revisionism or New Speak. So no controlled drowning, enhanced-(beating-the-shit-out-of people) information gathering, wet ops, special interogation or any other doublespeak. New speak is a gross distortion of NPOV. Later citing somone else's new 'word' is fine, but not in the opener.

• It is what it is. Torture. If you feel uncomfortable about that take it up with your leaders - or change them. But don't try and twist fact to suit them. Demos Cratine

• Common reading of the English language, such as the US code, is not necessarily OR, as has been claimed by some. The Law doesn't say that Kabodkweufcnjfalalaboho is torture, even though I take that to mean castration with a tennis racket. So is Kabodkweufcnjfalalaboho ok? Come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inertia Tensor (talk • contribs) 09:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

User:NoSpam150

My suggestion would be to remove any direct comparisons of waterboarding to drowning, as drowning implies death in official definitions. Implying death or "simulated" death, is not accurate. Mentioning a condition involving the "fear of drowning", however, is fair.

So something like:

Waterboarding is a torture technique where asphyxiation due to 
forced water inhalation is used to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

or

Waterboarding is a torture technique where suffocation due to
forced water inhalation is used to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.

Where:

Asphyxiation is the condition of being deprived of oxygen.

Torture is an act by which severe pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person for punishment, intimidation, coercion, or to elicit a confession.

---

For those who insist that "torture" is in question, I would ask which definition you are using. Do you disagree with the (often mentioned) international definition of torture, or does some part of the definition not match? If so, which part:

• severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental.

• intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as:

• • obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession.

• • punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed.

• • intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.

• when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Nospam150 01:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Indicate

The bottom line here is that the language is too strong for the issue. No one here is qualified to unequivocally state that waterboarding is or is not torture, no matter how hard you argue and how many sources you cite. HOWEVER, it is reasonable to say that waterboarding is considered by many to be torture, because that is indeed verifiable and truthful, which I would argue is the purpose here.

Ultimately, the description of waterboarding as an act is the intent here (i.e. how it is performed), not whether or not it is torture. Thus the information should not be introduced by how it is characterized (torture). It should be introduced by how waterboarding is performed. Once those facts are established, only then should this controversy about the characterization be presented since it is secondary. If there are opposing viewpoints, as there are here, both views should be presented in a balanced way so as not to influence the readers conclusion. It is only fair.

The fact is that the issue is controvertible and there are two distinct sides to it. A statement claiming one side is not objective in this particular venue. The article is stating a position in the debate, one that others might not agree with. I'm not arguing from any philosophical, moral, political, or ideological influences; it is simple logic. You have two sides to an issue and one is being asserted as truth. That is called making an argument and is suited for an article or essay, not for a medium in which the purpose is solely to present verifiable facts. And citing some sources as evidence in favor of that argument is not adequate to claim it as fact. The stated position is still burdened by opposition.

Simply put - One's claim that waterboarding is torture is refutable; ones claim that waterboarding is not torture is also refutable. Neither statement is fact, but both can be presented equally, albeit briefly. It is more important to stick to the issues; how waterboarding is performed, who uses it, what is its place in history, etc.

I fully support an edited intro along the lines that user "Remember" has proposed above. It is objective, truthful, and verifiable. Users on Wikipedia expect to be given factual and balanced information so they can come to their own conclusions.

V-Indicate 23:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with your first one-and-a-half paragraphs. I believe it is clear, however, that there aren't two equal sides here. We have a position that is supported by historical record, legal precedent, and the opinions of an overwhelming majority of present-day experts; and we have an opposing position that no one in an authoritative role (as far as I know) has been willing to take in public. (Keep in mind that unwillingness to say "waterboarding is torture" is not the same as actually taking the position "waterboarding is not torture.") Consider, for example, re-reading your third paragraph in the context of a statement such as "the earth is round" and you will see what I mean. The existence of flat-earthers does not obligate an encyclopedia to censor the statement "the earth is round" from its articles.

I recognize that the level of controversy around this topic will probably prevent an article which says "waterboarding is torture" from lasting for any length of time without re-igniting a flame war. Thus, pragmatically, I am willing to accept an article without this statement, as I note below. But there is no doubt that the article should reflect the fact that recorded opinions and evidence weigh very heavily on the side that waterboarding, indeed, is torture.

—Ka-Ping Yee 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"...as I note below." Whoops! I meant "above". —Ka-Ping Yee 05:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that "unwillingness to say 'waterboarding is torture' is not the same as actually taking the position 'waterboarding is not torture.'" (I direct that statement to Badagnani on my behalf). I am not advocating for an article without "waterboarding is torture." On the contrary, I think that it must be included to tell the reader that waterboarding is considered torture. But I argue that the first sentence of the second paragraph does that, and does it very effectively and objectively.

