Jump to content

Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

FYI

Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank."

After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner.

But in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed the United States had used the controversial technique to interrogate senior Al Qaeda suspects, and he said the White House did not consider waterboarding a form of torture.[1]Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And Elizabeth de la Vega wrote that under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2340, there is no confusion as to whether these techniques constitute torture.

This argument - that a person cannot know whether his conduct falls within the definition of torture unless it is expressly proscribed by Section 2340 - is precisely the one we've heard from Michael Mukasey with regard to waterboarding.[2]

Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we've gone over this before. The problem is that the opinions of Dick Cheney et al, are just that: opionions, until challenged by a body that has oversight over their actions, like the Senate/Congress, or a US Court of Law. Their opinions also have no legal bearing on the rest of the world. We will certainly note the minority/fringe view of the current United States government on this, but it would be made clear that its a minority opinion per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and so on. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


New Section

I think we should also create a new section that discusses the notable political debate that is going on about waterboarding individuals. For instance, there has been some buzz that Stephen King said that someone close to George Bush, such as Jenna Bush, should have be waterboarded so that they could get a first hand opinion on whether it was torture. Now former Attorney General Ashcroft has responded to whether he would be willing to be waterboarded with the statement: “The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said." [3]. Also this was mentioned last night in the youtube debate see [4]

One of the evening's most emotional exchanges came in response to a question from Andrew Jones, a college student from Seattle.

"Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation," Jones said.

"My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?" he said.

"I oppose torture," Romney said. "I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form."

Prompted by the moderator as to whether waterboarding was torture, Romney said "as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use."

McCain's response was passionate: "Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is."

"I know what waterboarding is, Senator," Romney said.

"Then I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention," McCain said.

What do others think? Remember (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

How did no one reply to so many sections before? We must have been all in tunnel vision mode. This would be a good addition (I think similar ideas floated around here and there since the first round of edit warring when the IPs duked it out). Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

minor edit

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.

{{editprotected}} The White House in Contemprary uses should not have quotes.68.173.12.180 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, that almost looks like its in there as a joke. Lets take it out. Lawrence Cohen 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 13 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.
  • Comment - I believe the quotes were there because it did not specify whether "the White House" means "George W. Bush" or someone else--i.e., that the statement was vague regarding who exactly gave the go-ahead. Badagnani (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Tortology? - Under "Mental and physical effects" is the phrase, "...intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and ...". I believe that tachycardia is the same thing as a rapidly beating heart. (See wikipedia entry on tachycardia.) Suggest changing to "... intense stress response, manifested by tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and ..." 82.27.129.238 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Damian Smith 21:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add to "See also"

Probably best to not just arbitrarily stick that into the External Links (See also is for internal Wikipedia pages, not outside sites). It would be a little too POV, to put it mildly. It's a fine source, though, for when we open the article again. Lawrence Cohen 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

{{editprotected}} Please remove link to Srpski article. It is not about waterboarding. --Rowaa[SR13] 17 :31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you please tell us what the article is about? Several other articles on waterboarding are interwikied to it as well. Badagnani 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak (or read/write) Serbian, but it looks like the Serbian article linked to from this article is about boarding [of a ship at sea] as if to attack the boarded ship. I also don't know how to redirect those links, or how to find the Serbian article on waterboarding. Perhaps our friend above could help us find the right articles. Wilhelm meis 05:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see, I just selected "latinica" and see that the links are all about the Pelopponesian War, Punic War, etc. Thus, it's most likely about what you say, and not about waterboarding. Badagnani 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The Serbian article is about (and is now interwiki linked to) Boarding (attack) - no relation to waterboarding. GregorB 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Posting the request for an edit, we apparently missed this in all the other debate. Lawrence Cohen 00:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what link is being discussed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's the Serbian interwiki, but I just realized Luna already got it here. Sorry! Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 13 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.

New Sources

Please put any new sources that should or could be included in this article below (Remember 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)):

  1. How Stuff Works article on Waterboarding
  2. A journalist undergoes Waterboarding, while recorded on cameraEbright82 (talk) 08:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Downgrade Full protection to semi

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.

This article has now been locked for about a month while lots of information and attention has been focused on the subject. I think we need to reduce the lock to semi-protect so that we can integrate some of this information into the article. If you have a problem with this please state your objection below and what specifically would need to be resolved before you could support a removal of the lock. Remember 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support All the discussion here has been fruitful and collaborative. The IP users who were abusing Wikipedia and vandalizing have opted not to weigh in with discussion, so we can assume their vandalism was just that at this time. Probably was a side effect of the massive media attention at the time, with people trolling Wikipedia to advance their random political POV (whatever it was). Downgrade to long-term semi. We've been through a few rounds now of IPs fighting IPs in edit wars. Lets leave it semi-protected at a minimum to January 1st. Lawrence Cohen 14:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose What has changed - Lawrence is really working hard to get a consensus, but I'm not convinced we have one. Fully unprotected if changed, but will request reprotection if major edits happen without near absolute consensus. Though the IPs fought hardest - this was initiated by registered users. I honestly see no replacement consensus emerging here, and believe until we actually finalize the first paragraph verbatim before unprotection, this WILL start again. We don't need to hash the whole article, we do not to agree on the first paragraph. I don't see consensus. I would go for a more direct tone Waterboarding is torture as i think would AGR and some others, Lawrence will seek consensus, and some others may seek to marginalise this basic fact and boot it down below.... Admin lurkers time to weigh in here. This topic has proven over and over again to have rested peaceful in protection and then exploded upon release. Most notably there is a wild contrast between Remember and a few of us - that can not be consensus or even close to it. It is a given that we will end up disputing heavily, but going our best to stay calm about it. until the differences stated by users above are reconciled to consensus, this is a ticking bomb. The person whose view on Waterboarding is torture type leads most wildly diverged in the above USER statements section is asking for unprotection - I think we can not do this. We need consensus, time alone is not a factor here. Inertia Tensor (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by your above statement. Is it your position that we need to agree on the text of the opening paragraph before unprotecting the article, but that once this is agreed upon you are willing to allow for unprotection? Remember (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Main protagonists are all participating. Changing to weak oppose - I have HUGE AFG in L. Fundamentally I want to see YOU and RANDY find a consensus with the rest of us, we won't 3RR and you won't either, but we will, and have started things that went nuclear from others. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and I am not that trusting the way things have been. Reasons for AGF have been damaged. There is more to EDITWARRING than 3rr.Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
See my proposal below to resolve lead issue. Remember (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per Lawrence Cohen. The biggest stumbling point here was should the article intro say outright that waterboarding is torture. However #Sources_that_assert_waterboarding_is_not_torture, the section above, is still empty; I've tried to find these sources, but I couldn't (apart from NN bloggers or such); maybe I didn't look that hard. I could only find people in the third category ("Sources that appear to question the status of waterboarding, but don't say whether it's torture or not"): Michael B. Mukasey and Rudy Giuliani[5]. Is this all? If it is, then I guess the situation is much clearer now. Let's unprotect it and see what happens. GregorB (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem is some people do not want torture in lead, regardless of whether it has backing or not. Daly it has proven over and over again that they simply don;t care (not all). I am not talking about just now - but the past 2 years. Also, see the user responses in an above section. Giuliani does not say WB=T. Giuliani says it might be okay in some circumstances. Many in the US seize on that, viciously distort it - and practice OBFUSCATION buy confusing people between Is it torture and is it acceptable. TWO VERY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. Look at Randy, he just does not want it involved in lead - look at the edit history - there is no safe consensus. This WILL erupt. Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
If it erupts, and a minority of people edit war to go against consensus and violate WP:NPOV, they may end up with administrative problems. :( Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Inertia Tensor presents a very good analysis. The minority arguments presented appear to be attempting to convince readers that this practice is not that bad, even acceptable in some cases, and in fact should be used. However, that is a separate argument from whether it meets the definition of a form of torture and should be stated as such in the lead. It is, and it should be. If it is not, then Rack (torture) will need to have its title changed. Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Inertia is spot-on with his analysis. The problem is we have one source that says its acceptable-ish, and another that says its not torture and is acceptable. I just casually pulled another batch of sources out tonight that show waterboarding is torture. Not to be silly, but its now 15 to 1 or 15 to 1.5, depending on how you count it on each issue. At what point does the consensus and facts become painfully clear? Lawrence Cohen 08:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
It is apparent that the fair and balanced-crowd think that unless we have a 100+ to 1 sourced position there effectively is a controversy and we are mandated to teach the controversy. Others may think that any position that is extremely different from the mainstream and supported by only a staggering minority of politicians does not warrant equal time in this article.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:58, 9 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.

Waterboarding "IS" torture - what article will have to say per policy

Per policy, we can only report verifiable facts that are sourced and attributable. Fringe or irrelevant border views and opinions will get minimal or passing mention, as they are unaccepted fringe theories. As we have no reliable sources that state the attributable fact that "waterboarding is not torture," Wikipedia per our policies is only allowed to report an opening lead sentence and paragraph that opens with (wording can vary from this, but the intent and message may not),

"Waterboarding is an act of torture, which takes the form of simulated drowning."

As a call for quite some time has been out for sources which meet WP:RS to state that waterboarding is not torture has sat empty, without evidence or sources which meet our policy standards to say this, Wikipedia is not allowed to say anything but that waterboarding IS torture. If people can find sources that quote specific notable individuals who are authorities on torture, or law related to such things, who say that waterboarding is not torture, we can certainly quote them. However, as all the evidence and historical facts in sources contradict them, their fringe and minority viewpoints will be dealt with in minimal passing, per WP:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, which says:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
If you are able to prove something that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof. Once a proof has been presented and discussed elsewhere, however, it may be referenced. See: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Therefore, barring people presenting any evidence to the contrary, any attempts to say or mangle this article once it is unprotected to say that waterboarding is not torture is completely incompatible with Wikipedia policies and will be promptly removed. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cited Andrew C. McCarthy a number of times before. I'll add Mary Jo White now. Both are notable attorneys. Neither of them say with certainty that it's not torture. They're simply saying (to put it most kindly) that the opponents are speaking without knowing or considering all the facts.
The biggest problem I see with your POV is not that you want it called "torture" but that you may stamp it as such in a generic fashion without mentioning names. I would prefer it be remembered where people stood.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Its really not my POV; I'm just regurgitating what the overwhelming volume of sources say. And yes, we can certainly not if a given person says a specific view, but the lead has to reflect what the majority and consensus (consensus of sources, not us as editors) says. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Can you also list your specific pro-torture sources in the appropriate section above? I'm not sure why you hadn't previously. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Having re-read the Mary Jo White source, it is not valid. There is no claim there that waterboarding is not torture. Can you quote the specific passage there that waterboarding is not torture? Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is somebody's POV, or a that of a large group of people. I'll concede that there is a consensus but it's made up primarily of people who chose certain positions in this current war. Like it or not, some of these divisions will affect how these smaller issues are viewed. It is doubtful that they could maintain these positions if the sides change, and so it's hard for me to take that POV seriously.
I did say that neither of their opinions was that it's definitely not torture. McCarthy's is that we don't know enough to say. White's is that it's the proper position to take.
I saw the section looking for the not-torture position but it became muddled and I didn't think it worth the bother. I'll add it shortly.
I'll also add that the CIA's lawyers reportedly decided that it's not technically torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The vast array of sources above that say it is torture aren't specifically about the Iraq War. McCarthy does say outright he doesn't think it's torture. Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Here: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."
Let's just say I think the "vast array of sources" tends to be biased in one way or another, and most of them will not retain that position if they're pushed. I don't necessarily mean that as a slam against the other side. The U.S. government was once so adamantly against unrestricted submarine warfare that it drove them into WWI. They changed their minds when events called them to take a closer look at it. This crowd would do the same on waterboarding. They just hadn't been tested yet.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There is another problem here, in what you've said. The current US government view (as sourced) is just one lone view, and doesn't decide the tone and content of this article. It needs to be a world view. Our country is just one country, and unfortunately, based on weight of sources a WP:FRINGE view that needs to be limited in impact on the article per WP:WEIGHT. Lawrence Cohen 18:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's why I felt the need to mention the lesser-relevance of the "vast array of sources". Most of them have not been fully tested. The rest of the world can say anything they like with little or no cost to themselves. Theirs may be a loud opinion but it's not an important one.
It's like asking the Swiss for their opinions on whaling.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, any sort of US-centric or Western-centric view on this is unacceptable and will violate WP:NPOV, a core and non-negotiable policy if we give any undue weight to the modern US view. We can do nothing but build articles out of available sources, with no original thought or research of our own. Therefore, we can only say that waterboarding is torture, based on overwhelming evidence. However, we'll certainly note that the current US government won't address the topic, and that some conservative American pundits feel it isn't torture. Lawrence Cohen 23:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
DAMN Larry, you are full of crap.
First of all, you're clearly not a lawyer, because if you were, you'd see how fatally flawed some of your quasi-legalistic reasoning is. Arraying published opinions by other lawyers who don't have any professional duties at stake in making such polemical statements is not, and would never be considered by any decent litigator, "authoritative" in the way you're using the term. At best, it can be considered "persuasive authority."
The fact is that neither you nor your minions can cite one U.S. Supreme Court opinion that states "waterboarding is torture," because it doesn't exist (citing a Mississipi Supreme Court opinion on the matter is inaquequate because that court has no jurisdiction to limit the authority of any nationalized military force or to define operative terms governing such forces -- their statement on waterboarding is extraneous "dicta" and is irrelevant to the issue that the Mississippi Supreme Court was authorized to resolve).
Moreover, citing the naked language of the U.S. Code section is sophomoric and the kind of thing naive first-year law students might do when they write their first paper, but reasoning like that on any U.S. Bar exam would be deemed totally inadequate. Why is that? Because defining a specific concrete thing or set of facts as fitting an abstract legal or linguistic category like "torture" is more than just about making arguments from authority (and even lawyers can't get away with that when push comes to shove). Instead, it requires the reasoned and intellectually honest application of those facts to the salient defining characteristics of that category...and THEN articulating precisely and not overly broadly what those facts mean, even if they don't go as far as to support your intuitions and political predilections (which this entire section of Wikipedia seems rife with, to be honest).
If that's too U.S./Western/Common Law-centric and offends your relativistic sensibilities for you and you want to argue that it is considered torture under international law, then cite the finding from the specific currently authoritative and controlling case in international law, and then say that "such-and-such a case defines the act known as waterboarding as torture." Good luck finding that.
And if you can't do all that, then have the intellectual decency and humility to admit that you and your enablers have overreached, that published polemics do not rise to the epistemological standard that you've been attributing to them, and that whether waterboarding can be considered torture in any consequentially legal/human-rights sense of the word is something that remains, at best, inconclusive.
72.244.113.169 (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your very pleasant and civil comments. Please read WP:CIV, before posting on this page again. Thank you. As for the opinions you've stated, Badagnani has done a good job of clearing up errors in your thinking. Beyond that, Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be beholden to any political point of view. Wikipedia articles follow a neutral point of view. Read WP:NPOV. This is just the way this world inside this website works. If you aren't comfortable with that, you might want to post on the talk page of WP:NPOV explaining your concerns. On articles, like this one, NPOV is non-negotiable. Also, we are only allowed to report what reliable sources say. Read WP:RS. If you aren't happy with what the reliable sources say, my apologies. You are welcome to find more reliable sources, and post them here. Most importantly, of course, is that Wikipedia will not simply parrot any viewpoint that anyone just happens to say. So, you, me, or another dozen editors can say, "Waterboarding is good because Bush said so, and they're just foreigners," or we can say, "Waterboarding is an abhorrent act, of humiliation and evil." We won't use either version. Why? Because we're not reliable sources. We'll only use what reliable sources say. All of them so far, except two, say waterboarding is torture.
Does the United Nations or Hague say they are? I don't think they've ever bothered to decide. Does the US Supreme Court say its torture? I don't think they've ever bothered to decide. Even if they did, it doesn't matter. They're one opinion. We'd note it in one sentence, and move on. If the overwhelming weight of sources say x is x, we're going to say factually that x is x. If two people say, x is y, we're report the following:
x is x. as the first sentence. Later in the article, we'll make a note that some people may disagree. That's the way it works. Again, also, keep civil. Further attacks could lead you to being blocked from editing. Have a nice day. Lawrence Cohen 22:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
And thank YOU for the passive-aggression Larry, and for the veiled threat to "block" those who expose your laziness as such. Is your confidence in your position really that frail?
You and your supporters introduced legal sources to this debate as authority for your statement that it's torture. Fine, but if you're going to do that, you open the door to legal criticism of your incorrect use of the sources. I just gave you several specific reasons why your methodology was flawed and you're trying to side-step the points I raised. Fair enough...let readers decide.
I've read several of your other posts on here and I must say that your epistemological position seems to me incoherent: on the one hand you tell those who disagree with you that they must cite reliable sources for the proposition that such-and-such is not x, when the fact is that the burden of proof is on YOU Larry, and those who want to be able to make the statement that "waterboarding is torture." This is a cheap debater's trick and it inhibits the productivity of producing genuine factual knowledge for the consumers of Wikipedia. The burden of proof is never on the person seeking to prove a negative, but on the person seeking to prove that a proposition is valid. You cannot seek refuge in "consensus," when there clearly is NO demonstrable consensus on the issue -- which is part of why this issue is so controversial (and by the way, what comprises consensus anyway? 51% agree? 75%? 95%?...the standard is squishy to begin with, but then again, I'm not the one appealing to consensus as authoritative here).
You're also being weasely when you suggest that all you want to be able to do is to say that "x is x," when what you really want to be able to say is that "y is x." Comprende? The fact that something is debatable and can be qualified (or rather buried in the part of the article few will ever read) further down does not justify an editorial decision to report that "y is x," because some other dilettante said so. By now, it's pretty transparent that your intent is to use the lead to advance your political bias on this issue. You know that most readers will never get beyond the first paragraph which is why you're willing to cite "non-consensus" views where nobody will ever see them. How noble of you!
And frankly, to equate that authoritativeness of the U.S. Supreme Court or The Hague or any other who has professional responsibilities for which they have consequential accountability with the authoritativeness of an opinionated journalist or law professor blogger (who, incidentally, hasn't necessarily ever had to pass the Bar) seems childish and dangerous. At a minimum, it does violence to the notion of reason to put those two "sources" on the same level of authoritativeness.72.244.113.169 (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't understand; we so far have no sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, and many (including many that are not legalistic, including the U.S. military's own position) stating that it is a form of torture. The anon's argument seems to consist of "the U.S. wants to be able to do this to 'bad people', thus they will claim, against all evidence and published opinion dating back to the Spanish Inquisition, that it is not a form of torture." It's just not coherent. If you'd like to provide sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, that would be wonderful, because we'd all like to see those. I agree that we should avoid doing violence to the English language, specifically as regards fringe attempts at redefinition of well-defined and well-understood terms. Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You've now twice launched into personal attacks. Please stop immediately. Incivilility is a blockable offense. Our civility policy is mandatory and applies to all users, logged in or otherwise. Once you have stopped, please read this collection of sources that assert waterboarding is torture. Next, read these two sources that assert waterboarding is not torture. You've typed quite a bit there, but to be honest it boils down to: what do the sources say? Legal "interpretaion" doesn't mean anything to us. We make articles based on our own internal editorial standards, not external "legal" standards. Feel free to add more sources to the section on "not torture," if you have some at hand. Otherwise, we have go with what the sources say verifiably and can only report on that in a neutral way, and we also cannot include any original thought or ideas here that aren't attributable to one of those reliable sources. Any attempts to craft the article without adherence to all of that wouldn't be acceptable, ever. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd also add that as laymen we have every right to read the law and understand its plain meaning; indeed we have a duty to do so. It's implicit in ignorantia juris non excusat. Lawyers don't own the law.--agr (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment - That's a very interesting opinion, seeing as how the Washington Post states that the U.S. military defines waterboarding as a form of torture.[6]. In your opinion I presume, that if the U.S. practices waterboarding it is not torture, since Americans are "good" and doing it for "good purposes" and not as "cruelly" as other nations might (but if Japanese, Cambodians, etc. conduct it, it would be torture--such as the Japanese who were court martialed after World War II for waterboarding Allied military personnel). I should also point out that your rough language does not do your credibility any favors. Badagnani (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regarding the international definition of torture, it is very clear; it has been presented here before, but perhaps you have not read through all of the discussion archives (I know, it takes some time). Such a definition does not need to specify every cruel practice that can be invented, as the language is quite clear.


Badagnani (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it you say "based on overwhelming evidence"? I think you mean based on overwhelming opinions. The article should name names so that we know whose opinions.
It's a tad bit odd to say "the current US government won't address the topic." While that's technically true (and is expected to remain true for the succeeding administration based upon what all the front-runners have said), it has also been addressed in leaks that CIA lawyers say it's not technically torture. And if you say the leaks aren't enough, then it's hard to say that anyone was waterboarded at all.
McCarthy and White may be "pundits" but they're both attorneys who've been instrumental in this fight against fascism. It's fine with me if we put everything out there, pro and con, but let's apply some names to these opinions so that no one forgets who stood where.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The sources (many reliable ones) are here, in black and white. We so far have only two sources stating unequivocally that waterboarding is not a form of torture: The Onion and Uncyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen's proposal above is quite sensible, and I support it. Badagnani (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This seems very similar to the tobacco industry's "the jury is still out" argument, used for decades in an effort to cast doubt, among the general public, on the fact of cigarette smoke's serious negative impacts on health (even though they knew quite well of those impacts all along). You just don't have any sources that would warrant not listing waterboarding as a form of torture in the lead, and seem to now be resorting to a delaying tactic in order to prevent consensus. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The view that waterboarding is not torture (on behalf of the George W. Bush administration, CIA, or whoever, if this has actually been stated) should be mentioned, but this fringe view should not be privileged in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no official source that specifically says waterboarding is not torture (at least I can't find one). I also think we do need to mention somewhere in the article how the Bybee memo defined torture for the Bush Adminstration as "acts inflicting...severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical." Physical pain "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Mental pain "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years," as well as be the result of one of the specific causes of mental pain contained 18 USC 2340, "namely: threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual's personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party." The memo also concluded that even though an act is "cruel, inhuman, or degrading," it doesn't necessarily inflict the level of pain that 18 USC 2340 prohibits, and thus does not subject an interrogator to criminal prosecution. Additionally, it stated that a defense of "necessity or self-defense may justify interrogation methods" that violate 18 USC 2340.. Remember (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I found what I was looking for: according to a news report by Newsweek, "..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article. I think this is as close to we get as saying the Bush administration concluded waterboarding isn't torture. While it is not an official position, it should be noted that the article accused the Bush administration of having this position. Remember (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
That's possibly questionable, since its a 3rd party view accusing a group (the Bush Administration) of something that may or may not be legally actionable against them. I'd be hesitant to use this for that reason, and it may not be useable under valid interpretations of policy. Lawrence Cohen 17:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking that the article should simply note what had been reported. I don't think this would violate any of Wikipedia's policies. Something such as: In mid-2004, Newsweek reported a story based, in part, on anonymous sources by Michael Hirsh, John Barry and Daniel Klaidman that stated that the 2002 Bybee Memo was created after internal discussions among the top White House lawyers including George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel. In these discussions, the story alleged that this group found acceptable certain interrogation techniques including ""water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations. Remember (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding

To increase exposure, I've posted about this situation to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding, the Fringe Theories noticeboard, asking for additional users to watchlist this article. Lawrence Cohen 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm watchlisting but won't make an input till I've had a chance to read the article, sources and discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted videos

CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

15, or more? I suspect we're done now

...in regards to this torture question. The rest is just housekeeping and cleaning.

Not to be blunt, but we've spent a frightening amount of brain power here on something that looking back is glaringly obvious. We have approximately 15 sources now that plainly assert from notable individuals ranging from human rights groups, to Presidents, to soldiers, to Senators, and so on, that waterboarding is torture. We have on the other side one source that weakly asserts waterboarding may be acceptable, and one source that doesn't think it's torture. We can talk in circles and debate this endlessly, but barring some value and weight to sources to counter what has been found, I think this is done with. No amount of debate can overrule policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, WP:SYN, and WP:NPOV.

If someone wants 20 sources, I'm sure that can be done. This wasn't even found with a fancy method that I know of, beyond casual Googling. Irregardless of what some folks of some political ideologies may be feeling about waterboarding, it doesn't change or affect the reality of what this article has to say. To get it to say something else, please provide the sources and I'll gladly change it myself.

Can anyone provide valid policy-supported reasoning why this article can't say waterboarding is torture? If not, lets downgrade to long-term semi protection, clean up and wrap up the article, get it to Good Article status, and move on to the next project for each of us. Lawrence Cohen 08:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. The only thing that is left, perhaps, is to decide on the intro. I don't particularly like any of the two versions proposed above (while each has good points), but that's not really important: these are technical issues common to many articles - not something that should be kept from exploding by maintaining the full protection. GregorB (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the last remaining issue remains the lead and that the waterboarding is torture thing is pretty settled. With that in mind, could you please state whether you support or oppose the three suggested leads above and if not, propose your own lead. Remember (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I've linked to WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves at least three times. It's an applicable Wikipedia guideline that should be a suitable solution. Even if you all don't like it, I think the reasons for thinking so should be addressed, particularly since this section says that the guidelines were considered.
In what way would it not apply? The example given is about whether or not Saddam Hussein was a bad man. Why would waterboarding need WP editors to render a conclusion if Saddam Hussein would not? That's a big question. I would guess that we could easily find 20 prominent quotes about Saddam being a bad guy.
One item that was addressed only glancingly was on expanding the critics to more than just John McCain. This should be easy to rectify. This comment section includes the phrase "notable individuals ranging from human rights groups, to Presidents, to soldiers, to Senators." Let's see Jimmy Carter's name as prominently as John McCain's. One would think a quote from Nancy Pelosi would exist somewhere. My motives had been criticized for wanting this but I don't think you can question the rationale. (It's important to cite politicians because they're the ones who make the rules.)
I also pointed out three other specific issues. I'd understand if you all disagreed, but I would like to see a reason, or at least expressly state that everyone disagrees even without saying why.
For the long term, I think the article should have a section on why the controvery exists.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just passing by, but WP:NPOV policy is pretty important to me and I think there are a lot of people here who are trying to ignore an important aspect of it. Although I personally believe that waterboarding is torture, I have to agree with Randy2063. The statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" presented as a statement of fact is a violation of WP:NPOV - Let the facts speak for themselves. Ask yourself this. Is waterboarding worse than what Adolf Hitler or Saddam Hussein did? The leads of these two articles don't open by saying "<blank> was a genocidal dictator..." 74s181 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV requires that the lead begin as factually and unemotionally as possible. "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that simulates drowing..." Later it can say "Most experts consider waterboarding to be a form of torture because it makes the subject believe that death is imminent." Or something like this. 74s181 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's torture by definition, quite NPOV. Rack (torture) has torture in the title for such a reason; both are unambiguously forms of torture, according to all definitions. This is very NPOV. It isn't "simulated" anything because the person's life is in danger (according to the sources, they are, in fact, drowning if the technique is executed "correctly") and people have died from undergoing this form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't answer the point.
The title isn't proof of anything. Or are you going to say music torture is also torture?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't say that, the article does. In the first sentence. Maybe you should try to change it, if you feel strongly that music torture--despite its name, which includes the word "torture"--is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I try to avoid editing articles when I think my edits would cause an obviously biased article to appear halfway reasonable to the casual reader. Like I said there, an obvious bias is illustrative in its own way.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What Hitler did was genocide, by definition. Yet the lead on the Adolf Hitler article doesn't start out by talking about the genocide. The word "torture" is a loaded word, exactly the kind of word that WP:NPOV - Let the facts speak for themselves was written to prevent. The fact that so many people are so emotionally invested in using this word is evidence enough that it shouldn't be used in the first sentence of the lead. 74s181 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The word "torture" appears in the article title Rack (torture) in order to disambiguate it, the fact that it is used this way doesn't mean it is correct. 74s181 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, the day that the first international agreement banning "torture" was signed, the word "torture" moved out of the realm of common sense and into the twisted jungle of legalisms. I am pretty sure that there are some states that don't define waterboarding as torture, in fact, I suspect that the whole reason this article exists is because the United States govt. may or may not define waterboarding as torture. Therefore, saying "waterboarding is torture" is not NPOV. 74s181 (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The parallel with "genocidal dictator" does not hold. "Torture" is not a description; it is - in part due to the international conventions you mention - terminus technicus, if you will. It is similar to the term "serial killer", for example; I may understand that the words may provoke an emotional response, but both "torture" and "serial killer" are terms, not (unlike "genocidal dictator") descriptions. Consequently, omitting the word torture would be a bad violation of WP:UNDUE (and WP:WEASEL, I'd say); sources that say waterboarding is torture outnumber those that say it isn't by a margin of 20-1 or more. We've been through all this. Finally, your assertion that this article exists merely to give the US a bad name does not hold the mildest scrutiny. GregorB (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You're actually getting close here when you say it has to do iwth international conventions. As there is a legal disagreement over whether it's torture, you're rendering a judgment on which side of that disagreement WP officially agrees. I don't think 20-1, or whatever, is good enough to make such a ruling.
You're wrong when you say, "your assertion that this article exists merely to give the US a bad name does not hold the mildest scrutiny." Just look at the edit history.
As I had said earlier of the edit history:
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.)
So, like it or not, the history of this article shows what drives this.
There were partisan edits, no doubt about that; however I understood "the whole reason this article exists" comment above as saying that the mere existence of this article is geared toward US-bashing. That is simply not true. The article covers a legitimate subject; if it appears to be slanted one way or another it needs to be corrected, of course. GregorB (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW: The music torture article's talk page was already contemplating a title change. I added my thoughts, although I'll concede here that having it called that is very illustrative of the nature of the "torture meme." What the U.S. allegedly does will always be criticized while real torture is encouraged to continue on.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
And if you look at the interwiki links you'll see they're all plainly driven by criticism against the U.S. Go back to the history of the German version, and you'll see that it mentions the CIA in first revision. The first one didn't, but its comment links to this article, which is critical of the U.S.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Apparently, I was more on-target than I thought when I had suggested that Nancy Pelosi should be listed prominently among the supposed-opponents. Not surprisingly, she seems to have flop-flopped on waterboarding.
Jane Harman deserves special mention at some distance from the true weasels. As I had always contended that most of the critics are something worse than hypocrites, Harman was a rare honest critic before it became politically advantageous to be one.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Randy2063 and 74s181 above: The comparisons to Saddam Hussein (the example in WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves) and Adolf Hitler are not relevant. Declaring someone a "bad man" is a value judgement of a person. Waterboarding is an activity, not a person. Furthermore no one is proposing that the article say "this is good" or "this is bad". In order to make a case that the article cannot say that waterboarding is a form of torture, you are going to have to state a principle that is consistent with the treatment of other facts on Wikipedia ("the earth is round", "humans and apes have a common ancestor", "a harmonica is a musical instrument", "Neil Armstrong landed on the moon", etc.) and yet excludes the mention of waterboarding as torture despite the overwhelming weight of sources to that effect. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

That's where you're wrong. Waterboarding is an interrogation method in the same way that a harmonica is a musical instrument.
Unless you seriously believe the definition of "torture" can be applied to even the mildest physical method of interrogation (even tickling), you must draw the line somewhere, and thus, apply a value judgment about the CIA's lawyers. At least the CIA's lawyers reviewed both the precise procedures and the law. Very few of your "overwhelming weight of sources" can fall into both of those categories.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, what the US government says for their views is just one aspect. The US view is never going to be accepted as the be-all and end-all, no more than North Korea, England, the UN, Wal-Mart, Mukasey, or the most left-wing and liberal source. It's the collective weight and overall views that focus an article and determine its tone. No government gets front and center treatment. Frankly, the United States "espoused" viewpoint that it may not be torture is incompatible with what everyone else says, by and far, so the US government view is effectively by our standards a trivial fringe view. We'll treat it as such. There's really nothing else on this to hash out, unless people start producing sources that we can review. At all. Let's move forward on to other issues now. Lawrence Cohen 16:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
And why does WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves not apply? Let's be clear here: are you saying the "collective weight" is against waterboarding in a way that it could never be against Hitler? Or would the answer to that change from 1940 to now? I think we need an answer that stands regardless of how many people supported or opposed something.
What about tickling? Music torture? Stress positions?
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Randy2063 position. I think a read of the five techniques should throw some light on this issue. Particularly what the ECHR said about "pain" and "sever pain". Also it is worth reading the Torture#United Nations Convention Against Torture section and noting the UNCAT forbids a state to "expel, return ("refouler") or extradite" a person to a third state where they may be tortured and section 16 says that a state can not inflict "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" on a person. But nothing in the treaty says you can not extradite a person to another state where they do inflict "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". So if a technique is "only" cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, then the US had not broken its treaty obligations by the use of such a technique in a third country. So to say that waterbording is torture is to support the POV that the Bush administration has breached the UNCAT treaty, which if it is only cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, they have not providing that waterbording is only used outside US jurisdiction. I do not think it is correct that this article should make such an assertion in the neutral voice of the article, but that the article should place such an accusation in the form of X says "Water bording is torture" and make X one or more of the most notable people who take this position. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Claims_of_consensus which although specifically for biographies of living persons is sound advice and a specific from of WP:SYN --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - It's spelled waterboarding. If you have sources stating that waterboarding is not a form of torture, please provide them, as we would all like to see them. The U.S. military, according to the Washington Post, does hold that it is a form of torture, as do many other international authorities, as witnessed by the courtmartials against personnel of various nations (including the U.S.) for committing this practice. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Philip, you're unfortunately making the same mistakes that Randy is making. All this distinct pieces of information may or may not add up collectively to say that the Bush administration's use of waterboarding is or isn't torture. We simply don't care, because thats not how Wikipedia articles are written. We only report on what reliable sources say. If a source says, "Waterboarding isn't torture," that is acceptable. If five different sources all indirectly add up to the conclusion that "Waterboarding isn't torture," without clearly stating that individually, that is never going to be acceptable is required to be removed immediately as a violation of WP:SYN, which forbids combining bits of "evidence" to reach a new conclusion that is not supported by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Lawrence Cohen 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
To User:Philip Baird Shearer: you're misconstruing WP:SYN. It warns against using two or more referenced positions together to advance an unreferenced position. But "waterboarding is torture" is not an unreferenced position, and saying so in the article can't break WP:SYN. Of course, saying that the Bush administration has breached the UNCAT treaty (without references to back this up) would break WP:SYN, but the article currently makes no such assertion, so I don't see why would this matter. GregorB (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. Still, the whole thing smacks of OR, especially for such a controversial subject. We should stick with sourced facts and statements. Anything else is just asking for a holy war on this article to build up based on political ideologies. Lawrence Cohen 23:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE LEAD DISCUSSION ABOVE

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.

So far each we only have 3 different proposed leads and only three votes on some of them. If we don't resolve this issue we will talk about it forever. PLEASE get involved in the process of figuring out what the lead should say. I believe that we can can figure out a good lead that a strong majority of editors can agree upon as accurate and NPOV and then we can move forward. But if people don't participate and instead get involved in other discussions this will never end. With that in mind, please vote on the suggested leads above and if you don't like a lead, PLEASE propose an alternative. Remember (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was considering writing a lead myself but it's not an easy job in this particular case, and I'm a bit busy currently (the following weekend, perhaps?). But yes, by all means: do participate, it's the only way to move forward. And I was also thinking: what about opening a subpage for the intro, then try to tweak it? GregorB (talk) 23:47, 11 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.

"Simulated drowning"

I've said little in this discussion, other than calling for more precise description of the activity described as "waterboarding", because there is public confusion as to what waterboarding actually is. Some of the descriptions say that the activity is actual drowning, various ways of immersing the victim's head in water, withdrawing it occasionally -- an "interrupted drowning", as the victim will indeed die if they're unlucky. Other descriptions say that only parts of the victim's face, neck and/or chest, and perhaps the mouth, nose, and some of the sinus passages need to be made wet, relying on body reflexes to convey the impression to the victim that their body is drowning, using the body reflexes to simulate the feelings that the former actually imposes; the victim is no risk of drowning (although they may be at risk of heart attack, choking on vomit, ....) Confounding the two activities (there may be others, but these two, near the extremes) with a single name does not lend clarity to the discussion.

I think that the lead should reflect at least that there are these two very different general techniques. The former (interrupted drowning) I think is torture (it's a form of mock execution), while the latter may not be (I know that's wiggly, and I mean it to be.) htom (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The descriptions from people who have actually conducted or been subjected to waterboarding are very clear about its nature and effects. The sources describing its use in Japan, Algeria, Cambodia, the United States, etc. are similarly clear about such details. Those presenting the concept of a purported "lighter" version of waterboarding are typically journalists who don't have any direct experience other than what they have heard, and are simply recycling what they have gotten from "official sources," in whose interest it is to promulgate the concept of the existence of such a "lighter" version. We know that Japanese, U.S., and other personnel have been courtmartialed for conducting waterboarding, and no distinction was made between a "harsher" or "lighter" version at any time. Of course, with the waterboarding tapes now destroyed there is no way to verify that such a "lighter" version exists. Badagnani (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"The descriptions from people who have actually conducted or been subjected to waterboarding..." I read this sentence and immediately had a mental picture of the interogator saying to the prisoner, "if you don't talk, we're going to waterboard you!", followed by some interogation technique, after which the prisoner would think, "ah, so that is what waterboarding means". 74s181 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

US Technique

With the debate surrounding US use of waterboarding, I am wondering if we know exactly what the US's technique was. The history of waterboarding in this article demonstrates that the technique can vary. And there is a brief suggestion in the article that the CIA used a "modern form of waterboarding." It is a legitimate question as to whether the various techniques of waterboarding have different risk factors or abilities to cause long-term physical or mental aggravation. Do we have sources that reveal precisely what the "modern form" used by the CIA is? Do we know how this "modern form" might be more or less harmful that other forms? This would be illuminative on the question of torture. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by C.l.schwab (talk • contribs)

We don't really know anything about the US method unfortunately, beyond that it is confirmed as waterboarding in the classic sense per various government statements. The only definitive view of this that would have likely ever been seen, at this time, was on the CIA tapes that were destroyed. It would be nice sourced information to have for the article, but I doubt it will ever come to light. Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Horrible Article

This has got to be the worst, most one-sided article on all of wikipedia. I seriously can't believe how bad this article is. It should be either completely redone with both sides represented, or it should be deleted. User: Uriah is Boss 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

And what are "both" sides? Are both sides of equal value? NPOV is not "all sides get equal screen time". Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
What other side? facts please, not conjecture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

CIA man speaks

This story broken by ABC might be of use in this article, [7] and here is the BBC's take on the story. [8] It concerns one operatives view of waterboarding. (Hypnosadist) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That certainly could be useful, to integrate when protection is reduced from full to semi. Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Defining Torture

Anything unpleasant that a person is forced to endure can be construed as torture. Therefore, if coercion is needed to elicit a response---and if coercion is considered acceptable under certain conditions, then waterboarding should be such an example. Duress is necessarily unpleasant, but duress is not of itself torture. Torture seems more concordant with destruction to the person; intrusion into a person's psyche, even that which may cause lasting anxiety, is not necessarily torture. Recall that anything we must do---facetiousness is not the aim here---such as going to a physically grueling job or dealing with a tense atmosphere at work, could cause distress and even lasting anxiety and a sense of lost self-worth. That being the case, one still must encounter unpleasant tasks---even ordeals---in life as part of life. If we jail a person, that person is anguished by the humiliation and the incarceration. Yet, we must still jail certain offenders. Terrorist suspects and combatants are in the same category as jailed individuals, and if inducing gag reflexes and experiencing the distress of water poured over their noses induces them to reveal vital life-saving information, then that is part of life. Torture is deliberately aggressive and degrading violence. Waterboarding probably is not those things at all. 204.14.15.130 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)WikiPaul

While that is a fine opinion, it's still unfortunately an opinion. We can't use or consider any arguments for content that don't come from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, because if we approached it with the thought process you've described, or do anything but work from what reliable sources tell us, we're doing Wikipedia:Original research, which is completely against our policies. Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Correct. This page isn't for the purpose of general discussion related to the topic, so it doesn't matter what individual Wikipedians feel about waterboarding. Opinions and personal findings are not acceptable encyclopedia material, and discussion that doesn't relate to improving the article in a tangible way is not constructive. Leebo T/C 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I had not realized that the discussion page excluded opinion-based/forum-type material; until it is perhaps expunged, my comments above may provoke thought that could be in some way useful in clarifying content on either waterboarding or the related topic of torture. --Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.74.194 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing your opinions and arguments on this talk page. We just have to be clear about what has bearing on the article and what doesn't. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sentence Structure

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.

{{Editprotected}} This is a recommended edit for clarity, not content. In the introductory paragraph, the sentence "Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States" should read "Some nations, including the United States, have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding." The way it is now mis-cues the reader (i.e., you expect "including John Doe" at the end, as an example of someone that has been prosecuted for waterboarding).Josh.anders (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Remember (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. GregorB (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
...and while you're at it, remove the sr: interwiki link, it's incorrect (see section above). GregorB (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Sharp eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, since I don't anticipate any objections. Revised wording seems more clear, any problems with the content would just as likely apply to the old version, anyway, so... – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 12 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.

Interwiki

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.

{{editprotected}} Admins, please add nl:Waterboarding to this article. Unit17 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious, support not needed. Lawrence Cohen 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. Let me know if there are any objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Luna! Lawrence Cohen 19:08, 12 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.

Archiving

I'm going to set some archiving of some sections on this page. The talk is getting completely fractured, and hopefully this will focus things a bit. Lawrence Cohen 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Remember (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this cleanup work. It really helps. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Effectiveness as an Interrogation Technique

Why not mention the three terrorist attacks averted in the U.S. because of information learned from waterboarding? The plot to bomb the Sears Tower in Chicago was foiled because of the post-waterboard confession of a known terrorist. Right now this part of the article, "Effectiveness" needs a lot of work to be done on it. User: Uriah is Boss08:12, 13 December 2007 {UTC}

Sources, evidence? I'd love to add that fact, but it's the first I've heard of it. I listened to a long story on NPR on waterboarding last night, and there was no mention of this, and I don't recall reading about it in any of our various articles (unless I just lost it in the shuffle). Link? Lawrence Cohen 14:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Give me some time, I'll look into it. User:Uriah is Boss 10:06, 13 December 2007 {UTC}
Thanks. Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article that references the effectiveness of the technique. [9]

Cellophane was wrapped around the Al Qaeda man's face and water was forced up his nose and into his throat to make him think he was drowning.

The suspect lasted only 35 seconds before he broke.

"It was like flipping a switch", said Mr Kiriakou.

"From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.

Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get.

I struggle with it."

...Mr Kiriakou, a 14-year veteran of the CIA who worked in both the analysis and operations divisions, left in 2004 and works as a consultant for a private Washington-based firm.