Those who challenge the neutrality of the article take issue with the introductory sentence's language, among other things. As I proposed below, if the opening sentence would say "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique..." it would thus be a neutral statement. Then the second paragraph works to assert that waterboarding has been described by experts as torture. I cannot reiterate enough how effective this statement is; it is exactly the wording that must be used to convey the charaterization of torture, and its placement in the article is perfect.

Consider this: The first sentence asserts "Waterboarding is torture..." but the first sentence of the second paragraph says "Numerous experts have described this technique as torture." The language of the two is completely different. You can see how the former sentence's language is stronger that that of the latter sentence. Thus, changing the first sentence to "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique..." and keeping "Numerous experts have described this technique as torture," makes for a better encyclopedic entry that hopefully would be agreeable to everyone.

Then we are largely in agreement. As indicated elsewhere on this page, I am fine with a statement expressing that most or nearly all experts and precedents consider waterboarding to be torture. However, I would argue for leaving "interrogation technique" out of the first sentence because waterboarding is not a way of asking questions. It could be used to coerce someone to answer questions, but it could also be used to coerce someone to do just about anything. Basically, a means is not the same as its end: e.g. bank robbery is not encyclopedically defined as a "profit technique"; it is just plain bank robbery. —Ka-Ping Yee 14:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ka-Ping Yee. Remember 17:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

The opinion by the redlinked editor (in his/her first edit at Wikipedia ever) is illogical in light of the massive collection of sources on this issue. The practice is, by definition, torture, and the article should state this in the lead. The fringe opinion, on behalf of some members of the current administration of one country among nearly 200 in the world, that "waterboarding is not torture" (which has been repeated by such individuals as the redlinked new editor) should be mentioned, but not privileged in the lead. Badagnani 23:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From previous discussion you probably know that I generally agree with your opinion on waterboarding and torture. But let's keep the discussion away from getting personal. Repeatedly hinting at V-Indicate's newness to Wikipedia is out of bounds for this discussion. It doesn't help us reach consensus on the article. —Ka-Ping Yee 05:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:V-Indicated

First and foremost let me clarify to you that at no point did I claim that waterboarding was not torture. And if you interpreted my comments as such, you are mistaken. It is irresponsible on your part to make that statement. Clearly you are one of those that brings political and ideological biases to the issue, and you ought to descend from your pedestal. You might be surprised to know my personal position on the matter, but it is completely irrelevant here.

Secondly, the hand you are playing is one to diminish my credibility. I fail to see how this being my first edit on Wikipedia "ever" (under this username, I might add) has any sort of bearing to what I have to say. Is my ability to contribute to this discussion in anyway inferior becasue you assume I haven't edited before? What I am is a Wikipedia user who expects better.

Third, I'll reiterate my position that an encyclopedic entry about waterboarding should describe the act of waterboarding and its origins, uses, etc. That should be the dominant discussion. I never proposed that the opposing viewpoint should be in the lead as you claim I said. You would do yourself justice to read more carefully. What waterboarding is characterized as, whether it is or it isn't torture, is secondary and subjective.

If the definition is so clear cut, as you allege, then why are people challenging its neutrality? If the article would not have begun with "Waterboarding is torture," would you so ardently be promoting the inclusion of that statement?

The logical compromise here is to call waterboarding an interrogation technique, which is a more appropriate term because it is irrefutable and truthful. If you must have the charatarization in the introductory sentence, it would then read "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates drowning in a controlled environment." By simply changing the wording it turns into a factual scentence without strong language. I think that would be agreeable to you, me, and everyone else, whatever our personal ideologies dictate.

As responsible Wikipedia editors, it is our (the public) duty to ensure that proper and factual information is being made available to people, lest we forget that it is the purpose of Wikipedia.

V-Indicate 03:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You have some very interesting opinions about this issue, but I think you were clear; you wish to follow the current U.S. administration's bending of the definition and terminology. Wikipedia, although founded in the United States, has no such mission to redefine terms, in the lead of an article, according to current, fringe redefinitions made by a single administration of a single nation. Badagnani 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

---

Out of fairness, perhaps you should consider changing the Parrilla (torture) (Electric shock torture) page to remove the possible "political and ideological biases". Just in case the US government or another partner government is using that, we may need a similar change there:

From:

Parrilla is a method of torture where the victim is strapped to a metal frame and subjected to electric shock.

To:

Parrilla is an interrogation technique that simulates electrocution in a controlled environment.

Nospam150 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

By this reasoning, Rack (torture) would also need to have its very title changed. Badagnani 04:19, 3 December 2007 (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.