--Exterior37 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


The section on efficacy includes "'The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,' claims John Sifton of Human Rights Watch."" -- This quote is about the legality under international law, which has nothing to do with effectiveness. Effectiveness is simply "does it work". It has no place there so I'll delete it. Pardon my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.81.26 (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead and unlocking

The current votes above indicate that Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead has no explicit votes opposing it (although Badagnani, agr and Randy2063 have made comments suggesting they could oppose) and Inertia Tensor has stated that he is okay with reducing the protection of the page to semi-protect (and he was the only one opposing this motion before I believe). Thus, unless we hear from some people who explicitly oppose Ka-Ping's version of the lead and propose an alternative, I vote that we reduce the page from full protect to semi-protect and put in Ka-Ping's version of the lead. I am not saying that we can't continue to come up with revisions to the lead, but I am saying that almost all of us agree that the new version is better than the old version and that we need to unlock the page so that we can add some of the wealth of information that we have collected and which keeps coming out every day. If you oppose this motion, please state your reasons and suggested alternative course of action below. Remember (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support It's the plan of action that the fewest people have a major concern with, and the best compromise version by far. We can always figure out any other specifics afterwards easily enough, now that we have a consensus for the lead at last. Strongly recommend that semi-protection be indefinite in duration like any other controversial article such as Iraq War or George W. Bush, for obvious reasons. Great job everyone! Next up: who wants to go for Good Article > Peer Review > Featured Article? Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be willing to help out with Good Article > Peer Review > Featured Article, but after we get this thing unlocked of course.Remember (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be a ways off, but given how everyone came together there shouldn't be any reason we couldn't do it. Lord knows there is enough material in the news these days on waterboarding to create a huge, detailed article. Lawrence Cohen 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support My comments above should be viewed as friendly amendments, not opposition. As for next up, I think we have to integrate into the body of the article some of the material developed in this discussion on waterboarding's status as torture and the controversy in the U.S.--agr (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

*Oppose - I've already outlined, close to three times now, serious deficiencies with this version, which have not been addressed. Badagnani (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Badagnani, if no lead version is suitable to you, could you please provide a version that would be suitable to you or suggest specific revisions to the lead that would make the lead suitable. So far you have not supported any version of the lead (or if you have you haven't made it explicit) and you and GregorB are the last holdouts. Remember (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Or alternately, can you support the modified take on Ka-Ping Yee's that I put up and tweaked with your suggestions? Lawrence Cohen 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Request is in

We have consensus on the lead and wording, and I've made the request. Consensus doesn't have to be all or nothing, and since only one person actively disagrees and a few of us have minor quibbling details that we've all swallowed, we should be fine. Anyone who edit wars will be subject to WP:3RR, of course. I asked for indefinite semi-protection, the same as other ultra-controversial partisan topics like George W. Bush and Iraq War. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job. Remember (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected

It's done. I've updated the article lead with my modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead, based on all the support comments. Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

US House votes to ban CIA from using waterboarding

This article seems relevant to the discussion. The U.S. House has stipulated that the CIA adhere to the rules set out in the U.S. Army Field Manual. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The US section on this is going to be a very detailed read once we open this up. Lawrence Cohen 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A new can of worms

While reading the posts here, and the notable media commentaries, it appears that much of the support for believing this to be torture rested upon the claim that waterboarding was used in the Spanish Inquisition. After I remarked that there is no context for this, I searched briefly and found that my suspicions were warranted.
As it happens, WP also has an article and section on Water cure#Spain. This is what they did in the Spanish Inquisition. Read the description by a recipient and you may see that it sounds different. The fact that waterboarding as we know it wasn't used in the Spanish Inquisition after all needs to be addressed in the article.
On the other hand, some editors may say it's close enough for Wikipedia. If so, then you might need to explain why these two articles don't need to be merged. While you're at it, there's also another article on water torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one source that supports the assertion that a form of waterboarding was used as far back as the Spanish Inquisition and is not the same as the water cure stated on the other wikipedia page. Remember (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
From [10] -
"Less often observed is that the practice of waterboarding has roots in the Spanish Inquisition and parallels the persecution of Anabaptists during the Protestant Reformation and the Roman Catholic Counter Reformation. Why did practices similar to waterboarding develop as a way to torture heretics—whether the heretics were Anabaptists or, in the Inquisition, Protestants of any stripe as well as Jews and witches and others? Roman Catholics and Protestants alike persecuted the Anabaptists or "re-baptizers" since these people denied infant baptism in favor of adult baptism. The use of torture and physical abuse was meant to stem the movement and also to bring salvation to heretics. It had been held—at least since St. Augustine—that punishment, even lethal in form, could be an act of mercy meant to keep a sinner from continuing in sin, either by repentance of heresy or by death. King Ferdinand declared that drowning—called the third baptism—was a suitable response to Anabaptists. Water as a form of torture was an inversion of the waters of baptism under the (grotesque) belief that it could deliver the heretic from his or her sins. In the Inquisition, the practice was not drowning as such, but the threat of drowning, and the symbolic threat of baptism. The tortura del agua or toca entailed forcing the victim to ingest water poured into a cloth stuffed into the mouth in order to give the impression of drowning. Because of the wide symbolic meaning of "water" in the Christian and Jewish traditions (creation, the great flood, the parting of the Red Sea in the Exodus and drowning of the Egyptians (!), Christ's walking on the water, and, centrally for Christians, baptism as a symbolic death that gives life), the practice takes on profound religious significance. Torture has many forms, but torture by water as it arose in the Roman Catholic and Protestant reformations seemingly drew some of its power and inspiration from theological convictions about repentance and salvation. It was, we must now surely say, a horrific inversion of the best spirit of Christian faith and symbolism.
Randy, water torture, the forced ingestion of water, is different, but this is not a question related to this article, and any merger is inappropriate as they are totally different practices. If society deems to compare the two on the same scale of torture, it's not our decision to make a judgement call on whether it is or isn't. I'm not sure how many times we can go over this, though, on the larger scheme, since we keep giving the same answer. WHO disputes that waterboarding is torture, who is a notable viewpoint, besides the two pundits you cited? If you can't provide sources for us to review, please stop attempting to filibuster with personal arguments and analysis that is not supported by citeable facts and sources. I've asked you myself at least twice now for links. Give us sources: who says waterboarding is not torture, besides the two opinion columns you cited above, of which only one clearly even says "no"?
If you can't supply these requested sources, there isn't anything else to discuss. Either way, consensus does not require unanimous agreement. You're the only person seriously pushing this revisionist history, but I'm willing to oblige you if you provide sources. Who said it? When? Where? URL?
Again, to be crystal clear: Wikipedia editors have zero say in whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. If we end up with 50 sources that say it is torture, and 2 sources that say it isn't torture, we are required to say it is torture. There is controversy over whether it is acceptable to perform, and we have sources left and right for that, but that isn't what is contested. The only thing contested is that an ultra-minority of editors on this article seem to believe that we can do anything but allow verifiable information into articles. Two sources is not evidence of anything being seriously contested. Bean counting is stupid, but if that's what it takes to illustrate how illogical this argument is: if 50 people say a film was about love, but 2 say it was about aliens, is this even valid to entertain? Give us sources we can work with, or we have nothing else to cover on the is/isn't torture issue. If you disagree, please escalate this through WP:DR, as anything else on this talk page isn't going to work out with your repeated arguments and new twists (merging) to get this article to not say "waterboarding is torture". Lawrence Cohen 16:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I can accept that Remember's source implies to me there were two different practices used by the Spanish Inquisition, and I'm willing to put that aside for now. As for the rest, I'll answer that in the new section.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue weight

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Lawrence Cohen 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I think where you and I depart is that you're willing to say something is torture because it's been commonly accepted as such over the years. This is why you think subjective opinion on a film is comparable. But I think Roe v. Wade is a better example. It shouldn't matter what you or I think, or what the average citizen thinks. There are legal distinctions that must be made.
Your view is certainly correct with regard to what the general public may believe but, as I've pointed out, we've seen very little commentary from people who understand both CIA waterboarding and the law. It's not 50 to 2.
I don't mind being a hold-out juror but I don't want to waste too much time on this either.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to accept legal sources as RS, depending on the source, but then comes the question: in what jurisdiction? What legal decisions name waterboarding? We can't take sources that aren't specific to waterboarding. US-specific decisions are meaningless for anything beyond the United States section of the article, and wouldn't address is/isn't. As far as regular citizens, for Wikipedia's purposes, though, if those citizens and their words, opinions, and writing satisfy our WP:RS standards, they are indeed sufficient. Our internal rules decide how we treat material, not outside legal ones, which are secondary. Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not really that difficult. We could have said it's outlawed by most governments, including U.S. civilian and military law, hence the prosecutions, but that the CIA is reportedly using such a procedure under a controversial interpretation of UNCAT. As odd as that may sound, it happens to be true, and it doesn't rely on what the conventional wisdom wants to believe at the moment.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone is willing to work to improve the article. What sources do we have that support this section? We'd just need to see them to review them all together. Lawrence Cohen 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Article Split

Do we need an article split, 1)Waterboarding (about the method of torture) 2)Waterboarding and the war on terror (about the current controversy in america). (Hypnosadist) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Eventually, unless press dies down, yes, we will. I'd be shocked if it ends up otherwise, but it's probably too soon. Lawrence Cohen 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch a reliable source?

I see that Human Rights Watch is used as a reference for what could be described as a declaration of medical or psychological fact. Human Rights Watch makes a declaration of the effects of waterboarding but does not quote a study or its source. I question whether HRW is or can be a reliable source for the purposes of wikipedia in relationship to this article. --Blue Tie (talk) 21:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The US State Department apparently considers HRW a reliable source. Here is a DoS report issued in November 2007 that cites HRW (on p.4): [11]--agr (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is for most things it says although if it is contested we should say HRW says "blah". On an issue of human rights the HRW is eminently quoteable. (Hypnosadist) 06:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

State Department may consider HRW reliable in one area but not in other areas. US government waterboarded three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. Their actions tell us they believe it is legal under international law. US government has many lawyers in Justice Department who review legality and advise leaders. We must be very careful. Some lawyers say it is torture. Others say it is not torture. Andrew McCarthy is former Justice Department prosecutor. He says it is not torture. Can you say with 100% certainty that he is wrong?

There is no Supreme Court or World Court ruling on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture. If this question arises in court? Some lawyers on one side and other lawyers on other side? Can you say with 100% certainty that lawyers saying "this is torture" will win? What law school did you graduate from? In what court do you serve as judge?

"Torture" is very strong word. It is not neutral language demanded by Wikipedia policy. Only quotation of court ruling could support using this word and only in quotation marks. Reputation of Wikipedia project is more important than any editor's agenda. Remember Essjay controversy. Many eyes are watching us. If expert opinion is divided on question of whether waterboarding is torture then we cannot report that it is torture. We can only report that it is controversial and that legal opinions are divided. WP:V WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We are/will acknowledge controversy, but I've yet to see serious controversy over whether or not to call it "torture". The courts do not decide if something is torture; it's one opinion. And then, which court? US Federal? British? French? Japanese, Russian, Somalian, Pakistan? Who decides? Is one's decision more important than another? The overwhelming sources call it torture, so thats what we need to do currently. Your opinions are good, but do you have sources to back them up? If so, what sources? Without sources, we can't do anything, at all. Lawrence Cohen 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You said "US government waterboarded three prisoners in 2002 and 2003. Their actions tell us they believe it is legal under international law." - Just because the US government did something does not mean that they believe it was legal under international law. We don't exactly know whether the current US government considers waterboarding torture because they won't provide a specific opinion on this procedure (at least as far as I can find). Remember (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. Government has never acknowledged that it used waterboarding on anyone, despite widespread media reports that it has. If the U.S. Government really believed waterboarding was a legal interrogation technique, why not admit its use? Why only waterboard 3 prisoners? Surely there are more captured terrorists who have knowledge that could save lives. Why not let the U.S. military, which is being chewed up by IEDs, use waterboarding to track down who is planting and who is providing them? If anything, the US Government's behavior is strong evidence that they know full well waterboarding is torture.--agr (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - If no part of the U.S. government has admitted to waterboarding detainees, how do we know this occurred? I don't think you're correct. They claim they are exempt from the Geneva Conventions, as revised in 1949 to include civilians, because they claim the individuals waterboarded were neither members of a foreign military nor civilians, but "unlawful combatants." Badagnani (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There have been a number of reports based on leaks or off-the-record conversations with reporters, but, to date, the U.S. Government has never publicly acknowledged that it has used waterboarding in the war on terror. When Cheney apparently admitted that they did with his "dunk in the water" comment, the White House insisted that he wasn't talking about waterboarding. Their consistent position on waterboarding is that interrogation techniques are classified and they do not discuss them. And torture is banned under any circumstances by the UNCAT. The question of the protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions is a part of this story that we need to address, but it relates to a different standard, "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" (CIGT). I believe the current status of this debate is that the U.S. now acknowledges that the Geneva Conventions do prohibit CIGT of even unlawful combatants, however according to the N Y Times, the latest version of the Justice Department secret legal opinion denies that waterboarding falls under the CIGT category, though our article quotes the CIA Inspector general saying it does.--agr (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to debate my opinion on question of "is waterboarding torture?" I am here only to observe and report status of expert opinions. Status of expert opinions is divided on this issue. Therefore we must report it that way. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Offer evidence of your statement--who disagrees where? Lawrence Cohen 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There are at least two quotes on the legal angle: "The CIA maintains its interrogation techniques are in legal guidance with the Justice Department." And recently when it turned out that Pelosi was involved, an article on that said the procedeures "had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers".
Of all the references we've gone through here, these refer to the only sources I've seen that are familiar with both waterboarding (as the CIA does it), and the law.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting passage here too: "The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War." This is possibly good material to build out the United States subsection, which I always said would be the most dynamic and odd one due to the contrasting points. However, I just have to emphasize--even if the US DOJ said tomorrow "Waterboarding is not torture" it would just be weighed against the sources. US judicial policies that change with each administration don't supercede all other sources and viewpoints, and the US interpretation of the month on a subject has no more weight than any other nation's viewpoint.
Do you understand where I am coming from? That the US administration's take on waterboarding deserves no special precedent or priviledge, as this is an article about waterboarding, which is a historical activity that is used world wide? Remember that Wikipedia is global. The US is just one country. Lawrence Cohen 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
So the the CIA claims what its doing is legal, AND?!? We don't know what this suppossed legal guidence says, and its the job of the CIA to lie to push the aims of the US government. Its just an evidence free claim that should be only mentioned in passing in the legal section (its just a not guilty plea). (Hypnosadist) 19:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That may be how it is in the movies, but as I've said before, the CIA has rejected operations in the past because their lawyers turned them down.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
FWIW: HRW is sometimes a reliable source but you have to be extremely careful. For example, sometimes they'll just quote the words of a fascist who'd recently been released from GTMO. It's proper to use that as a source as long as we attribute those words to the fascist who said them, and not to HRW since they generally don't really vouch for his veracity.
Don't ever forget that these "human rights" groups need a lot of money. Often, what you're getting is an advertisement.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
[citation needed] ? Lawrence Cohen 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any doubt that they need a lot of money. I'm a former member of Amnesty, and I seem to remember getting plenty newsletters with a request for more donations. This isn't so much of a criticism by itself; money is important.
If you read closely, they're generally pretty good at not saying that they vouch for what's being said. My big gripe with using HRW isn't so much HRW but when a Wiki editor takes something HRW says, and attributes it to HRW without being clear whether HRW really stands behind the words.
What I've said probably applies more to an article about GTMO or some other prisoner. If HRW is expressing their own opinion on the law, then what I've said doesn't necessarily apply.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant"

Yes, I understand where you're coming from but the fact that "Wikipedia is global" doesn't change the fact that most of the other opinions and examples are irrelevant.
Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures. Their politicians can say anything they like. They're no different than Nancy Pelosi who allowed secret waterboarding when the pressure was on her, and pompously decried it in public after the danger had passed. Foreign governments also haven't had these types of leaks to the media, and so we don't know what they're really doing at the moment.
I wouldn't put too much stock on the idea that future U.S. administrations would operate much differently. As Andrew McCarthy noted, Hillary Clinton and Obama have both allowed for the possibility that they'd use extreme measures if the situation called for it.
The U.S. military's use may sound interesting to you but it's deceptive and irrelevant. The UCMJ also forbids other interrogation methods that would be perfectly acceptable for local police departments.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures."
I boggled when I read this. You do realize this encyclopedia is for a global audience, and that non-Western and non-American sources and views have equal validity, value, and worth here, correct? If you honestly believe that anyone can allow a US-centric viewpoint to hold on an article on a global topic like this, I think you've got the wrong encyclopedia. This isn't Conservopedia. Lawrence Cohen 20:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about left or right.
The audience here is global but I'm looking at to what extent the subject of contemporary waterboarding is global. If an article on rugby covers a debate on some obscure rule, the opinions from American football fans may not mean so much (to the extent that we're covering opinion anyway).
I don't think the Swiss opinion on whaling is particularly relevant either, since they're landlocked and not particularly hungry.
Europe is a part of this war but they didn't have these two or three high value detainees. Or, if they did, they quietly put them on CIA flights and washed their hands of the matter.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I spoke too soon. It might help to get quotes from top foreign leaders (not lower level politicians), and see how they compare to the Clinton and Obama quotes with qualifications that I linked above. I would like to know how many of them say they'd never do this.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the stakes for the value of the sources keep getting raised, each time we demonstrate that the sources overall are fine. First it was a question of the qualifications, then the relevance of the sources to the Gitmo situation and detainees, and now we're up to heads of state. In other words, you'll not let this go unless someone can produce quotes from Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putir, or Pervef Musharrif! If we produced those, would we need to then offer signed United Nations declarations? ;)
Unfortunately, I think this boils down to the impetus being on you to provide evidence of what you want the article to say. Sources, please, as we've asked five times now (I'm going to bother pulling the diffs of each request). Who says waterboarding isn't torture? Link the sources. You can put them here, in the section we created for just this purpose, which remains empty since Ka-Ping Yee added it at 03:45, 8 December 2007.
Please post links and evidence, or else I think we're done on this topic for the time being. Lawrence Cohen 22:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, your sources are all opinions.
That's fine with me. I don't really want to go over all this again. It would have been over a lot sooner had we had a clear resolution on letting facts speak for themselves.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Be careful not to confound whether torture works with whether waterboarding is torture. It sounds that you are going to go looking for quotes stating that torture (or waterboarding) is effective. Remember (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone disputes that torture is an effective interrogation tool, and that is part of the problem here in this backwards discussion. It is the responsibility of Randy to provide sources for what he wants to include. If he adds sourced statements I'm not certainly not going to remove them, so long as they are compliant with RS, NPOV, and the rest. He hasn't yet edited the article, so I'm not frankly sure what he wants us to do. There is clear consensus as to the value of the sources everyone collected. If he wants the article to not say waterboarding is torture, demonstrate that there is a conflict on the is/isn't nature of this. Otherwise, why are we even discussing this? Personal opinions are worthless for article content, and we unfortunately only have personal opinion so far to go by. It's honestly almost getting to be disruptive now. Lawrence Cohen 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand the distinction. It's come up before but I would agree with everyone if that's what it was about.
My last point about foreign leaders was merely an observation that there's an imbalance in types of opinions. For example, the opinion of a lawyer for the CIA could be compared to a lawyer for MI6. As it is, the opinions we're documenting are further removed from the subject.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to today's Washington Post, the FBI disputes the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation tool.[12]--agr (talk) 22:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

If you support the current neutrality tag at the top of the page please state your specific reasons below why you believe this article is not neutral. If you do not state these reasons, this tag will be removed. Remember (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion is divided. Quality of opinion matters more than quantity. Andrew McCarthy is former US Justice Department prosecutor. One good lawyer with strong research and strong argument can beat 100 lawyers with weak research and weak arguments. He can beat them like a drum. If we reach place in future where British court say "This is torture" and American court say "This is not torture" then we report it that way. Opinion still divided. But if courts are unanimous then we say "This is torture."
If this case go to court now with 100 lawyers saying "this is torture" and one lawyer saying "this is not torture," can you say with 100% certainty that he will not win? With greatest respect to you Lawrence, from what law school did you graduate? In what court do you rule as judge? If none then how can you be certain?
We must say this is controversial. We must say opinion is divided. But we cannot say this is torture. That is very strong word. We must be neutral. This is foundation of Wikipedia. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
So I assume that you are saying that stating that waterboarding is torture is POV. This issue has already been decided on this talk page and therefore should not support a neutrality tag. If you want to argue this point again on the talk page, feel free to try to create a new consensus and then we will adjust the page accordingly. Remember (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
If you believe this to be so, you really should attempt to change the title of Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe next time. For now I work on this one with you. But everyone agrees that rack is torture, yes? Not so here. Not everyone agrees that waterboarding is torture. Keep editorial opinions and conclusions out of encyclopedia article. Use strictly neutral language. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Global warming. By FAR, global warming is more controversial than waterboarding, and many people, including whole government administrations, actively dispute it is happening and/or real. The first line of that article?
"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation."
Many critics actively disagree with that. There is no controversial weasel language used there to sugarcoat it. Why? Because if a tiny/ultra minority disagree with the overwhelming body of evidence, it violates NPOV to give the irrelevant minority a disproportionate voice here. Next, read Evolution:
"In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next."
MANY religious groups consider evolution to be fake. But here we state this sentence as fact. Minority viewpoints get a minority viewpoint treatment in Wikipedia articles per WP:WEIGHT. That is NPOV. Because members of a given political party in one country may or may not dispute that waterboarding is torture, does not invalidate that all the other sources consider it so.
I've asked Randy thrice, I'm asking you now: Give us sources. *WHO* disagrees that waterboarding is torture, besides those lone two sources, that are editorials? John McCain calls waterboarding torture. John Kiriaku, a CIA agent interrogator, calls it torture. Nance, who trained interrogators, calls it torture. Human rights groups call it torture. Members of the US senate and congress call it torture. Who disagrees? Sources, please. Lawrence Cohen 23:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "Because if a tiny/ultra minority disagree with the overwhelming body of evidence, it violates NPOV to give the irrelevant minority a disproportionate voice here." No minority is irrelevant. Biology is not law. Other articles are for other editors to discuss. There are two voices you admit and they are not just editorial columnists. They are lawyers and one is a former US Justice Department prosecutor. With this language that you use Lawrence, you call into question your own objectivity on this issue. McCain is not a lawyer. Kiriaku is not a lawyer. Expert legal opinion is divided. We must report it that way especially in the lead sentence of the article. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

"Expert legal opinion is divided."
Please provide evidence of this, including links we can verify this statement at. Several editors on this page have made similar statements, but no one has provided me solid evidence yet. Sources? Lawrence Cohen 23:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
By the way, on minority and WP:FRINGE viewpoints going unmentioned, Jimbo Wales and policy disagrees with your viewpoint. You said, "No minority is irrelevant." Please read this.
"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."
That is pretty much how we operate. Lawrence Cohen 00:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment - If a notable published source states that waterboarding is not a form of torture, I would say we should evaluate that for inclusion into the article. But such a view should not be privileged in the lead. I think this should satisfy everyone. Regarding "who is an authoritative opinion," I provided evidence just above regarding the International Tribunal following World War II, showing that waterboarding was definitively called a form of torture, but it seems to have been ignored. Badagnani (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it hasn't been ignored, but it appears to have gone unacknowledged for some reason. Lawrence Cohen 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

From Andrew McCarthy's article in National Review: "Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.241.196 (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What is not neutral? List here

Please state specifically any sentences or information in the article that you believe is not neutral. If you do not state specifically what it is that you are objecting to, we will remove the neutrality tag. Remember (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Support removal of the tag in a day or three if no reasonable material is provided. Lawrence Cohen 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a form of torture." Those are the first six words of this article. They are not neutral. Shibumi2 is making an outstanding argument. Nowhere in the article is Andrew McCarthy, or anyone else who believes waterboarding is not torture, even mentioned. That is not neutral. You have presented one side of the argument, and pretended that the other side of the argument doesn't even exist. That is not neutral. By leaving the article like this, you confirm all of the criticisms about Wikipedia.

Actually, his arguments are nice, but not of much convincing power since they lack evidence: what sources? McCarthy is not yet mentioned because that source came up while the article was protected for almost two months because people who weren't logging in were vandalizing. Also, one source from one person saying waterboarding is not torture is not sufficient, as has been explained repeatedly. What are the sources? Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition, his opinion has now been added to the article. Remember (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, you beat me to it. Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Again what is not neutral? List here

Please state specifically any sentences or information in the article that you believe is not neutral. If you do not state specifically what it is that you are objecting to, we will remove the neutrality tag. Also please suggest any alternative wording. If you are objecting to any phrase related to the assertion that "waterboarding is torture," please note that editors have come to a consensus on this determination and if you want to revise this determination you should do so on this talk page. Remember (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Need help?

Can editors here settle any disagreements through discussion, or would you like outside help? - Jehochman Talk 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusion over the word torture

Wikipedia does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that waterboarding is torture in a US Court using the specific legal definition of torture as it applies to the US constitution. All it has to do to say "waterboarding is torture" is fulfil its policies by showing the vast majority of notable and reliable sources say "waterboarding is torture" with torture defined as by a reasonable persons understanding of the word torture. Most definitions of torture will cover being forced to choke and drown until you beg for it to stop, and we have many notable sources that say it is torture by thier reasonable definition. (Hypnosadist) 06:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that we have not found any sources stating that "Waterboarding is not torture." When we get a source that is authoritative that states this, we will integrate the information into the page. Remember (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We have a source that is authoritative that says this. From Andrew McCarthy's article in National Review: "Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhkM2YyZmE5MThjZGNlN2IyMGI4MmE3MWM1OWQ5MjA=&w=MQ== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.241.196 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Even that isn't exactly a strong statement that "Waterboarding is not torture". As stated in the article: "Reasonable minds can and do differ on this. Personally, I don’t believe it qualifies. It is not in the nature of the barbarous sadism universally condemned as torture, an ignominy the law, as we’ve seen, has been patently careful not to trivialize or conflate with lesser evils. The Washington Post and Sen. Edward Kennedy have pointed to a World War II era war crimes prosecution by the U.S. against a Japanese soldier who used what was described as “water torture” on an American civilian. But they’ve failed to note that this was far from the only conduct at issue; the soldier was also charged with having engaged, over a sustained period of time, in “beating using hands, fists, club; kicking; … burning using cigarettes; strapping on a stretcher head downward.” The case hardly stands for the proposition that isolated instances of waterboarding would be torture."
Also it should be noted that the author makes the following assumptions to base his conclusion that waterboarding is not torture:
"It is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury...Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen. The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?" So first, he assumes that waterboarding is not painful physically when others have stated otherwise. Also he agrees that prolonged use of waterboarding would be considered torture, which is what people are usually threatened with in an interrogation situation I would assume. Nevertheless, the information is valuable and should be integrated into the article. Specifically it should be in the new section that discusses whether waterboarding qualifies as torture. Remember (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
One possible authority on one article does not define the tone of an entire article; it would be the height of a WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT violation to do so. Why is McCarthy's opinion of more worth than all other sources we have listed in the article and on this page that are pending to go into the article? Lawrence Cohen 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a strong enough statement to take those six words out of the lead. Andrew McCarthy, a licensed attorney and former federal prosecutor, is saying very strongly that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. By leaving this article the way it is, you are confirming all of the criticisms about Wikipedia.

If you want to refight this fight, go ahead. But I'm not sure that this will be enough to sway all the editors on this page to reverse their previous position. Remember (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Swaying all of them is not necessary. As you are aware, it is sufficient to show that the lead sentence of the article, as it stands, is not supported by a consensus or by Wikipedia policy. Shibumi2 is correct. Expert opinion is divided on this issue.

You are completely backwards on consensus. Consensus is not "everyone" agrees; at all. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. McCarthy's editorial opinion is one opinion alone. Why is his of such extraordinary value as to override CIA staff, United States Senators, and historical documents? Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
1)Andrew McCarthy is talking about the Legal definition of torture under US law, not whether it is torture (not the same thing see above). Also his uneducated views on the physical effects of waterboarding should be removed as he has no experience of seeing or participating in waterboarding. (Hypnosadist) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Are you suggesting here that we should remove any references in the contemporary section to opinions of those who have no experience with the CIA's method of waterboarding? If so, then surely we shouldn't include non-lawyers either when discussing the legal definition of torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
"CIA's method of waterboarding" Lets get rid of this piece of silliness, there is no evidence of a "CIA method", maybe if there was say a video of the interigations that would provide evidence. But no there is no evidence of a CIA method" where they give them a teddy bear or something to make it nice torture. (Hypnosadist) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's been established that there are different methods of waterboarding.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thats the problem right there. The contstant invocation of legal definitions and other things like that serve no purpose. The CIA, US attorneys, and US government can have an opinion, the same as the French government can, and the Iranian government. Their views are just as valid. Foreign? Yep! Also, Wikipedia isn't a legal authority its a general purpose encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a tool for information dissemination, and verifiability is our goal. Are we adding verifiable information? Do most people consider waterboarding to be torture? Do most reliable sources consider it to be torture? If the CIA, Bush, or Putin say tomorrow they don't consider it torture, we'll certainly make a note of that, but that one statement alone can't and will not trump the entire body of other thought on this. This is the way the verifiability and NPOV cookie crumbles. Lawrence Cohen 15:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. Unfortunately, the article doesn't say it that way.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The overall consensus of sources is that waterboarding is torture. We thus say, 'Waterboarding is a form of torture' in the article lead. We still don't have any comparable sources to say otherwise. That is what we're required to do. It has been thoroughly demonstrated that a wide array of notable people, experts, and others consider it torture--that is consensus. What comparable sources do we have that say waterboarding isn't torture? Any controversy over that--is/isn't--is not acceptable to present or convey in Wikipedia without sourcing. The only controversy I'm seeing is whether waterboarding is acceptable, which the article lead does not address directly. Again, give us sources that demonstratively state waterboarding isn't torture. The section for that on this very page is still empty. If you disagree with this all, please go to WP:DR. Lawrence Cohen 16:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
We've already argued that. The position that opinion becomes fact when it's broad enough is what won out for the moment. I jumped in here to protest the notion that Andrew C. McCarthy's opinion should be excluded for reasons that wouldn't be applied to the critics.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
2)"Expert opinion is divided on this issue" Quite simply it is not, one more time, we have world expert doctors in torture and its effects that say its torture. We have people who have been waterboarded that say uniformally that its torture, as well as statements from people trained to do it that its torture. You have two op-eds that it might be legal and/or justified if done to BAD people. The experts say its torture, end of story, elvis has left the building. (Hypnosadist) 16:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, a general note to what Hypnosadist said about McCarthy's views of torture under US law. Why exactly would a Wikipedia article base a definition of waterboarding as torture, or not as torture, under anything to do with US law? The US is just one nation, here. Waterboarding is a global topic. The article will eventually need to be adjusted so that if someone says they feel waterboarding is ... with whatever the is, is, we're clear that they are speaking about relative to laws in their own nation in that context. Whether or not the US attorney general considers it torture is irrelevant to most other countries. Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Why exactly would a Wikipedia article base a definition of waterboarding as torture, or not as torture, under anything to do with US law?" This should be obvious. US has waterboarded three high value Al-Qaeda detainees. Pretending US law is not relevant is like pretending it is not relevant in US elections or US foreign policy. It is the reason why waterboarding is in the news. I am very busy this week due to final exams. Holiday greetings to all. Very constructive discussion. Shibumi2 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Certain people believe that the US President is not bound by any law or treaty when defending US citizens, does that mean the rest of the world agrees?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Shibumi, the Khmer Rouge used waterboarding on thousands of people so should we call re-education? Of course not! (Hypnosadist) 05:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding new section - Waterboarding's classification as torture

I was going to add a new section to the page to specifically discuss the classification of waterboarding as a form of torture since I think this article needs to explain this issue. Any thoughts on this? Remember (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken source - help

Would someone mind checking out the last current source in the Mental and physical effects section? For some reason I can't get it to go correctly, and I think I'm missing something obvious. Lawrence Cohen 23:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a stumper. Found a line feed in there that didn't belong, but that didn't fix it. I'll look at it tomorrow if it's not yet fixed.
If all else fails we can remove the "cite news" macro but I'd rather not try that yet.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I tried too, and failed. But I'm not too good at this reference coding stuff anyways. Remember (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Bizarre. I looked at it again, and it looks like the same formatting as all the rest. Lawrence Cohen 00:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The reference seems to have disappeared again. I think the reference coding should be simplified (it's very complex right now), and it will probably reappear. Badagnani (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding versus water cure

Water cure describes the technique as "forces water into the throat or nostrils of the subject to inflict the terror of drowning, without causing the subject to drown.... A similar form of water torture is known as waterboarding, where water is poured over the face or head to invoke the instinctive fear of drowning."

Huh? These two articles need to make the distinction more obvious. As I understand it "waterboarding" is the covering of the face while water is poured over it to evoke gagging and fear of drowning, while "water cure" is the forced ingestation of water to expand the stomach. Water_torture#Terror_of_drowning supports this distinction. But does waterboarding necessarily have to be carried out with the subject lying on his back on a board? I added a paragraph about James Parker to water cure; he did something that sounds very much like waterboarding (certainly, it was not pumping water into the mouth to force swallowing and enlargement of the stomach), but he did it with subjects in chairs (presumably with head forced back), not lying on the back on a board, which goes against the current title and lead of this article. Maybe this should be moved to waterboarding?

Waterboarding also mentions "When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach." suggesting that ingestation of water is considered waterboarding. Hmm. Maybe this should be moved to water cure?

Part of the problem here may be that water going in to the mouth will end up in the lungs and stomach, and the use of the face covering does not seem to be restricted to waterboarding (eg. see water cure#Japan "A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face."). Also note that in the same paragraph Chase J. Nielson giving testimony refers to the water cure as feeling "like drowning". Maybe this should be moved to waterboarding? And water cure#Spain notes "Before pouring the water, torturers often insert ...a strip of linen (known as the toca) on which the victim would choke and suffocate while swallowing the water." So, what is the difference? Can the articles make the difference clearer? Or are we talking about the same thing, just that waterboarding happens to be done lying on a flat board? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the BBC, "Water-boarding involves a prisoner being stretched on his back or hung upside down, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately."[13] So the position of the person, or presence of a board, or cloth in mouth versus face covering, does not seem to be that important; the main thrust of the definition is that the method invokes the gag reflex. Any other definitions/opinions? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at this photo please. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg This is photo of South Vietnamese soldier using American-style waterboarding technique on Viet Cong prisoner in January 1968. Notice no board. Also no gag in mouth. Cloth was simply placed over face. One canteen of water is used. No other container of water visible anywhere. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And according to dictionary.com and the Oxford English dictionary, "water cure" is "torture by forcing a person to drink large quantities of water in a short time" and "a method of torture in which the victim is forced to drink great quantities of water". So unless anyone objects, I would suggest clarifying the descriptions, and swapping over the cases that are misclassified in these articles. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage Magazine is not a valid source to use in Wikipedia

Per the following I've removed this advocacy website that doesn't meet WP:RS. See:

Frontpage Magazine upon closer review appears to be basically pushing nothing more than a strong anti-Muslim agenda and not much else in the form of editorials with no editorial review. Per those consensus discussions FP doesn't appear to be a valid source so I've removed it here. Lawrence Cohen 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates, formatting

All the existing references are now fully updated; I just finished. If you guys can, please use the citation templates for additions? I use this tool that I found to make it easier:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php

We'll want that for when we take this to Featured Article status. Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I've been bold and put Waterboarding up for a GA review. Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 20, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes.
2. Factually accurate?: No. Most content appears to be OK in this respect. However, substantial content is not adequately cited. This includes, for example, the assertion that Dick Cheney "seemed to agree with the use of waterboarding", which is cited to a blog (and not a reliable source), or the first paragraph in "Classification as torture in the United States", both sentences of which need citations.
3. Broad in coverage?: No. All major aspects of the topic appear to be addressed, but the article goes into unnecessary detail over the current controversy surrounding waterboarding in/by the US: roughly half of the article is dedicated to that issue. Excessive detail includes the lengthy Cheney transcript, the coverage of the YouTube debates and the long sections about the alleged waterboardings of individual terrorists. These texts are of little informative value about the subject of waterboarding itself. Please remember that this is an international project (this reviewer is Swiss) and the minutiae of U.S. political controversies are of limited interest to people wanting to learn about a torture technique.
4. Neutral point of view?: Generally yes. Much effort has been made in this respect, and commendably so, but the excessive detail mentioned above has the potential for WP:WEIGHT or WP:COATRACK problems.
5. Article stability? No. On this day alone, the article has undergone substantial changes in numerous sections.
6. Images?: OK.


When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Sandstein (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This article deserved to fail Good Article nomination. I strongly object to NPOV problem in lead sentence of article. I have one final exam remaining tomorrow and will visit this subject in great detail upon completion. Expert opinion is divided on issue of whether waterboarding torture as practiced by United States CIA interrogators. We must use NPOV. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Err what experts? The regime that practices torture is undue weight. There are those who say it is torture, and there are those who refuse to say a thing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann is attorney of US Army Judge Advocate General office at Guantanamo Bay. Hartmann denies that waterboarding is torture. [14] Andrew J. McCarthy is attorney who worked for many years as prosecutor for US Justice Department. McCarthy denies that waterboarding is torture. McCarthy also observes that Congress declined to identify waterboarding as torture in 2006 when passing new law about torture. [15] John Yoo is law professor at Stanford University. He is former assistant attorney general for Justice Department. He say that CIA enhance interrogation techniques are not torture. Waterboarding was known at that time to be part of enhanced interrogation techniques. [16] Alan Dershowitz is law professor at Harvard University. He says that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. [17]

McCain is not an attorney. Kiriakou is not an attorney. Most sources cited by "Waterboarding is torture" advocates on this page are not attorneys. They do not understand international law or US law with depth of meaning as attorneys understand it. Expert opinion is divided on this issue. I urge editors here to consider quality of sources rather than just quantity. These are not just attorneys. These are some of the most prominent attorneys in United States. John Yoo and Alan Dershowitz serve as law professors at two of United States most prestigious law schools. Do not pretend that they should be ignored. Shibumi2 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing that unless waterboarding is legally defined as torture, we shouldn't call it torture, and that opinions of attorneys are more highly valued than others in this subject matter? Also, your opinions are specific to the United States in the above examples. Do you agree or disagree that this is not an article just about waterboarding as it relates to current US politics? Lawrence Cohen 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Notes on your comment -
General Thomas W. Hartmann did not say that waterboarding isn't torture, according to the source you provided he said: “I’m not equipped to answer [the question on whether waterboarding is torture].”
Andrew J. McCarthy did not say that waterboarding isn't always torture. In fact, he stated "There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to [waterboarding] repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture." But did state that just doing it one or twice or "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive" would not qualify in his opinion but that "reasonable minds could differ".
John Yoo never said that waterboarding wasn't torture because we have NO statement from him on this issue. What we do have is the Bybee memo which states its conclusion that under the United Nations Convention Against Torture toture is defined as "acts inflicting...severe pain or suffering, whether mental or physical." Physical pain "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." Mental pain "must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years," as well as be the result of one of the specific causes of mental pain contained 18 USC 2340, "namely: threats of imminent death; threats of infliction of the kind of pain that would amount to physical torture; infliction of such physical pain as a means of psychological torture; use of drugs or other procedures designed to deeply disrupt the senses, or fundamentally alter an individual's personality; or threatening to do any of these things to a third party." It is unknown whether even under this definition Yoo would not categorize waterboarding as torture.
Alan Dershowitz does not say that waterboarding is not torture. In fact, he suggests that waterboarding IS torture in his article by stating things such as: "Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans in a situation of the kind faced by Israeli authorities on the eve of Yom Kippur?". He is arguing that waterboarding is justified, not that it doesn't qualify as torture.
Please provide sources that say waterboarding is not torture if you want to support this assertion.Remember (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


I don't know about John Yoo, but Prof. Dershowitz does consider waterboarding to be a form of torture. However, he believes there are circumstances when torture is permissible: "The members of the judiciary committee who voted against Judge Mukasey, because of his unwillingness to support an absolute prohibition on waterboarding and all other forms of torture, should be asked the direct question: Would you authorize the use of waterboarding, or other non-lethal forms of torture, if you believed that it was the only possible way of saving the lives of hundreds of Americans." http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010832.
Furthermore, the term "torture" is not some newly coined legal term, it has a long history, and as an encyclopedia we can rely on its plain English meaning. Here is how Dr. Johnson defined it in his A Dictionary of the English Language, [18] p.746: "Torture, n.s. Torments judiciously inflicted; pain by which guilt is punished, or confession extorted; pain; anguish; pang." --agr (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
John Yoo SHOULD be ignored, he is a culpable member of the administration that revived torture by the US. Grossly undue weight. A torturer does not get to redefine a crime he is PERSONALLY culpable of as part of the regime. War criminal. Wiki is about PLAIN ENGLISH - who gives a rats ***e what some administration lawyer says to protect their own **** from winding up in the Hague. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Andrew McCarthy's expert opinion was first discussed on this Talk page on December 6. But McCarthy wasn't even mentioned in the article mainspace until December 18. I think it says a lot about the lack of objectivity by the partisan editors who are trying to own this article. The arguments by Shibumi2 are powerful and persuasive. Expert opinion is indeed divided, and the article lead is too important for that fact to be deliberately covered up by political partisans with an agenda.

If John Yoo should be ignored, then every critic of waterboarding who has a political agenda should also be ignored, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, every Democrat in Congress, etc.

His arguments "sound" persuasive by sidestepping key policy requirements of Wikipedia. As for our objectivity, please remain WP:CIVIL. McCarthy was not added to the article, because the article was locked and protected from editing for months because people made non-stop edits without support, fighting each other. Lawrence Cohen 14:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia certainly can't simply ignore John Yoo. But we can note his role working for an administration that allegedly employed waterboarding. Furthermore his published positions pointedly do not mention waterboarding. For example here [19] Yoo defends his "torture memos" saying "definition of torture in the August 2002 memo is narrow" and that "Under this definition, interrogation methods that go beyond polite questioning but fall short of torture could include shouted questions, reduced sleep, stress positions (like standing for long periods of time), and isolation from other prisoners. The purpose of these techniques is not to inflict pain or harm, but simply to disorient." We can argue that elsewhere, but waterboarding is clearly in a different category. HE goes on to say that in 2005 the Justice Department "issued a new memo that superseded the August 2002 memo. Among other things, the new memo withdrew the statement that only pain equivalent to such harm as serious physical injury or organ failure constitutes torture and said, instead, that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain." It's hard to find support for the proposition that waterboarding isn't torture in those statements. --agr (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

For all advocates of "waterboarding is torture" argument it is more than sufficient to shoehorn all of this into the second paragraph of the article and the first footnotes of the article:

Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[2][3] politicians,[4] war veterans,[5][6] intelligence officials,[7] military judges,[8] and human rights organizations.[9][10]

I am "being bold" and editing the lead paragraph to reflect the fact that expert opinion is divided. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit was already reverted by another editor. You can be bold by making changes, but your edit summary that the "issue is resolved" isn't appropriate. It's not your decision alone. Lawrence Cohen 23:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the edit summary for the revert: "rv expert opinion is not split on if its torture just if its legal to do it in america." John Yoo was expressing an opinion on whether enhanced interrogation techniques, which included waterboarding in 2002, were legal UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW. [20] The naked partisanship of the politically motivated editors who are trying to own this article is painfully obvious.

Shibumi2's version of the lead paragraphs was superbly crafted. It accommodated everyone's concerns and accurately reflected the divided state of expert opinion. It is unevenly divided: more of the experts believe waterboarding is torture. Shibumi2 reflected that fact by listing them first and acknowledging that they are in the majority. It's obvious from his hasty edits on this Talk page that Shibumi2 is not a native speaker of English, which means that he invested a lot of time and effort into makeing his mainspace edit a perfect one.

Respect that effort, people.

Now that I've created an account, I'll be able to edit this article in four days. Let's invest those four days trying to reach an amicable agreement about the lead sentence of the article, that doesn't completely ignore Shibumi2's position and mine, for the sake of your partisan agenda. Neutral is good. Pretending that one side of the argument doesn't even exist, and that the other side of the argument is the only one that exists, is not good. It is a deliberate defiance of the founding principles of Wikipedia. Those principles are not negotiable. Neutral Good (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides John Yoo's statements, what sources do we have along these lines? Please list them. One person certainly doesn't represent a controversy. Lawrence Cohen 05:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
They have been listed here repeatedly. In addition to Professor Yoo, Andrew McCarthy states unequivocally that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture in all cases. Taken in the proper context, Thomas Hartmann's remarks can only be reasonably understood to mean that he doesn't believe waterboarding is torture in all circumstances. All three are prominent attorneys. If I invested half as much time in this as you clearly have, I could probably find a dozen more. Neutral Good (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

John Yoo's comments on torture

It seems, from his public statements, that Yoo does believe torture is permissible, if "good" people are doing it for a "good reason," against "bad people" (or the children of those "bad people"). Note that the term "torture" is used, and Yoo responds in the affirmative when asked if it is permissible.

From http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0605,hentoff,71946,6.html :
On December 1, 2005, in a debate between Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel and John Yoo, Cassel asked Yoo:
"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"
John Yoo responded: "No treaty."
Doug Cassel: "Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo [while Yoo was a Justice Department attorney]."
John Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."

Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A clever misdirection, sir. In the discussion you've just cited, Professor Yoo was discussing whether TORTURE would ever be PERMISSIBLE, in the memo that has been previously cited, Professor Yoo was exploring the question of whether ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, which included waterboarding in 2002 and were believed to be legal under US laws forbidding "torture," would also be LEGAL under international laws forbidding "torture." Please don't feign stupidity. When discussing "torture" in 2005, Professor Yoo was not necesarily discussing enhanced interrogation techniques; and when discussing "what is permissible" in 2005, he wasn't necessarily discussing what is legal. Also, I respectfully submit that if World Net Daily is too partisan to be accepted as a reliable source, then so is the Village Voice. Neutral Good (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Neutral good go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask about village voice, that is where it was decided that WND was not an RS. (Hypnosadist) 12:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Enhanced interrogation techniques," however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture. Thus, the term itself is an evasion. Regarding the source provided, I don't believe the public testimony of Yoo is in question. Badagnani (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

" 'Enhanced interrogation techniques,' however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture." Until you can prove that it was "invented" specifically for that purpose, that is just your unsupported opinion. And you know where opinions belong in an encyclopedia article. They belong nowhere. My opinion is that it was "invented" to carefully, legally and fairly distinguish harsh but lawful interrogation techniques from the hysteria (and partisan motivations clearly displayed here) that surround the use of the word "torture." As McCarthy so insightfully pointed out, the law has taken great care to distinguish torture from perfectly legal forms of interrogation. You and your friends are deliberately trying to erase this distinction. Shame on you. Neutral Good (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The commonly accepted definition of torture extends to all four of the U.S. Armed Forces, which categorize waterboarding as a form of torture (and courtmartialed its own soldiers for conducting it during the Vietnam War). Are you stating that you are anti-the U.S. Armed Forces? Badagnani (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Another clever deception of yours, sir. The US Armed Forces did not define waterboarding as torture. They merely prohibited waterboarding by US military personnel. Neutral Good (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"does not believe it inflicts pain"

Can we remove the quote from the online Commentator? (someone named Jim Meyers?). Evidently he "does not believe "waterboarding" inflicts pain." Are there really people that subscribe to this thought? People that expect that if they were waterboarded, it would not be painful? We should remove this, as the author is not notable or an expert of any kind on this subject? There are much more notable journalists who would also not belong in this article. Nospam150 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Massive blanking without consensus

Would the editor who blanked a massive amount of text, without consensus, in this edit, from this talk page please restore it? A good deal of that is still under active discussion, namely the sources that state that waterboarding is or is not torture, and in this light it doesn't make logical sense that it was removed. Thanks so much in advance. Badagnani (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid it. When I had done the trimming archives before it was either ancient pages or resolved trivial ones. Do not blank active talk page discussions from this page again; it would be vandalism and would be reported as such. Lawrence Cohen 06:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't blanked. It was archived. Now you're not only trying to own the article, you're trying to own the talk page. Neutral Good (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
First, assume good faith. No one owns the article, and it is not proper to archive active sections. Why did you blank the sources section, which is one of the most active and still has pending material? Either way, I've now adjusted the automatic archiving to 60 days. No one has any legitimate need to manually archive anything again, and shouldn't, give the contentious nature of the page. Lawrence Cohen 06:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, you will explain how I am "owning" anything on the article? About 99% of my comments have been flatly saying we need to follow NPOV, and insisting people provide sources to back up any claims. 99% of my edits to the article were fixing badly formatted sources and updating them all with citation templates to be properly readable. Where is there ownership? Source material, or it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you're erasing my comments too? Let's review: You're biased. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility that you might be biased. You revert archiving that was done with the best of intentions, after the page has approached an unmanageable behemoth size. You not-so-subtly intimate on my Talk page that I might be a blocked editor who has created a sock puppet. You erase my comments on this page. And you insist that I assume you are acting in good faith? Neutral Good (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did I erase your comments? I've looked at my edits in the past hour and can't find it. Provide a diff or withdraw this accusation, thanks! If I did, it was an error. How exactly am I biased? I found this article after a massive edit war months ago, and was one of the people that wanted it protected. I stayed on, and basically prodded people to work together. Where is my bias? Lawrence Cohen 07:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Tell you what: I'm going to spend some time with my family, since I have a few days to do so. I'll be back in four days, and I'll be able to edit the article, so you'll be forced to take me seriously. Merry Christmas. Neutral Good (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Please answer my questions. Where did I remove your comments, because no such edit exists that I can see. Please also explain what exactly my bias is, besides being perhaps a bit strident in insisting on NPOV? Keep in mind that you should be aware of WP:3RR, and threats of being forced to take you seriously are not acceptable. Lawrence Cohen 07:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I posted a comment observing that this page was over 200 KB in size, that it was taking far too long to load, and that I consider my time to be valuable, even if you do not. Despite your thinly veiled accusation of sockpuppetry on my Talk page, this is my very first Wiki account. Previously, I have edited exclusively from anonymous IP addresses. I liked it that way. But the combination of unbelievable partisan arrogance, ownership and bias on this page, coupled with semi-protection, has been sufficient to compel me to register after all these years. Obviously I still don't know all the little tricks, but I know that I made that edit; and I strongly suspect that you are the one who somehow deleted it. Neutral Good (talk) 12:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You can edit subsections. There are little "edit" buttons up and down the page. Again, you can go click on "History" and then look at every edit. Proove your allegation or withdraw it now. Lawrence Cohen 15:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of bias

As evidence of the bias displayed by the cabal of partisan editors who are trying to own this article, any mention of Andrew McCarthy, John Yoo or Thomas Hartmann has been purged from the article mainspace and the footnotes. Neutral Good (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Now you're simply making things up. It's right here Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture_in_the_United_States.
You will need to immediately stop poisoning the well. Lawrence Cohen 15:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


Is it time to reconsider the lead/lede/whatever it's called?

And so the battle over "is torture" erupts again. I hate to say this, but I was afraid this would happen. I want to find a version of the lede that enough of us can live with that this argument stops dominating all discussion, because there are so many other things that could use work in this article.

Back when we settled on a lede, we had two choices: a proposed lede I wrote and a version of that proposal edited by Lawrence Cohen. Lawrence went ahead and used the second choice (his version) and I was perfectly fine with that — I think it is accurate. As I indicated earlier, I wrote my version not because it was what I most wanted to see but because I hoped it would calm this debate while still being accurate. I think it is notable that, not only did almost all of the strong supporters of waterboarding-is-torture find it acceptable, but Randy2063 also found it acceptable as I understand it.

So I just want to ask — and I know this is awkward because it's a version I wrote — but should we consider trying the other choice (i.e. the first choice, the original one I wrote) to see if it leads to more peaceful progress? Can I get some feedback, especially from the newer participants in this discussion, on my original proposed lede? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 14:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem, but if people are still unhappy with waterboarding being called torture despite all the sourcing of it, this article will end up being like the 9/11 ones, where people constantly remove all the nonsense about controlled demolition of the World Trade Centers. The same thing will happen to "it's not torture" statements and edits here, they will end up being on the level of vandalism without suffcient levels of sourcing. Lawrence Cohen 15:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I had promised I'd wash my hands of this article but I'd like to post something here I wrote elsewhere about the sources. Here's what they amount to:
  • 100 United States law professors.
  • Benjamin G. Davis, who's one of those law professors. His ideology is actually pretty far to the left. If the rest of those 100 are in the same league then you're actually making my point.
  • Jimmy Carter, who'd criticize U.S. foreign policy anyway.
  • French Journalist Henri Alleg, who calls it torture but he's not a lawyer, and they used a slightly different method. I wouldn't call him an objective source anyway, given his background. He's probably in Davis's league.
  • John McCain, who was indeed tortured (although some of the people complaining now were supporting the torturers at the time).
  • Four retired JAGs. They're your best source but none of them are privy to the CIA's methods.
  • An opinion from Amnesty International. It cites the Army Field Manual but conveniently leaves out the fact that the FM forbids a lot of things that aren't torture.
I'll add here that it may or may not mean anything to have four retired JAGs. I have no doubt that many JAGs disagree with the DOJ for sound reasons. But it's also true that there are always some high-ranking military officers angling for a position in the next administration.
Of the 100 law professors, other names I recognize include David D. Cole (who also writes for The Nation), and Marjorie Cohn (currently president of the National Lawyers Guild). I won't disparage either of them personally or professionally but I should say about Cohn's organization that the NLG had an interesting history in WWII. They supported the Hitler-Stalin pact, which made them emphatically "anti-war" in the beginning, and then emphatically pro-war after the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. They went so far as to support the internment of Japanese-Americans.
That's also a gripe about Henri Alleg, a communist reporter whose leaders also did a 180 on the Hitler-Stalin pact.
You can all say this doesn't matter today but please remember that much of this is merely the opinions of ideologues. They may be authorities of some stature but none of them are the Pope of Human Rights Law and it is utterly ridiculous for WP to give them that final word.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with this article and lead. The main problem is this: It presumes that there is only one form of waterboarding. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia should not report only one form as though it were the only form. Another problem is that the article CONCLUDES and ASSERTS that this is torture when, in fact, it is DEBATED whether it is torture. Wikipedia should not draw conclusions like this. The lead should reflect the fact that certain factions believe it is torture and certain others do not consider it to be torture. We should not state a conclusion. That is per NPOV.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion- this page should always be reconsidering rewriting the lead, but we should do it again in the manner we did before because otherwise we will just wind up edit warring again. Second, I don't know what other type of waterboarding there is. Almost all news reports agree on what it consists of. So Bluetie, if you have any sources that present an alternative method please cite them so we can read about them and integrate that information into the article. Finally, on the torture question, so far we have about two sources that say unequivolcally that waterboarding isn't torture. We have a the Bybee memo which provides a legal interpretation of what torture would be under a specific treaty and statute but does not state what John Yoo's personal opinion is about whether waterboarding is torture. Thus, all of the information that waterboarding isn't torture has been incorporated into the article. I would suggest that we provide a link in the lead to the controversy later on in the article so that we are making clear that this article's authors are aware of the debate and we are not trying to push a POV. Remember (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Randy, if you are making a general point that you do not have much respect for many people who are considered authorities, then this is not really the place for it. Could you take your point to WP:V or WP:RS? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with using these sources to say that many people believe it's torture but the article says flat-out that Wikipedia chose to agree with the side that says it's torture in a legal sense.
Yes, it's true that I personally believe some of these sources will change their minds if the political winds changed, just as NLG was willing to do when Stalin called for it. But even if you want to say that was then and this is now, it's still a fact that all the references we have here are simply citing the opinions of ideologues. What other article does that?
You can't say "all of the information that waterboarding isn't torture has been incorporated into the article" while at the same time saying that Wikipedia agrees with the side that it is.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
There are criteria for judging the reliability of sources and they don't just relate to the author but also to the publisher. OK, the burden is on the editor who wants to include a fact to show that the source is reliable, but if you want to convince us to ignore a particular source you might find it advisable to say more than just "he's an ideologue" - or to cite positions that were taken 60 years ago before most of the writers cited were born. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
They're quite reliable as opinions. Is it your position that all of them collectively have the authority to render a judgment on what is and isn't torture while other lawyers say differently?
Where does that put real torture? Maybe you'd better review these 12 pages of what torture really is. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't choose 35 seconds of waterboarding compared to that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Randy, for the final time: your view, my view, of what is or isn't torture, is 101% meaningless. Our opinions don't matter. Lawrence Cohen 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said otherwise. I fully agree that my opinion can't go into the article. But then why do you get to choose whose opinions count as the final authority?
Do you have any sources that aren't giving an opinion? All I see here are opinions and a few court cases that haven't been determined to be similar enough.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Forming considered opinions is an intrinsic part of professional work and scholarship. Good secondary sources aim to explain phenomena using facts and interpretations. We evaluate these sources them using criteria relating to the author's scholarly and/or professional standing and to the quality of the publication and publisher. If you have a problem with a source cited here, then you need to say why you think it is not reliable. Simply saying that it is "opinion" will not convince anyone. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, then let me put it this way: We have some notable lawyers who say it's torture. We have other notable lawyers who say they don't believe that it is. We also have DOJ lawyers who say it isn't, and they're the only ones who've been briefed on the exact procedures in use.
Why choose one over another? Do you suggest a popularity contest?
Please note that I'm not the one saying it is our choice to make. I've said we should WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
In regards to DOJ lawyers knowing that procedure is in use, that is specific only to the United States. This article is about waterboarding, period, not specific to the United States. The US gets it's section, but US-specific viewpoints, arguments, or assertations do not determine the course of the entire article. This a global encyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen 23:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
The U.S. is part of the world. Even if every lawyer in every other country on earth says it's torture, and even if they're not politically motivated, it's still not a universal opinion.
That said, maybe we should get quotes from the justice minister in Saudi Arabia and cite his opinion on the subject.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes do! (Hypnosadist) 00:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(Unindent). I agree with Randy. The article asserts that waterboarding is torture. This is inappropriate because it is asserted as a truth when, it is an opinion that it is torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Waterboarding is torture according to the Wikipedia definition of torture, the internationally accepted definition of torture (which is stated in the Wikipedia article entitled Torture), the dictionary definition of torture, and all other definitions of torture. It is torture. Thus, your opinion, while very interesting, has no place in this article. If you believe waterboarding to be "not torture," you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture). Badagnani (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Different versions

There are surely different versions of waterboarding, just as each performance of a Beethoven piano sonata or Allman Brothers song will be slightly different. Previously, some editors maintained that waterboarding is not a form of torture, justified by the non-sequitur opinion-based arguments that it was being done by "good people" (agents of the U.S. government) against "bad people" (Muslims), and because those "bad people" are guilty of tortures themselves, which may be even worse than waterboarding; and also possibly because, as was claimed during the Spanish Inquisition, waterboarding was preferable to the rack or other tortures because it leaves no marks. However, it is clear that international law and all four branches of the U.S. Military (among others) prohibit waterboarding as a form of torture.

The claim by these editors, in recent days, is no longer that "waterboarding is not a form of torture" because it is now clear that there are only two published opinions to this effect, one from a former U.S. government lawyer and one from a not particularly notable Internet commentator. Thus, the editors formerly insisting that the word "torture" be removed from the lead, have modified their request; they now state that the U.S. practices a "different," "better," "not-as-cruel" form of waterboarding. This claim, however, is unsupported by any evidence, and is most likely motivated by the assumption that if citizens of the U.S. are conducting the waterboarding, it would be necessarily a "better" form of waterboarding than if members of the Khmer Rouge or Imperial Japanese military were doing it. However, if it meets the accepted definition of waterboarding outlined in this article, it's waterboarding. Whether a certain type of waterboarding is "good," "less good," "slightly worse," "much worse," "slightly less cruel," "more cruel, etc. is subjective and, again, has no place in this article unless properly sourced. Badagnani (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I second the above motion. (Hypnosadist) 23:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there are different forms. I am not in agreement that the comparison with musical performances is correct.
I disagree with the idea that the "word" torture should be removed from the lead, but the lead should not say that waterboarding is torture but instead should say something about how some consider it torture and others consider it not torture or even that there are those who may describe some forms of waterboarding as torture and other forms as not torture. Whether we agree with any of these views is irrelevant.
The notion of good, bad, slightly worse, etc. is all original research and has no place in the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If you meant me, that's not my opinion at all.
I can imagine a circumstance where one variation of waterboarding may be developed that is more difficult to endure, and perhaps more harsh, but still more likely to be legal than another.
If, by "internet commentator", you meant Andrew C. McCarthy, he's more than that.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
If you meant me, that's not my opinion, either, and I take great exception to your description of the differences. A full orchestra hammering out Beethoven's 5th vs a ten-year-old playing his armpit would be better. That's why I've been calling for a better description of the technique; "torture" is not a method. You'd do better to avoid speaking for others if you can't do so more accurately. htom (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You do seem to be implying that whenever highly trained U.S. personnel conduct waterboarding, it is "better" because these U.S. personnel conduct it in a more "professional" manner than would Imperial Japanese or Khmer Rouge troops? That does seem like unsourced opinion to me. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a safe bet that the CIA's lawyers are more professional that those of the Khmer Rouge when determining whether something is or isn't torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

No, when I wrote "former U.S. government lawyer" I was referring to Ancrew C. McCarthy; I was referring to Jim Meyers (who has no Wikipedia article) when I said "not particularly notable Internet commentator," in reference to his very short opinion piece which we now feature in our article. Badagnani (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding one "version" of waterboarding being "more legal" than another, that is your opinion, which does not seem to have any sources backing it up. If it fits the accepted definition of waterboarding, it is waterboarding, and, thus, a form of torture (and, as such, not permitted by international law or any of the four branches of the U.S. Military, among other entities). Badagnani (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You're acting as though its prohibition by the U.S. military means it's torture. Again, this simply isn't true. The UCMJ prohibits a lot of things that aren't torture, and it even prohibits some things permitted by police departments.
The refs already acknowledge that some forms are very painful and others aren't. There are other differences, too. That they're all illegal hasn't been established.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the debate is whether to list waterboarding as "torture" in the lead (due to the unsourced implication that certain "more professional" forms of waterboarding "may not qualify" as a form of torture). I don't know why you're now shifting to "legality" vs. "illegality." That would be discussed in another section of the article, as there are many sets of laws in the world--and various forms of torture are certainly part of the arsenal of permitted techniques in many nations. Badagnani (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem for me is that we still have virtually no sources that assert waterboarding is not torture, versus all the rest. Have you people searched for such sources? What were your findings? Lawrence Cohen 00:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not searched the internet; I have experience and conversation with other vets. There are several different techniques wearing the same name. Some of those techniques are (in my opinion) torture, some are not, and others may or may not be. Some proper answers are more complex than "is or not". htom (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Lawrence,
I am not saying Wikipedia should claim that waterboarding is definitely not torture, and so I don't need any sources for that.
I am saying that it is disputed. We have sources for that.
Those of you who want the article to say that it is torture need to explain why Wikipedia should rule on which POV is correct.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I've gone over this. We have over 100 viewpoints and opinions and historical anecdotes that say "torture", and a less than 5 that say otherwise. That is my basis in why it should say torture. I have demonstrated my desire for inclusion of that--if you want to insert something, such as alternate wording or a viewpoint that it is not torture, the impetus is on you to demonstrate it's validity with sourcing. I outright reject the notion that <5 American Conservatives defending the Bush administration is evidence of any controversy on is/isn't torture. Those of us viewing this discussion through a lens of our own country need to get over ourselves, because that is fine for the American subsection of the article, but not the whole thing. In any event, this circular refusal to accept common sense and Wikipolicy is boring, so I've made a slight adjustment to opening sentence so that people can hopefully move on to other matters. As much as some people may wave their hands over it not being torture, that doesn't change what it is, and a extreme minority of pundits saying it's not is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. Your own wildly partisan viewpoints that you constantly insert have also colored your stances, such as saying that we should discredit sources that had ancient ties to Communism and the like. Total nonsense--should we discard American sources because they kidnapped Africans, chained them up, and dragged them across the sea? Lawrence Cohen 15:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Torture?

Now, I know this has been debated a lot, but I think that if there is a section in the article discussing whether or not it's torture, then it would presumptuous and against NPOV to state that it is in the very first line of the article. That means that the article is displaying one POV as fact and the other as an opinion. Now, until a US court of law states that it is torture, I don't think that is is right to say it is. That would be like saying "KFC mistreats animals" and presenting it as fact just because PETA said so. Just because some rights activists, political commentators, and politicians say it's torture, doesn't make it so either. Glenn Beck called Hillary Clinton a "bitch", but that doesn't mean I should change her page to say she is a politician and a "bitch". Just my $0.02 jstupple7 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

On the top of this page it says "Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them." Inertia Tensor (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to the opening sentence replaced "torture" with "physical interrogation" and appended the phrase "considered by some to be torture and currently at the center of a debate over its legality in the United States." I reverted your edit for the following reasons:
  • The edit moved an existing reference (the military psychologist Bryce Lefever's description of the technique) so that it now appears to back up the claim of a "debate over its legality in the United States." But that reference doesn't say that; the reference is about the waterboarding procedure.
  • There is no source provided for the claim that there is a debate.
  • Opinions local to the United States do not belong in the first sentence of the article; that would be unduly U.S.-centric.
In response to your comments:
  • "until a US court of law states that it is torture, I don't think that is is right to say it is" — Again, this is an excessively U.S.-centered point of view. The United States courts are not the arbiters of truth for the whole world.
  • "That would be like saying "KFC mistreats animals" and presenting it as fact just because PETA said so." — This analogy doesn't fit the current situation. To make your example analogous to the status of waterboarding, you would have to imagine that not just PETA, but almost everybody declares that KFC mistreats animals, and that no one, not even KFC itself in response to direct questioning, is willing to declare that KFC doesn't mistreat animals. And that's not all; add to that a widespread understanding that KFC has historically mistreated animals, and a consensus throughout most of the world (except only for KFC headquarters) that KFC mistreats animals, and now you're getting close to the current situation with waterboarding.
What we have is not a debate between a group of reliable sources that say "waterboarding is torture" and a group of reliable sources that say "waterboarding is not torture". If there were, a wording such as yours would be more accurate. But these are not the two sides; what we really have is one side (the overwhelming majority, in fact) saying "waterboarding is torture", and a few people on the other side saying "no comment". That's not a debate.
There is a lot of background to the dispute among editors of this article. See Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_4 and Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_4#Lead. Please have a look at it before jumping in to edit one of the most controversial parts of the article; it was arrived at only after a tremendous amount of discussion and work by many editors. Revision should take place only after a similar or better degree of diligence and open consensus.
Thanks in advance for taking the time to familiarize yourself with the background on what's been going on here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Those are not the two sides. The U.S. government isn't discussing methods but they are saying:
  1. that torture is illegal; and
  2. what the CIA is doing is legal.
Notable supporters of the U.S. side in the war, such as Andrew McCarthy, have said they believe it can be legal, and that it probably is. We have sources for that much. So it's not "no comment."
For Wikipedia to take a position that one side is correct, and another is not, is POV.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem again is that 1-2 people saying such things as McCarthey does is not evidence of any controversy. Go get sources--or else, this article can't change, and this is becoming disruptive. One comment/op-ed from one person is a footnote, not any sort of controversy. We're not here to defend any interests of any nation, as you seem to constantly imply and infer you are doing. If you're here for that, you're on the wrong website--we're here to regurgitate facts and notable opinions that are sourced and verifiable. Lawrence Cohen 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What bearing does whether or not the United States considers torture legal have on this particular question? Inertia Tensor (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree that a US Court of Appeals must rule that it is torture before wikipedia may declare it to be so. Instead, I would suggest that it must be considered somehow confirmed as torture more completely before it is so described in wikipedia. In other words, wikipedia must not give undue weight just to a US Court OPINION. And in fact, if there is a credibly competent source that does not consider it torture, anywhere in the world, then we must not be culturally or geographically hidebound to a position. Instead we should say "So and so (list various entities or entity) consider it to be torture. This and that (other entities or entity) disagree and say _____". That is per NPOV.
I also agree with Randy that the article is taking sides. It appears to be doing so because of the ideology of the authors -- contrary to wikipedia standards. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
What evidence do you have that there is a dispute over whether it is torture? Less than 5 American pundits is evidence of no controversy, it's evidence that there is a fringe minority viewpoint we can detail in the body of the page in 1-2 sentences. Because some people think the US government tore down the World Trade Center, are we going to not call that an act of terrorism in the lead? September 11, 2001 attacks opens with "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda on that date upon the United States of America." By the rationales you and Randy have expressed, that should say "The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were alleged to be a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda on that date upon the United States of America, but some sources feel that the US government played a role in this," because of all the controlled demolition minority viewpoint nonsense. Leave our American viewpoints at the door. If less five notable Americans think Waterboarding isn't torture, SOURCE it. Where are the sources? Go get them, post them here.
We've spent an amazing amount of time debating this one word--if this stance that its not torture is so common, go get the sources! I would be happy to not have to read this page daily over this debate. :) Lawrence Cohen 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
For you to declare that "less than five American pundits is no evidence of controversy" is Original Research. It is not required to show how many are on one side or the other but rather that a reliable and verifiable source reports on the controversy. I suspect that you have been an editor at wikipedia long enough to know this. Your references to another article on wikipedia are not appropriate -- after all, that article may or may not be wrong and wikipedia is not a good source for wikipedia. But so you know, you are wrong. My views would NOT require the strained interpretation that you have put forward. I will not go further into that though, because that is a different article. I agree that American viewpoints should not have undue weight, however, this is the English version of wikipedia and the US is the largest native -English speaking population in the world, PLUS the debate is most pronounced in the US, hence what happens in the US is important in this regard. As far as your not having to read this page daily over this debate... that is a choice you make. You should not blame other editors for your choices. :-) This is part of the process of editing wikipedia.
Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:
  1. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed).
  2. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture." This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.
  3. A 'Tortured' Debate The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."
  4. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here.
  5. Republican candidates dispute waterboarding Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES? This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.
  6. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture: Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't."
  7. Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture. That's just two I found. There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more.
  8. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain."
  9. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time."
  10. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important.
  11. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. " I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point: The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed.
--Blue Tie (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I modified the lead sentence

New: "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, and is widely and historically considered a form of torture."

Will this stop all the bickering, which is tiring to read? Also, kudos to you all that no one has edit warred, and we've talked instead here! I'll self RV if asked. Lawrence Cohen 15:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that most people think of it as torture.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Randy. They cannot be called "fringe." They must be listed in lead paragraphs of article if those who call waterboarding "torture" are listed in lead paragraphs. The lead sentence must state that "most" sources believe waterboarding is torture. That is fair. It is accurate. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a bit hasty, considering how much work we put into getting this on-track again. Though I understand you are probably jaded by all the agro, I feel we shouldn't move this at all without a more comprehensive consensus - one editor such as S making a unilateral edit wo/ discussion is annoying, but I would caution against caving as that would just bring us back to main page chaos again. I commend you and randy for your actions and restraint here. I believe there goodwill emerging between very conflicting editors - and one new one coming in with a wrecking ball should not break that. Even people like me are willing to work with Randy towards resolution - HERE, as I appreciate his restraint. The whole point of getting a lead trashed out by consensus is being lost - and I really don;t want to see al that work go down the tube on a Christmas edit war - Halloween was crazy enough. Can't we pick some quiet time to row ;-) Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the description of waterboarding. I think that is only one method of waterboarding and there are others. I also do not think we should weaselword by saying "most". We should be as specific as possible. --Blue Tie (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Re "is not torture" sourcing

If this viewpoint is so accepted and widespread, as some allege, where is the comparable sourcing to the volume of "is torture" sourcing? If I have asked (as have others) repeatedly for demonstration of this, in the form of evidence, links and sourcing. Is there some reason why those in favor of that wording are unwilling to post their sources here, but still insist on changing the content of this page without verifiable sourced evidence? I'm not talking about the McCarthy and Yoo links. What else have you found? We require more than two opinion pieces to make this work long term. Post them here or explain why you cannot. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 15:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy and Yoo and Mary Jo White are enough when compared to the others. You can disagree with the official U.S. position but it can't be called "fringe".
On the other hand, many (if not most or all) of those 100 lawyers cited collectively are often considered a fringe viewpoint. For those who read The Nation regularly, I suppose it's not. For the rest of us, it is. I had neglected to mention of Marjorie Cohn (one of the 100) that she also ranted about the deaths of Uday and Qusai Hussein as though that could have ended in any other way than a firefight. These kinds of lawyers will complain bitterly about U.S. policy no matter what it is.
I have no problems with using them as a source. But, again, none of them are the Pope of Human Rights Law, and we've got no business declaring them to be such. If you'll note, I never gave such a distinction to McCarthy or even to the official U.S. position with which he agrees.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Randy. McCarthy, White and Yoo cannot be called "fringe." They are not just "pundits" either. They are prominent authorities on US and international law. They must be listed in lead paragraphs of article if those who call waterboarding "torture" are listed in lead paragraphs. The lead sentence must state that "most" sources believe waterboarding is torture. That is fair. It is accurate. I do not want edit war. But burying these sources is wrong. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add to the lead something like "Some supporters of U.S. use of waterbording have argued they do not believe it qualifies as torture under U.S. law, [cite McCarthy, e.g.] while others agree it is torture but refuse to rule out the use of torture in extreme circumstances.[cite Dershowitz, e.g.]"
It's far from clear what the "official U.S. position" on waterboarding as torture is. The U.S. military is officially banned from using it. The "pain equivalent to organ death" memo has been withdrawn, according to Yoo. The press says that the CIA is no longer using waterboarding. Yes, the NY Times says there are still a secret memo allowing it, but we don't know under what reasoning.
Along these lines, our lead now mentions "confirmed use of waterboarding by the U.S. government." I don't believe they have ever confirmed that.--agr (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There is a very serious question of weight, and undue weight, when we are talking about current AND/OR former members of the administration. A torturer saying he didn't torture is certainly noteworthy, but there is also a concern of undue weight which should seriously affect their prominence, and positioning. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Absolutely oppose privileging this fringe viewpoint in the lead. All of the hammering by the "not torture" editors was a simple tactic to wear down the other editors who adhere to proper sourcing and common definitions--so that they would create ambiguity in the lead. These editors rightly see the Wikipedia article as an important battle in the war for public opinion, and if they can create ambiguity in the lead (which we do for no other form of torture, whether it "leaves marks" or not), they have done a "good deed" for the current administration. Lawrence has now acceded to this, wrongly, with which I strongly disagree. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Absolutely support giving proportionate space to minority viewpoint that say waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Did you read all the discussion during the protection on UNDUE WEIGHT. Proportional by all means. That in this case, by proportion, means NOT IN THE LEAD. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Absolutely oppose I agree with Badagnani, and I am not about to be worn down by a unilateralist editor coming in after all our hard work. Consensus, discussion, talk, then implement. We should not make the main page a tapestry. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Achieve Concensus (I reverted Blue Tie)

I brought the article back to it's last consensus. Please, everyone, work out a new version here, achieve consensus, then make the edit. Sorry Blue Tie, I do appreciate your efforts here, but this is so troubled, we need to make such major changes stick - which I believe we can - but only through discussion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that the version was a consensus version. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Blue Tie, it was at the time, see the first 2 archives - this was the version that got this page unprotected after 2 months of working to a solution. We all agree that the consensus is not perfect, as I'm sure Randy will point out - what we now have to do now that it is out of protection is work to evolve it to better include your views, Randy's and others - otherwise we will end up back in the same place. I do appreciate what you are trying to do - I just believe that it has to be done in talk first. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change. In this case it should. I think the current lead is horrible because it is factually wrong and unbalanced. I do not think my views about waterboarding matter (I will not say what they are) so much as that the article should be good. And per wikipedia standards, the lead should summarize the article, not really provide new information. For that reason, I prefer a lead that does not need ANY footnotes because the details have been handled in the article. This article needs work. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree as to the footnotes (and evolution of consensus), but honestly I would do wb = torture by this and that - end of lead - and leave the whole roiling row lower. Same goal, different interpretation. This is why I think we need to lock it down so we can trash it out without the distractions of rvs and no-talk edits (not you). Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the footnotes (not dialogue in last para) was some editors just willy-nilly deleted the first line, or edited it with out regard to the referencing. So sorry, I'm double takign here - footnotes and references are good - but repetitive dialogue is not so - as in the last paragraph. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Consensus relies on sources. And the sources do say that waterboarding is a form of torture. Other than this, I'm not certain what the argument is about, because the article is, at this point, quite well sourced and factual, and also acknowledges the U.S.'s recent use of waterboarding, and opinions thereof. Badagnani (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Old version FYI, pre Halloween war

thumb|right|300px|Painting of waterboarding from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison Waterboarding is a form of torture[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] 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.[20] 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."[21] 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."[22]. 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. [23] Inertia Tensor

(talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Expert opinion is divided phrase - OR violation

Irregardless of what this ends up as, any wording like "Expert opinion is divided" is completely inaccurate. Divided represents a relative split--we have a small minority that say it's not torture, and many, many more who say otherwise. Whatever you think of whatever sources for you own partisan political reasons or nationalism, this phrase is just patently false and made up. Unless you can get a source that says "Expert opinion is divided on whether it is torture" do not readd this phrase--it is pure original research and a violation of WP:OR. A 115-3 division is not a divided by any stretch of the imagination. Either way, source it, or adding it is a violation of WP:OR and anyone is free to immediately remove it. Sources that say that, please. Lawrence Cohen 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose the unilateral change of the lead (i.e., removing "a form of torture"). This was unnecessary, unwarranted, and unsupported by any definition in any source, because it clearly is a form of torture, and has been acknowledged as such by everyone, since the Spanish Inquisition, until a single U.S. administration decided they wanted to do it, and began attempting to make it acceptable via redefinition and ambiguity (which did not, and does not exist). Please change it back promptly, as we did clearly agree on that lead. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many different waterboarding techniques. Some include incline of body downward so that head is lower. Others do not. You pretend that all waterboarding techniques are identical. They are not. This is inaccurate. I refer you to photo of US personnel who waterboarded Viet Cong detainee in January 1968. Incline board was not used. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regarding these other purpoted forms of waterboarding that do not include inclining the head downwards, those would, of course, need sources. Every source I have examined presented the "inclined board, head-downward" method, which is why it is called "waterboarding." I believe the incline is part of the very definition of waterboarding. Otherwise, a board would not be needed. A form of waterboarding without inclining the body downward may, in fact, be another form of torture with a different name (there are, in fact several named forms of water torture). It's best if you present your findings at "Discussion," and, if found to have merit, consensus will be formed, and the text of the article will be modified accordingly. Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't believe the Vietnam War-era photo changes the definition. What is seen there is an ad-hoc, "in-the-field" version done without the board. If one were to play a Beethoven piano sonata on a tiny Casio keyboard with only 36 keys (instead of on a full 88-key grand piano), it would not change the definition of "Beethoven piano sonata." Badagnani (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

But it would prove that there and many different variations of "Beethoven piano sonata:" and not all versions have same effect. This is only evidence we have of US waterboarding technique. It is reliable evidence. No incline board was used. Only one canteen of water used so no real risk of drowning. http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/05/PH2006100500898.jpg Shibumi2 (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - In your opinion, "no real risk of drowning." That is unsourced. So, also in your opinion, this "ad hoc" form of waterboarding was "not as bad"? I thought editors above disputed that they made such distinctions between "good," "bad," "not quite as bad," "a little bit cruel," "not so cruel," "more cruel," "very cruel," etc. Keep in mind that the soldier in the photo was courtmartialed and convicted by the U.S. Armed Forces for this version of waterboarding, which is "not as bad" in the editor's opinion, yet still defined as "a form of torture," and thus unacceptable, by the U.S. Armed Forces. Badagnani (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Your lungs hold two liters of volume. How can one liter of water drown you even if put directly into lungs with funnel in nose? This waterboarding makes most water flow down surface of skin and not go into lungs. This is not original research. Id it OR to look at sky and say "Sky is blue"? Also US Armed Forces do not define waterboarding as "form of torture." Their only action was to prohibit its use in interrogation. You need to start posting source for these claims of yours. I point to Associated Press photo and ask "Where are your sources to challenge this?" Shibumi2 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - As discussed in this discussion page earlier, drowning may occur due to asphyxiation (i.e. lack of oxygen) as well as the inhalation of water, either alone or in tandem. This has already been gone over; have you just now joined the discussion without having read all the archives? It will take you some time but you probably should take some time to do so before contributing here further. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - You state that the U.S. Military does not regard waterboarding as a form of torture. As the U.S. Military follows the Geneva Conventions, which do categorize waterboarding as such, and the Field Manuals follows the Geneva Conventions (in fact, the fact that it is a form of torture prohibited by the Geneva Conventions is the sole reason it's prohibited in the Field Manuals), your statement appears to be false. Badagnani (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "have done a 'good deed' for the current administration?" I have done a good deed for truth and for accuracy. I have done good deed to make this Good Article. I have done good deed for Wikipedia. Geneva Conventions do not mention waterboarding. John Yoo memo indicates his belief that Geneva Conventions allow use of waterboarding on unlawful combatant detainees since they are not POW. Army Field Manuals address interrogation of POW. Law is very different between POW and unlawful combatant. Asphyxiation may not occur using technique of waterboarding shown in AP photo. It shows one cloth. No gag. No cellophane. It shows one canteen of water being used. This photo is our only accurate and reliable source to show US technique. Other sources if they exist at all are speculation and conjecture. Without other sources proving use of incline board or possibility of asphyxiation in US interrogation technique you cannot state as absolute fact that waterboarding always has incline board and always involved risk of death. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - You still have not read the discussion archives, have you? I did ask you to do that before commenting again, because we now have to go over material that has already been covered. Specifically, you should know that the Geneva Conventions do not set out every possible torture that may be devised; instead, they set out a definition of actions that may not be taken against captured prisoners or civilians. Waterboarding (in any form) does fall under this definition. The fact that you are doing something "good" by attempting to redefine a clearly defined term is your personal opinion, and, again, seems unsourced. Badagnani (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read archives Badagnani. Geneva Conventions prohibit torture in Common Article 3 which is only article that applies to interrogation of unlawful combatants. This word "torture" should be understood to mean same as "torture" clearly defined in UN Convention Against Torture. This definition is almost identical to definition of "torture" in US laws. Remember it is not hard to find 100 lawyers who will oppose any action taken by US government except surrender and retreat. There are over 500,000 lawyers just in US. So 100 is not a majority. Also remember human nature. If you are satisfied will you always say that you are satisfied? If you are angry is it not more likely that you will say you are angry? It is human nature for experts who oppose waterboarding and oppose US under all circumstances to complain and whine at every opportunity. It is human nature for experts who believe technique is legal to keep silent. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive my imperfect English. It is difficult language to learn. I am not language genius. I try very hard to be undertood clearly but sometimes I fail. Please be patient. We work together yes? Shibumi2 (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't play the language card to gain sympathy for your unilateralist editing of troubled articles - You have been accused of replacing Metric with English/Imperial units. That is almost exclusively the preserve of US authors, As most of us got rid of imperial units in the middle ages.Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I was following style of first three articles I saw on Imperial Japanese Navy. Those were probably done by Americans but I thought they were correct. I learned later it was wrong according to style of WP:SHIPS. Since then I have used metric units. You are extremely hostile and arrogant. Please think about your position and tactics. They are not helpful to solve dispute over content. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "Keep in mind that the soldier in the photo was courtmartialed and convicted by the U.S. Armed Forces for this version of waterboarding." Can you prove this soldier was courtmartialed? Show me your source please? Shibumi2 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - Regardless of language proficiency, if you are, as you say, quite familiar with the Geneva Conventions, yet state something like, "Well, the Geneva Conventions don't stipulate that the specific action of waterboarding is a form of torture," when you already knew that those Conventions do not enumerate every single possible torture that may be invented, that comment seems to have been crafted in a way to mislead other editors less familiar with those Conventions. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regarding the use of a wooden board in waterboarding, your comments have now finally stretched the bounds of credulity to the bursting point. At Wikipedia, we include content that is both sourced and verifiable. No, we do not have photographic evidence of every waterboarding session, yet from all of the major media, and eyewitness accounts of those who have perpetrated or suffered waterboarding, a board is used (hence the English term "waterboarding," which is the title of this article), and that board is generally inclined downwards. This has all been set out in great detail in the article, all sourced. The fact that you now inject another purported doubt into the article--one that is already so well sourced in the article--leads me to believe that you not only have not read carefully through this discussion page's archives, but that you have not actually read the article itself straight through, carefully, before commenting here.
Your participation is certainly valued, but please be aware that we have been working assiduously, over a period of months, to produce the most thorough and best-sourced article on this topic, one which is untainted by any form of POV, developing consensus via discussion and the careful consideration of sources. Bringing up purported doubts regarding items that have already been discussed and are well sourced, without providing sources of your own that dispute those sources, however, is not helpful. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regarding your question as to what are the sources indicating that a U.S. soldier was courtmartialed for waterboarding a prisoner in the Vietnam War, this again shows me that you have not actually read the Waterboarding article. There are two sources provided in the "Vietnam War" section of the article. If you are looking for actual video of the trial, I don't presume one exists; however, that would be a primary source and Wikipedia prefers the use of reliable secondary sources, which we do have. Badagnani (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Regarding your use of the term "unlawful combatants," this newly invented term was developed by officials of the the current U.S. presidential administration for the purpose of attempting to make a legal end run around international law regarding torture. As such, your prescription of which portions of the Geneva Conventions are relevant and applicable to the U.S.'s use of waterboarding over the past several years are solely an opinion, held in common apparently between yourself and some officials in the current U.S. administration. Badagnani (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention carefully defines categories of "POW." What is detainee who satisfies none of these categories? Unlawful combatant is obvious answer. International law has not always said those words but has always recognized that status. Unprivileged combatant is another way to say same thing. "Unlawful combatant" was phrase used in Supreme Court case in 1942 involving German saboteurs Ex parte Quirin. It was not invented by Bush Administration. Shibumi2 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Soldier of 1st Cavalry Division was truly courtmartialed. But his charges are not specified in source. Was he courtmartialed for act of waterboarding? Or was he courtmartialed for some other reason? Shibumi2 (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani I suspect your strongest motive may be opposition to administration rather than search for accuracy. I search for truth and accuracy. Let us seek truth and accuracy together. Opposition to Bush Administration should stay out of it. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to report truth or find truth, or do research. We're here to report what 3rd parties say. Lawrence Cohen 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Shibumi2- ASSUME GOOD FAITH, especially of those who take the time to bother getting involved in discussing the lead here with others before UNILATERALLY engaging in major edits - UNLIKE YOU, right after we have finally come out of freeze following a series of edit wars. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Compromise - this is accurate is NOT a suitable edit on the main page - DISCUSS, STOP TRYING TO RESTART A WAR. Waterboarding gets you wet is accurate - does that mean it is acceptable. In an article marked controversial - discuss, that is simply not acceptable. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence you say "We're not here to report truth or find truth, or do research. We're here to report what 3rd parties say." Then let us accurately and truthfully report what all 3rd parties say. Not just 3rd parties who oppose Bush Administration. That is what I mean. Expert opinion is divided. A majority says waterboarding is torture but they are not unanimous. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - EXTREMELY strongly support change of lead since it is not unilateral. Must give proportionate space to minority 3rd party viewpoint that say waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Shibumi2 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead that says "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is opposed by Lawrence Cohen, Neutral Good, Blue Tie, Randy2063 and me. Who supports it? Do you still think you have consensus for it? Why do you keep reverting to that lead unsupported by consensus if you are not edit warring? Shibumi2 (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All who support lead saying "Waterboarding is a form of torture" speak up please. Five editors are opposed to it. Who supports it? Speak up now please. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Five?... There's far less than that holding your views - yes, I'm sure there are many who want to see change - but the way you want to do it - weasel words and UNDUE weight- I doubt it. There are far more - including me, who wish to achieve consensus - of this group there are many opposing views, such as Randy vs Myself. We want to do this right, and we have been restrained, because over time, with a lot of scars, we now assume good faith of each other. Why should we repeat ourselves for your benefit? Do you plan on calling a vote every week until you get your way? (Since when was wiki a democracy, it is about consensus). It's on this page and in the archives. It's already been said. Read the talk. And please don't misrepresent other editors. You should read what they posted on this WHOLE page. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, waterboarding is clearly a form of torture, as the preponderance of sources state that it is such, and has been considered as such dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. The fact that there could be any ambiguity about this is more than startling. Badagnani (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Requesting full protection

We are in the beginnings of yet another edit war - as such I request full protection so we can bring the new editors into the discussions and keep this moving on a discussed consensus basis. Sadly, some editors have not paid heed to the long drawn out process we undertook, nearly two months long, to get the major edit wars resolved, and establish working relationships to discuss major changes before making unilateral edits. DO NOT DISCUSS MERITS OF LEAD/TORTURE HERE PLEASE. Suggest protection times out in two weeks max. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

YOU: Fighting on the main article page instead of working to archive consensus, with gross disregard for the troubled history in the talk page. diff diff diff Inserting weasel words: diff And you even accused another editor of vandalism to justify 3RR. If you read TALK you would notice, that you are the one who is editing without seeking consensus. Badagnani simply brought it back to the last achieved consensus amongst the majority of editors. You came in here, did a massive edit to the lead, posted a short blurb in talk and thought that was ok., Result, the waring is back again. A little late to start discussing, especially as you are persisting in these edits without getting a consensus. A lot of people spent a long time, and many hours trying to get this article to consensus, that of course can always evolve, but you would not help us but instead went unilateral - and as a result you have a annoyed a lot of people who feel their work in compromise is going down the tube. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
See section above for discussion of consensus. Five editors oppose "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as article lead. They are Lawrence Cohen, Neutral Good, Randy2063, Blue Tie and me. Do you think you still have consensus for this Inertia Tensor? I am not edit warring. I will submit to consensus whatever it supports. But what does it support? Like they say on Survivor "I'll go count the votes." Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
STOP REPOSTING HERE - I CAN READ, YOU DO NOT NEED TO PASTE IT EVERYWHERE VERBATIM. And stop misrepresenting people. I am calling for protection now, as it is obvious a new war is starting, so given the history it should be locked until we evolve the consensus to include you. The purpose of a lock is to stop people like you who do major edits BEFORE discussing - as you did. That is what starts edit wars. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - An examination of the recent history of this page shows that protection was initially needed due to revert warring (centering primarily on the article's initial sentence, which began "Waterboarding is a form of torture," which was at that time disputed by at least one editor). This was resolved through long and careful discussion and examination of all available sources on the matter. Then, over the past few days, several new editors who had not participated in the previous discussion began to remove references to waterboarding as a form of torture, but without first creating a new consensus that this was correct for the lead. Even after explaining to these editors that a new consensus must first be re-developed for altering the lead to state that waterboarding is not a form of torture, at least two editors have reverted repeatedly without first building consensus. Thus, protection, unfortunate as it may seem, does seem warranted, again, in this case. Badagnani (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - There is still lots of information that needs to be added to this article. The constant fighting about the lead regarding whether "waterboarding is torture" is annoying but the best strategy is to revert any revisions to the consensus lead and make people come up with a consensus lead on the talk page that can take its place. If we lock this article again, it will once again stagnant and not get better. Remember (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed lead with previously established near-total consensus

I'd like to present, for your consideration, the following 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[24]. 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[25]. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex[26]. 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[27]. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure[28].
Waterboarding has been historically known as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.[29] 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[30][31], politicians[32], war veterans[33][34], intelligence officials[35], military judges[36], and human rights organizations[37][38]. 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 [39] and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedure[40].

I welcome your comments on it. Here are a few points of context to keep in mind:

  • This is a lead that has been previously discussed at length and voted on. It was considered a decent compromise by many and it achieved near-total consensus among the editors on this talk page. That's why I think it's an option we should consider seriously at this point.
  • This lead does not mention torture in the first paragraph. This is intentional. My primary goal was to write something that will last. At this point, it is more important to me to calm down this argument so we can make progress on the rest of the article than to mention torture in the first paragraph. At the same time, it would be unfair to omit the historical context or the current majority opinion; thus these are mentioned in the second paragraph.
  • This lead does not mention the United States in the first paragraph. This is also intentional: the main focus of the article is waterboarding, not the United States. The current controversy is noteworthy but not primary; thus it is mentioned in the second paragraph.
  • This lead does not say anything about the acceptability or legality of waterboarding. This is also intentional. It's not Wikipedia's job to make moral judgements, and the legality issue involves many details and should go in a section of its own.
  • This lead is fairly concise. The plan would be to have a separate section devoted to the evidence and opinions for or against the classification of waterboarding as torture, and a separate section on the current controversy in the United States. The lead does not give any further details on these things because (a) they are controversial and this will help keep edit wars out of the lead; and (b) the lead should stay brief and to the point.
  • The statements are straightforward and sourced.

Please post your feedback below. Note the question isn't "is it perfect?" but just "can you live with it?" That, already, would be a step forward. Thanks to everyone, again, for your continued patience, civility, and good faith. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this an acceptable lead?

Please read the section just below where I am more specific. Or if you want me to re-write the lead, let me know if that was your desire. I do like this lead better than the current one though. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputing that Waterboarding is torture

I am not arguing that the article should say that waterboarding is not torture. I am arguing that the article should not conclude that it is torture. It should say that the sense of its being torture is disputed.

Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:
1. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed).
2. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture." This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.
Nice attempt at mis-representing his position, he says he is not willing to make a public legal pronouncement that his boss (POTUS) and many of his staff are warcriminals without studying all the evidence and case law and coming to a reasoned view. Thats not doubt but due process. (Hypnosadist) 10:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is a quote of what he said: "what that experience has been with captured soldiers, captured military people from enemies we fought in the past may very well be far different from the experience that we're having with unlawful combatants who we face now. It's a very different kind of person." And: "I'm not sufficiently familiar with interpretations of the Geneva Conventions to be offering views on what would or would not come within it or outside it. ...There are ... techniques that are, as I understand it, that may be used by -- with proper authorization -- (by) people outside the military. And those are not covered in the field manual." And: "I think it would be irresponsible of me to discuss particular techniques with which I am not familiar, when there are people who are using coercive techniques and who are being authorized to use coercive techniques, and for me to say something that is going to put their careers or freedom at risk simply because I want to be congenial, I don't think it would be responsible of me to do that."
He mentions that he believes the current circumstances might be different, that he does not know enough about the Geneva Convention to know if it applies (but that the issue is not one of military actions but rather extra-military actions) and that he does not know the specifics of the technique sufficiently to comment just to be accomodating. You may color his motives and reasons however you wish but you must stick to the testimony on record and not make things up. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
So you agree all he is saying is he has no public opinion on if waterboarding is torture, his is not "waterboarding is not torture". Therefor he in no way supports the "waterboarding is not torture" fringe theory. (Hypnosadist) 11:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I am unable to agree because I cannot understand what you are proposing that he said. But second, I am saying that he gives 3 issues: 1. He thinks we are working in extraordinary times so that things might be different now. 2. He does not know enough about the Geneva Convention to know what applies and what does not (but suggests that the issue may not exactly involve the Geneva Convention) and 3. He does not know what the specifics of the technique are to know if it is torture.
I really think you are totally missing my point. It is not that "Waterboarding is not torture". My point is that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is not a fact per wikipedia policy because it is seriously disputed. This testimony is one example of the dispute. In his testimony he says that he does not know enough to declare it so -- which is contradictory to those who claim it is absolutely and obviously torture. In other words, that position is disputed. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"In his testimony he says that he does not know enough to declare it so" That is a legal judgement he is unwilling to make, that does not prove that he disputes that waterboarding is torture. He would not pass judgement publicly of someone accused of murder from what the TV showed, that does not mean he thinks murder is not a crime. (Hypnosadist) 12:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Am I speaking a different language? What part of "It is disputed" is hard to understand? The statement "Waterboarding is torture" can be disputed in two ways: 1. Flatly stating that it is not torture or 2.) when asked if it is torture saying: It may depend upon conditions. He is saying the latter -- option 2. What conditions does he mention? His objections are not just one. They are 3. Three of them as follows: A. Different times that previous interpretations. B. Rules may not apply to all people the same way (extramilitary) and C that the way it is done makes a difference. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"What part of "It is disputed" is hard to understand" Nothing its just not what the source was doing. He says he does not know enough to say if it is or isn't torture when "careers or freedom at risk". That disqualifies him as a source because he is saying he does not know. (Hypnosadist) 12:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Did you read the testimony? He was given summaries by others declaring that Waterboarding is Torture. While respecting those views he did not agree with them. That is dispute. He gave three reasons including an ignorance of the methods, but you cannot just focus on some of his three reasons and label that as his only reason. When asked directly, he said he thought that what people had ruled on in the past were based on past events and considerations and what we were dealing with now was different. To me that is a pretty clear statement of disagreement. Perhaps you do not see this as disputing it. I do. I am willing to acknowledge that you might not find it compelling. But that is, to me, a strange view since his future job and reputation were at stake on the question and he stuck to it. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
3. A 'Tortured' Debate The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."
Op-ed by someone unqualified to give a medical opinion on if waterboarding is just a "psychological techniques". (Hypnosadist) 12:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It DOES NOT MATTER that you dislike their opinion. What matters is that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is DISPUTED. You seem to be unable to deal with this matter. Until you actually start dealing with the issue I am raising I will simply point out that your responses are non-responsive and are invalid. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is the fact that it is an opinion of a pundit as opposed to that of a qualified doctor that means this is not an RS. Doctors are given vast priority over non-doctors in medical matters on wikipedia. (Hypnosadist) 13:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me help you focus: How does the opinion of a doctor change the fact that the Wall Street Journal DISPUTED that Waterboarding is Torture? Do you understand that the question is not: "Is Waterboarding Torture"? THAT is not the question. The question is: "Is the statement"Waterboarding is Torture", significantly disputed?" In that Question (and that question ONLY), how does the doctor's views trump the Wall Street Journal? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here.
UNCAT says that "since 9/11" is a meaningless concept, see "non-derogable" in the real source i posted below. Also this is about a legal definition of torture in one county not the common english understanding of the word torture. (Hypnosadist) 10:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are not understanding the issue here. It does not matter that UNCAT takes one side of the view... that is stipulated. And this is NOT about a legal definition of torture in one country nor is it about the common english understanding of the word. It is about the fact that the notion of waterboarding as torture is DISPUTED. That others do not dispute it is part of the dispute. If there weren't people or entities who were saying "Waterboarding is torture" there would be no dispute. Likewise if there weren't people or entities saying "Waterboarding is not torture" or "It is unknown if waterboarding is torture" there would be no dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Republican candidates dispute waterboarding Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES? This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.
Misrepresnting the source again, this is getting tiresome. The source only says that these candidates beleave waterboarding is legal/necessary. (Hypnosadist) 12:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It should be tiresome but not for the reasons you claim. I have not misrepresented any source and I have given links. To label me as being dishonest is inappropriate. However, you are again, missing the point. Did you read the title of the article? Do you know what the content of the debate was? The debaters were asked if waterboarding was torture. THEY DISAGREED about it. Do you understand what the meaning of "dispute" is? It is used in the title of the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
6. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture: Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't."
7. Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture. That's just two I found. There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more.
Yeah good for you, thats two notable far-right politicians to give their OPINION. (Hypnosadist) 12:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It DOES NOT MATTER that you dislike their opinion. What matters is that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is DISPUTED. You seem to be unable to deal with this matter.--Blue Tie (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I comment that John McCain is also considered "far right." But because he supports Hypnosadist's position Hypnosadist has no problem with politics of McCain.
Actually i was commenting that these politicians might pass for a usable source, if what they say is tied to their name. At least these sources actually say they think waterboarding is not torture. I don't agree with them but at least they pass notability and verifiabilty, but i still say there opinions don't mean much when we have medical opinion.(Hypnosadist) 20:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It does not matter, per wikipedia policy, if God were to declare a view on this matter. It would not make it a "fact" if it was disputed. And the whole point here is that it is disputed. Whether it actually is or is not torture is IRRELEVANT. Wikipedia is not about truth. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
What I think is disputed is that it's disputed, or this whole "divided" storyline. Lawrence Cohen 01:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


  • Comment - I concur--this should be discussed in the section under "U.S. pundits and politicians who dispute that waterboarding is a form of torture"--but not privileged in the lead, as a fringe opinion. Badagnani (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain."
Jim Meyers' opinion is utterly meaningless as we have multiple high quality medical sources that say it is painful, as well as many victims of this torture. (Hypnosadist) 10:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not meaningless. Simply not in agreement with your view. We actually do not necessarily have UNBIASED high quality medical sources that say it is painful. In addition, we do not have any high quality medical sources who have conducted any studies of the matter involving various techniques. What we have is opinions. And that is the nature of a dispute. Some people have one opinion and other people have another opinion. You seem to be missing this point. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
We have the medical opinion of doctors who have treated torture victims from all over the world, specialists in both the mental and physical effects of torture. That trumps the biased opinion of some commentator who isn't legally allowed to apply a band-aid in the US. (Hypnosadist) 12:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me point out that if we only had the opinion of doctors who treated people admitted to the emergency room for treatment because they ate too many twinkies we might want to outlaw twinkies. An objective view would be to get the opinion of doctors who observed a large sample of people eating twinkies to determine if they are generally painful and dangerous. The point here is that a doctor with a biased sample will have a biased conclusion. As a result, such opinions, particularly when presented by someone with a political agenda, are not able to "trump" some other opinion.
But one more time YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. It does not matter if you do not like the sources. The issue is that it is SERIOUSLY DISPUTED. That is the WHOLE ISSUE. You keep wanting to somehow prove that waterboarding is torture and that one source is better than another. No need. I agree. Some sources are better than others. You can stop with that approach... because it is IRRELEVANT to the issue. There are good sources and bad sources on both sides of the debate. BUT THERE IS A DEBATE. A DISPUTE. You need to address the root problem and stop hacking away at a leaf here and there. Do you understand the issue yet? I have repeated it over and over to you and you keep ignoring it. Here it is again: The notion that waterboarding is torture is DISPUTED. OK? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Please do not teach the controversy and read about artificial controversy. Then identify how many sources say it is torture and how many dispute that. You will find there is no controversy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I am doing neither of the things you mention. Please assume good faith. It is utter nonsense to say that there is no dispute. It is clearly disputed. You ask for sources in the very part of the talk page where I list several! Just read what I have already posted. And this is not something related to "democracy of sources". As Jimbo has declared and as has been put on this page several times, a notable minority has people that you can quote. I have done so. I can find more. The issue is not "how many can you find?" but whether it is disputed. It is clearly disputed. It is disputed in politics, in courts of law, in the opinions of the public and by those who have undergone the "treatment". That is what I have shown. To just dismiss that is simply failure to deliberate -- a logical fallacy. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
9. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time."
10. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important.
11. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. " I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point: The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed.
Source does not meet RS because the supposed ex-miltary man does not have the b*lls to put his real name to his opinion (if there ever was an ex-miltary guy who gave this opinion). (Hypnosadist) 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I am unable to find any part of WP:RS that supports your position on this. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Try "Items that are signed are more reliable than unsigned articles because it tells whether an expert wrote it and took responsibility for it". (Hypnosadist) 12:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That is related to scholarship articles. This was not a scholarship article. Also the article was signed. But really, you are missing the point. How many times does that have to be said. The issue is not "What to include in the article" but "Is the sense of Waterboarding being torture, disputed?" Why are you unable to address the issue? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
--Blue Tie (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments on dispute

  • Comment - If properly sourced, these comments (if notable and of significance) should be evaluated for inclusion, or summarization in the article. However, as a wide divergence from the internationally agreed upon definition of waterboarding (and thus a fringe opinion, such as the belief that the earth is no more than six thousand years old) they should not be privileged in the lead in some effort to attain "balance," when the technique being described is always regarded (except from those attempting to conduct it, or justify its use) as a form of torture, and has been, dating back to the Spanish Inquisition. Badagnani (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You do not seem to be paying attention. Could you please refrain from generating multiple comments without understanding the point? I am not suggesting that it should be privileged in the lead to obtain balance. I am saying that the lead is factually wrong to declare waterboarding as torture because it is not a FACT that it is torture. Would you like me to quote the policy on this for you for clarity? Just say yes or no without an extended comment if you do not understand my point. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Badagani's comments above. Wikipedia is written in English, not in Newspeak. -- The Anome (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
What the heck does that mean? This is a list of comments about sources demonstrating that the notion of Waterboarding as torture is disputed. Its not a proposed inclusion in the article. Are you confused?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the old "I am right, and you are confused" gambit. Can we Godwin this now, or should we wait until later? -- The Anome (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No. I did not say you were confused. I asked. That is politeness for the purposes of furthering understanding. But now, you are just being rude. I was not proposing any sort of newspeak. I was engaged in supporting my description of the matter being disputed. To simply brush that aside with insults is inappropriate on wikipedia. Do you intend to dialog courteously or are you going to maintain bad discourse and process? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Let me try to answer your question. Newspeak is a specially constructed language of the future, proposed in George Orwell's dystopic 1948 novel 1984, that attempts to remold the English language to make certain concepts mean things other than their original meanings--in other words, to gradually engineer a "twisting" of the definitions of certain words so that they may in fact mean the opposite of their "normal," well-understood meanings. Obviously, we don't do that at Wikipedia, which is why we don't use newly-coined euphemisms (developed by those who wish to sanitize their practice) such as "enhanced interrogation techniques" (or its German equivalent, Verschärfte Vernehmung) in the lead; we use the actual term, "torture." However, it does not prevent our discussion and examination of such terms, and their use and origin, in the body of the article itself. Badagnani (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No problemo: no OR is needed. We just say, per NPOV, no-undue-weight and all, "Waterboarding is a form of torture [huge list of cites].", and, lower down the article, "Some people hold that waterboarding is not a form of torture [smaller list of cites]." If we can manage it for intelligent design, we can manage it here. -- The Anome (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
You are completely ignoring POLICY; WP:ASF. Please read it. Note that a fact is: "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." There is a serious dispute here. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - The fringe opinion referred to in the policy is the one that "waterboarding is not a form of torture," and thus the policy is being followed eminently, according to the current structure and wording of the article, as presented by The Anome. Badagnani (talk)
Again, You are completely ignoring POLICY; WP:ASF. Repeating an argument that does not address the issue is unhelpful and may be a matter of tenditious editing.
"Waterboarding is not torture" is a minority political belief in a single country within the English-speaking world. Waterboarding was torture prior to the Bush administration; it was torture when it was done to American POWs; it remains torture outside the United States, and in the minds of the vast majority of Americans. This minority belief should be -- and is -- given appropriate weight within the article. However, it does not redefine the meaning of the short, expressive, and useful word "torture". -- The Anome (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is irrelevant if it is a minority political belief in a single country (a statement that is your opinion, not a fact). It is also irrelevant if it was torture prior to the Bush Administration (a statement that is your opinion, not a fact). It is irrelevant that it remains torture in the minds of the vast majority of Americans (a statement that is your opinion not a fact). None of those things matter. What matters is that the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" is not a FACT per Wikipedia policy. The policy does not say "if the majority disagree with the minority it becomes a fact". The policy says that if it is seriously disputed it is not a fact. This is very plain. It would be good if you could focus on that issue. What issue? The issue that PER WIKIPEDIA POLICY (not per your opinion) it is not a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I can see that we are both attempting in good faith to edit this article according to Wikipedia's policies. Unfortunately, we seem to disagree on the application of those policies. When this happens, we have to fall back on consensus, and the current consensus here appears to be that the use of the word "torture" in the first sentence represents the present editors' best effort at interpretating those policies. If you have a new and persuasive argument to the contrary that does not involve holding the caps key down, I'm still willing to listen. -- The Anome (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not detect that you have been willing to listen so far and this most recent comment is not better, though it sounds a bit softer. If you were sincere you would have observed the arguments are already presented. But, just in case there has been some defect in my presentation to date:
1. Wikipedia policy states what a "fact" is.
2. A "fact" is something that is not seriously disputed per that policy
3. The article states, as a fact, that waterboarding is torture.
4. Eleven items have been presented showing it is seriously disputed. The dispute is often by prominent people.
5. That it is disputed, makes the statement "Waterboarding is a form of torture" something that is not fact, per wikipedia policy.
6. With that statement in the lead, the article is not in keeping with wikipedia policy.
7. Since it is not in keeping with wikipedia policy it should be changed.

Now that is the formal set of arguments for a very small part of the problem. Evidence has been presented already. You can read it in detail. You have never addressed any of these points but went to insulting both the critiques and me.

But there is more. The lead does not really summarize the article well and the article needs revision. I have presented my critique of the entire article -- which you have not addressed either. The lead should reflect the contents of the article. If the article mentions a dispute over the sense of waterboarding being torture, then the lead should reflect that as well and in a summary fashion. Further, to meet appropriate tone considerations per WP:NPOV the concepts should be aggregated together; one view should not be presented in one place and then, remotely, a secondary view given short shrift. Indeed that is expressly discussed in the policy as an error.

Why is it so hard to follow the policies on this matter? Do you not trust the readers? --Blue Tie (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Real sources

Here's a real qualified source(as oppossed to an op-ed pundit) the The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin;

"Various sources have spoken of such techniques involving physical and psychological means of coercion, including stress positions, extreme temperature changes, sleep deprivation, and "waterboarding" (means by which an interrogated person is made to feel as if they are drowning). With reference to the well-established practice of bodies such as the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture, the Special Rapporteur concludes that these techniques involve conduct that amounts to a breach of the non-derogable right to be free from torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." [21]

Hope that helps. (Hypnosadist) 10:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What was it you were hoping to help with that? We already know that some sources believe it is torture. Other sources do not. How did your cite clarify? It seems to me all you are doing is denigrated the other sources already providing by describing them as not "real". --Blue Tie (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The United Nations Special Rapporteur is a source whos qualified to say what is and isn't torture unlike the opinions of political commentators. (Hypnosadist) 12:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion. That is insufficient. In addition, you are missing the point. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The fact a United Nations Special Rapporteur is disqualified as source while advocating the use of a few sources protecting the Bush administration from being indicted for war crimes seems a bit unfortunate.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
When did I disqualify that as a source? When? I am bugged when you charge me falsely. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue tie take it to [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard] if you dispute the source. This person has worked for years in the area and the USA agrees with him when he says IRAN (or anyone else the USA does not like) tortures. (Hypnosadist) 12:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good grief. You are missing the point over and over and over again. I did not say the source was bad. I said that your OPINION that this source is SUPERIOR to other sources is just your opinion. I did not say the source was bad. In fact, I like the source. It is a source that says Waterboarding is torture. I have other sources that say it is not torture. Hence the notion that "waterboarding is torture" is DISPUTED. Can you focus on the actual issue here? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read artificial controversy and how it was used in teach the controversy. You will find that nobody denies people dispute the torture-thingy. The point is that when those objecting constitute a very small minority and among experts the majority does not share their objections we consider it a non-dispute, i.e. the non-controversy among the scientific community regarding Intelligent Design.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia articles are not sources for wikipedia articles nor are they sources for wikipedia policy. I will NOT read those articles that have nothing to do with this issue.
2. I have not found that "nobody denies people dispute the torture thingy". Instead, I have found the opposite. I have said that the statement "Waterboarding is torture" is disputed. When I have said that and provided citations and evidence I have found no one (so far) willing to acknowledge that indeed, the notion that waterboarding is torture is disputed.
3. However, I have not said that it is merely disputed, I have argued that it is significantly disputed. And this is where you take exception. But weirdly, you take exception on a basis that is not established in policy. So that you can know that I understand your exception let me restate it:
"The notion that waterboarding is torture is disputed by a very small, insignificant and irrelevant minority, hence the dispute should be ignored"
Simply stated, you are wrong. Would you like me to go into details AGAIN? I can do so. Most of it will be cut and paste. You could instead, just read what I have already written. Things like prominent, nameable politicians, significant portions of the US population, influential opinion holders, etc have all weighed in on the matter. If you will just refer to this we can shorten this discussion. How about if I do it for you. I will give your reply here:
"Even though your sources all fit the definition of a significant and notable minority and would not normally be discounted, IN THIS CASE, the fact that they do not see it as torture makes them obviously incapable of offering a reasonable opinion and so their opinions should not count. Hence there is no real dispute."
Did I get that about right? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Had you taken the opportunity to read those articles you would have discovered all your arguments are addressed there. Since you refuse to read them I will discuss them here.

  1. We have some experts disputing a certain position (opposing it is torture vs opposing evolution)
  2. We also have a majority of experts stating it is torture vs they support evolution.
  3. Despite the fact we have experts, even if they are notable, point two clearly establishes the fact no controversy exists and consensus among experts is that waterboarding is torture and ID is pseudoscience.
  4. Although we have no actual dispute among the relevant authorities (UN, EU, Professors, Lawyers, et cetera) the fact notable individuals oppose the consensus deserves to be mentioned in the article. As is done in the article on ID.

Hope this better clarifies my position.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Once more, what happens on one page does not have to go to another page. I reject the analogy. Not simply on the principle that what happened there may be wrong, but also because there is a difference between scientific issues and social issues. Scientific issues are more related to testable hypotheses. Social issues are primarily matters of opinion. This is not a scientific issue, it is a social issue.
Bottom Line, refer to wikipedia policy. Do not bring other pages into this discussion. It is not appropriate. And that goes double for scientific vs social debates. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
For some reason you keep ignoring the elephant in the room. When an article discusses a certain topic, i.e. biology, medicine, sociology, history, physics, et cetera, it is absolutely allowed to cite "experts" on that particular topic, i.e. biologists, physicians, sociologists, historians, physicists, et cetera. Of course, if among those "experts" the majority subscribes to a certain view of the world (consensus) why would anyone want to suggest that some lone wolf proves there is a dispute among those "experts?"Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
At no point have I argued that we should not cite experts. But also there is no "lone wolf" disputing this. It is notable people and institutions making these disputations. That is what my cites show. If anyone is ignoring something it is that the disputes are from a notable set of people and institutions not some wacko lunatic fringe. I think you are the one ignoring the issues. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
And now I have read those articles and they do not apply to the issues at hand. (I disagree with the way the lead for the Teach the Controversy article is constructed anyway). But as I said they do not apply here. There is no isomorphic relationship between the issues on those pages and the issues I have raised. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is silly. Based on the sources that have been presented so far, see above!, we can conclude that numerically there is consensus it is torture. Regarding who says what we can also conclude that most "experts" and institutions agree it is torture.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that things are silly but not in the way you describe. I do NOT conclude that there is a numerical consensus that it is torture. But whether I agree or not is irrelevant. The resolution to the issue is found in policy. But, you are completely ignoring wikipedia policy on NPOV. I see no reason to give your views credit over the agreed upon (by Consensus) policies on wikipedia, no matter how much you believe your position to be right. We are in a community with policies about how such things should be handled. Please stop ignoring them. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A problem is that if you 1-2 people disagree with the content on the page, whilst everyone else doesn't, they do not get to filibuster and obliterate or supercede consensus. If you have a minority viewpoint, unsupported by policy, you need to convince everyone else of the merit of your position. Lawrence Cohen 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I agree about filibustering. However, I do not agree that if one or two disagree and everyone else agrees then I should go away. I also do not think consensus says that majority rules. In fact, I would say that I am arguing FOR Consensus... consensus in the form of long held policies, such as NPOV which per JIMBO is non-negotiable. My views are not only supported by policy but DIRECTLY supported by policy. That is my argument. I am arguing that wikipedia policy be applied here. Where have I failed to make that clear. I have said it over and over. I have referred to the policy, given links and quoted it. No one else has done the same. What more do I need to do? I even note that your comment was to a post where I am again, asking that policy be applied. So, are my words to this effect invisible on your computer? Or are you saying that page ownership can overcome wikipedia policies? To me, that is the sort of thing that leads to the necessity for cabals on wikipedia and I oppose such things. Lets use the policies. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Nescio you say "Regarding who says what we can also conclude that most "experts" and institutions agree it is torture." Yes of course. I certainly agree. "Most" but not "all." We cannot say "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as first six words of article. Dispute exists. There is noteworthy expert opinion saying it is not torture in all cases.

Hypnosadist you start section with UN Rapporteur who say "these techniques involve conduct that amounts to a breach of the non-derogable right to be free from torture and any form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." It is not clear that he called waterboarding "torture." It is equally possible that he called it "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" Without calling it "torture." This is ambiguous statement. I cordially invite advocates of "Waterboarding is torture" lead to examine your own sources with same microscopic scrutiny you have examined Andrew McCarthy, John Yoo, Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Hartmann. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That source was to show the violation of UNCAT that was also supposedly disputed. (Hypnosadist) 16:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I am confused. What violation of UNCAT? When was it disputed? Unclear on what you are saying.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW: the UN Special Rapporteur may be a fun source but it's not conclusive. It's actually a laughable source, as is anything associated with the UN Human Rights Council or the old Human Rights Commission. Even Mary Robinson conceded that they're one-sided. She might not call them "pro-fascist" but I would.
I recommend not using anything associated with the General Assembly unless you want guffaws from the readers.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people consider the UN to be a valid source. Not sure why but they do. So while some may laugh, others will read that with attention and belief. The issue is not that some people think waterboarding is torture... its that the matter is disputed. It is not a fact and wikipedia should not state it as a fact.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Randy, you ought to stop while you're behind. Your blatant pro-US nationalism is showing. The UN is an absolutely valid source for information on waterboarding, and you will lose any attempt to minimize or eliminate their usage the moment eyes fall on such arguments. Please argue based on policy only and abandon any political bearing. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not people still respect the UN's words on human rights, I'd like to think we can agree that its positions are not in any way conclusive. The old Commission was a total disgrace to the cause of human rights, and the new United Nations Human Rights Council has only seen fit to condemn one nation, Israel. With all the real horrors and real torture out there, they could have done better. As I said, even Mary Robinson was disappointed.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I have opened Archive 5 again. Before I did Talk:Waterboarding was 362 KB. This was too large. Shibumi2 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Waterboarding

Blue Tie began an ANI discussion on this page and protection at:

Thanks. Please weigh in. Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Initial discussion and listing of all sources over torture wording

See here, archived now. A breakdown of the sourcing that shows a wide majority of sourcing and expert opinion by far saying Waterboarding is torture. Posting for convenience, as the old section was archived today. Lawrence Cohen 15:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not a full discussion that you are telling people to look at. I note that no one even tried for the other side. It was all one sided. But, more recently, I have posted several who disagree and you have not mentioned those. You are not being fair. Please do not be one sided.
And also, I do not know why it matters anyway. The issue is not Whether waterboard is or is not torture but whether it is significantly disputed. That is the issue. For that to be the issue there MUST be some who say it is torture. There must also be some who say it is not. I am not going to say what I feel because I do not do that as a policy on pages that I edit. But.. I have never argued whether it is torture or not and do not intend to argue that. And I also agree (if it helps I will STIPULATE) that there are many fine, wonderful, credible sources that say it is torture. I have no problem with that. There are also many fine wonderful credible sources that say otherwise. It is thus, disputed. That is my ONLY point. I am not sure how any one can say it is not disputed. The newsheadlines on the issue are all about the dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No one tried for the other side? If people want something included, the impetus is on them to source it. Why didn't anyone add anything? That's not one sided, it represents lack of effort by the other side. Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, but I was not here then and do not know what happened. But I added a list since then and you ignored it. Your biases are showing. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since we are listing all sources over torture wording here and here are lists of sources stating that waterboarding is not torture in all cases. Shibumi2 (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Do NOT archive sections from this page without saying you're doing so. I will personally revert the next person that doesn't at least say they're archiving--its making the page confusing! This is especially for Shibumi. :) Lawrence Cohen 16:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought he said he was archiving. I saw him say so. I am not sure what the problem is. The page was too long you know. Do not start a revert war over a talk page, for crying out loud. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No no, I just want people to say in a given edit "archiving". Scrubbing out sections with a blank edit summary is confusing, is all. When I archive, I specifically say "moving to archive #" when I remove a content, so people can follow what I am doing. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Your threat to revert simply because of a lack of an edit summary is inappropriate. It is an aggressive stance and ratchets up the tensions rather than bringing things down. Wow. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
...and you apparently completely missed the tongue-in-cheek nature of how I posted the reminder, which went so far as to include a smiley face. Lawrence Cohen 16:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
A velvet fist is still a fist. Smiley faces do not make threats go away. If you were not serious, it was not clear. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Selective archiving, without edit summary nor consensus to do so (as we've seen done today no fewer than three times), when it was already requested that open, current discussions not be archived manually just one or two days ago, is not proper. Please do not do it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
First instance
Second instance
Third instance Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was not "selective." I started at top of page and archived down page until I reached current discussion about lead. I am trying to help. Shibumi2 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - You were asked not to archive active discussions (including the list of sources, which is key to our discussion) just one or two days ago, then you went ahead and did so without edit summary or consensus. That was unreasonable. Do not do it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Fourth instance. Badagnani (talk) 19:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing change of article lead. We have posted links to all supporting material for both sides. Why keep this page at such large size? I was archiving. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - The fact that you just, inexplicably, removed active discussion (again without edit summary or posting here), despite repeated requests not to proceed in this manner, was disruptive. Please do not do it. Thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • One user, if asked to stop by multiple people, needs to stop. You have been asked, and haven't stopped, and appear to be unwilling to acede to our requests. I've reported this here and specifically asked for admin intervention. 1) It's bad form to archive recent discussions; 2) it's bad form to archive ones that are contrary to *your* stance and position; 3) doing it anyway when asked three times to stop is unacceptable. You are being disruptive and need to please stop before you get yourself blocked. Lawrence Cohen 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am archiving. I am discussing it here. I am posting it here. I am archiving. Do you understand? I am archiving. Is my English not clear enough for you? I am archiving. We already have links to all necessary material. Therefore I am archiving.

I am archiving. Do you understand? I am archiving. We already have links to everything you need to support your argument. Lawrence posted links. This page is too long. Therefore I am archiving. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You've been asked to stop--you have no greater authority than anyone else here. When asked to not do something, it's in your best interests to not edit war over it. At all. You've now archived repeatedly, including threads less than 48 hours old. Stop it. Lawrence Cohen 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of sources

It is clear to all who have been participating in this discussion over the past several weeks (during which time we developed consensus on the lead) that we have been preserving Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5#Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here (the list of sources, either stating that waterboarding is, or is not, torture). This list of sources should not have been archived, as was done a few hours ago in an ill-advised move (which was not even acknowledged in an edit summary by one of the newest participants in the discussion, who insisted on doing so). I propose that this list (as key evidence for the current discussion) be brought back to this talk page. Badagnani (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Shibuni, be also aware that WP:3RR applies to talk pages (any page, really). Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do we now, thanks to user Shibumi (diff), have two separate sections listing sources? This makes no sense. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at his contributions; he's going through *all* the talk archives and simply dumping them here, to make a point. Now we'll have to clean up this pointy vandalism. Sigh. I've asked on ANI for immediate intervention; please weigh in there. Bottom waterboarding section. Lawrence Cohen 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives 3 & 4

Why are we taking *all* archive pages back into this one now? Is this some sort of WP:POINT that is being made? I have no idea why that was just done. [22] [23] Lawrence Cohen 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear this way. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Archives fixed and automatic archival

OK, I think I got them all, and now I really do need to go out. Every thread through those that began on 12/20/07 for simplicities sake (as this page IS rather large, due to the non-policy based debate) that this seemed a good way to do it. I'm going to adjust the bot archival to be more frequent as we clearly need it. Please, let the bot do it's job, and no one at all archive again by hand. Going to set it for 14 days for now. Should be plenty. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources - main list

See Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5#Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet check on User:Neutral_Good

Can we get a sock puppet check on User:Neutral_Good. I am not saying it is a puppet, but would like to know for sure. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing more effective in destroying AGF and civility. Consider your decision carefully. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I did. And I suggest you take your own advice, you waltzed in here, made a massive lead edit and left a post in talk instead of working to achieve consensus - right after we all spent months trying to get a lead out of protection. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And my reasoning that the benefits of checking outweighted any civility issues included THIS Row with Lawrence, plus this little bit of censorship (which is allowed, but suspect). I don't need to go into why I wonder about this account. Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not think that "I would like to know for sure" is a good enough reason to do a checkuser. It is hard to believe that User:Inertia Tensor helped resolve any problems by initiating revert wars and by immediately asking for a checkuser on another editor that they disagreed with. Very aggressive and hostile behavior. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, assume good faith -- but, at what point does ignoring strong circumstantial indications stop being community building and transition into foolhardy community abandonment.
Lawrence Cohen left the question. "Have you edited previously under another account, by any chance? If so, what was it?"
Given that this is a brand new wiki-id -- just four days old; and 24 of its 30 edits were to this talk page, while the other 6 were edits about contributions to this talk page -- I think this request was reasonable;
I think the suggestion that a check user was in order was reasonable when this new contributor, with an edit pattern at odds with that of an inexperienced new user; but consistent with that of a experienced sockpuppet, declined to offer a reply to this reasonable query.
Nothing prevents Neutral Good from saying something like: "No, I am not a sockpuppet. Yes, I do have N months experience contributing to the wikipedia, from IP addresses in the xxx.xxx.yyy.yyy domain. I don't know why it took me N months of experience to get around creating my own ID." Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

I shall address the lead last

The article organization should be logical:

0. Lead
1. What Waterboarding is (description of various techniques)
2. Physical, psychological effects of Waterboarding (with consideration of the differences in technique included – for different techniques have different effects)
Include the sense of those who consider waterboarding effective for interrogation.
3. History of Waterboarding
4. Legal Status of Waterboarding (avoid using general condemnation of torture and instead use laws specifically outlining Waterboarding. These should not be just US but the English Speaking world and even the whole world.
5. Waterboarding and Torture
Views that it is torture
Views that it is not torture
Views that it depends upon some criteria as to whether it is torture
Discussion of the “stakes” claimed by each side (threats to security, threats to the integrity of the national reputation, etc)

Current article spends way too much time on the US and no time on the use of waterboarding by other countries or entities.

Current the article spends way too much time (undue weight) on the waterboarding of Kahlid Sheik Mohamed and Abu Zubaida. These should be combined into (at most) one paragraph.

The lead

The current lead assumes that waterboarding has only one technique. This is false.
The current lead states that waterboarding is torture. It is regarded as torture by some and regarded as not being torture by others.
The current lead describes the effects of waterboarding, but Chiefly for the most extreme form. It also relies upon only one biased source for those effects. This is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV.
That waterboarding is considered torture by a “wide range” of people is OR and Non-Neutral.
The group of people who consider waterboarding as torture is not balanced by mentioning that there is similar (if smaller) group of people who do not consider it torture. This is a violation of wp:NPOV.
The summary of the controversy is badly worded.

--Blue Tie (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose the majority of these suggestions - The crux of this argument is that the article is not "balanced" between those who state that waterboarding is a form of torture and those who state that it is not. There are two individuals--one a former U.S. attorney and the other a not particularly notable Internet columnist, who state that this technique may not be a form of torture. The rest of the sources state that it not only is a form of torture, but that it has been considered as such since the Spanish Inquisition. In light of this, there is no need to "balance" the article in the lead, by privileging the fringe position that waterboarding is not a form of torture. The article already states this, and does present the views of the former U.S. attorney and the not particularly notable Internet opinion columnist. The comment that more data should be collected and considered for inclusion in the article regarding the conducting of waterboarding in more locales around the world seems sensible. Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Odd. There is nothing to "oppose"; I have not proposed specific changes. Instead I have criticized the structure and content of the current article. (are you opposing any criticism of the article?)
I was not addressing something about balance between two sides, I was referring to problems with the whole article regardless of which side of some dispute you were on. However, you are ignoring my 11 point list of sources describing waterboarding as either not torture or disputed as being torture. This is sufficient that wikipedia should not take a stand and state an opinion as though it were fact. Have you actually ever carefully read WP:NPOV?? We do not need to (and should not) declare something as evil. Just report on the matter and let the facts speak for themselves. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:37, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Badagnani you say "There are two individuals--one a former U.S. attorney and the other a not particularly notable Internet columnist, who state that this technique may not be a form of torture." That is inaccurate. John Yoo is former deputy assistant attorney general and now professor at Stanford University law school. At time of his memo (2002) CIA enhanced interrogation techniques included waterboarding. He discussed whether enhanced interrogation techniques violated international law prohibiting torture. He concluded they did not. Although he did not mention waterboarding it is not accurate to assume he was not discussing it. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No his opinion is that POTUS has the right to define what the words in a treaty signed by POTUS means even if these are contry to the normal interpretation. Please stop mis-repesenting sources. (Hypnosadist) 11:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

?

I really don't understand the continuing controversy about this. Here's how the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, defines torture:

  • Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
  • An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
  • Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
  • Something causing severe pain or anguish.

Waterboarding meets every one of the criteria in the definition: infliction, severe pain, punishment, coercion, instrument or method, excruciating, agony, suspense, anguish. Furthermore, the vast majority of reliable sources appear to agree that it's torture. Waterboarding is torture in the same way that water is wet, that carbon is an element, that Procyon is a star. Torture is the entire and only purpose of waterboarding.

To reiterate: I'm not taking any stance here, nor am I suggesting that Wikipedia should take a stance, as to whether waterboarding is wrong, right, good, evil, justifiable or unjustifiable. I'm just asserting that, according to the definitions in all well-known dictionaries, it's a form of torture.

Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines explicitly state that:

We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

The fact that a small and very vocal minority -- both here, and in the world of verifiable sources -- disagree with this is definitely significant enough to mention in the article; indeed, significant enough to have its own section in the article. It is not, however, even remotely enough to justify its removal from the start of the opening sentence.

-- The Anome (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are proposing is Original Research. Specifically Improper Synthesis. Wikipedia's articles and editors are not permitted to engage in Original Research if it is challenged -- and this one is. That you believe a view is held by a very small minority is your personal opinion... and your personal opinion is an EXTREMELY teensy tiny minority.
In short the article should conform to standards of wikipedia. Your proposal does not recognize those principles except in a select and narrow portion, rather than in totality to include "No Original Research". --Blue Tie (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - In fact, the "original research" is the claim that there is a "lighter," "less cruel" version (only used by agents of the U.S., and never by any other nation) that is not a form of torture. That claim is original research if I have ever seen it at any article at Wikipedia. The fact that waterboarding is described as a form of torture, because it is by definition, cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as "original research," because it has been acknowledged not only as a form of torture, but one of the most famous and widely used modes of torture, for hundreds of years (as acknowledged by articles in all of the major media, and prosecutions during the Vietnam War, World War II, and other conflicts over the past century). Your arguments that waterboarding (or a purported "lighter," "less bad" version created and used only by the U.S.) are making progressively less and less sense. Badagnani (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with stating that Waterboarding has been considered torture by X,Y and Z (as long as we are not doing some sort of undue weight). But I have a problem with WIKIPEDIA declaring that it absolutely IS torture when that is disputed by A,B and C. How is this hard to understand in light of WP:NPOV? Have you read that policy?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm proposing that the English-language Wikipedia should be written in the English language. The English language has a word, let's call it xyglphg, which describes the type of thing that waterboarding is. Using it in the intro sentence is similar to saying "Carbon is an element..." or "Procyon is a star..." Now, it just so happens that the word xyglphg in English is spelled "torture". Some people don't like this. They would like to use a formulation, like "enhanced interrogation", which is a nicer spelling for xyglphg. I'm sure it would be nice if we could redefine the English language on demand to accommodate their desires. But we can't. -- The Anome (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
But it is original research to declare that waterboarding is xyglphg. In particular, it is inappropriate synthesis to do the following:
Waterboarding involves Treacle per source 1
Things that involve Treacle are xyglphg Per source 2
Thus Waterboarding is xyglphg Per synthesis.
This is defined in WP:OR. Take a look.--Blue Tie (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is no shortage of sources that state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Your semantic arguments "proving" that waterboarding is not a form of torture still does not make sense, in light of the massive weight of evidence already provided in the sources in the article. Badagnani (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Technically speaking there is a limit to the number of sources that declare waterboarding to be a form of torture. But you seem to be completely clueless about my point so let me be very precise:
1. I am not saying waterboarding is not torture.
2. I am not saying waterboarding should not be declared torture by some people.
3. I am not saying that there are insufficient sources saying waterboarding is torture.
Per wikipedia something is NOT A FACT IF IT IS DISPUTED. That is wikipedia policy. And wikipedia cannot declare something as fact if it is not a fact. Would you like to see the exact policy on this? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please link the passage you are using for this argument. The idea that 1-5 people disagreeing with 100+ makes the 100+ factually inaccurate is nonsense. There are a minority of people that (and you can source this) say that the GWB administration ordered the "hit" on the World Trade Center. Go put that in the WTC articles and see what happens. Lawrence Cohen 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

just a suggestion

{{editprotected}} can we reword brain damage in the lead as damage to the brain? Does that make any sense? Kushalt 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources mention the possibility of brain damage because, for human beings as well as other mammals, failing to breathe air leads to an oxygen deficiency in the blood (and, hence, the failure of oxygen to reach the brain). This can lead to brain damage. When waterboarding is conducted properly, the subject is unable to breathe, for either a shorter or longer period, depending on the occasion. As described above, this may lead to brain damage due to oxygen deficiency in the blood/brain. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
☒N Edit declined. I don't see the point of this edit. "Brain damage" and "damage to the brain" mean the same thing, and the former is probably better prose. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Repeatedly, the statement is that we are reverting to a Consensus version.

The supposed "consensus" version is faulty and contrary to wikipedia policies. Now I quote from one of those policies:

"When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies. --WP:CON

So it is invalid to claim to be supporting consensus contrary to policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please detail exactly what policy either Ka-Ping Yee's or my modified version of his lead violates, and be detailed. Let's get this settled once for all. People, please keep this focused. No one please add any useless nonsense or trolling like "I favor the US version" or "no one respects the United Nations", because that belongs on another website, not here. Let's focus, and if we can't resolve this, we'll simply have to go some sort of enforced mediation. Lawrence Cohen 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Allow me. This is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. The nominal topic is "Waterboarding." The real topic is "We loathe the Bush administration." You want an example of useless nonsense and trolling? Ask your pal Inertia Tensor why we should ignore John Yoo. And it looks like you're about to lose an evolved consensus, so your suggestion about mediation sounds like it might be sour grapes from a sore loser. 68.31.89.157 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Which is why i asked for this article split between Waterboarding (torture) and Waterboarding in the "war on terror", though Torture and the "war on terror" would be less POV and we could include the Al Qaida/militia torture chambers (and mass graves). (Hypnosadist) 09:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
You might want to remove those personal attacks. I've left a warning on your talk page. Lawrence Cohen 06:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Calling you POV pushers and NPOV violators isn't a personal attack. If anything, it's an understatement. I think calling Neutral Good a sock puppet is a far better example of a personal attack, but you didn't have a problem with it. Selective outrage is such a joy on this special morning. Merry Christmas. 68.31.210.220 (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
See comments below on User:Neutral Good's editing history. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. ^ CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference HRW open letter WB was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Davis, Benjamin (2007-10-08). "Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff". University of Pittsburgh School of Law. Retrieved 2007-12-18. Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  4. ^ "Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners". CNN. 2007-10-10. Retrieved 2007-12-18. The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  5. ^ "French Journalist Henri Alleg Describes His Torture Being Waterboarded by French Forces During Algerian War". Democracy Now!. 2007-11-05. Retrieved 2007-12-18. I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to. And no one can say, having passed through it, that this was not torture, especially when he has endured other types of torture — burning, electricity and beating, and so on. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  6. ^ "Torture's Terrible Toll". Newsweek. 2005-11-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate 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."
  7. ^ Grey, Stephen (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York, New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 225–226. A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'".
  8. ^ Bell, Nicole (2007-11-03). "Retired JAGs Send Letter To Leahy: "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal."". Crooks and Liars. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |(empty string)= and |coauthors= (help) "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
  9. ^ "CIA Whitewashing Torture". Human Rights Watch. 2005-11-21. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) "There is no doubt that waterboarding is torture, despite the administration’s reluctance to say so,” Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch.
  10. ^ "Amnesty International Response to Cheney's "No-Brainer" Comment". Amnesty International. 2006-10-26. Retrieved 2007-12-18. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  11. ^ In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
  12. ^ 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." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. | http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/page/2/ ]
  13. ^ In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)
  14. ^ A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
  15. ^ Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340
  16. ^ UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004
  17. ^ Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, "Crimes against humanity" Definition of torture 7-2:e
  18. ^ Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on.
  19. ^ Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007
  20. ^ "Variety of Interrogation Techniques Said to Be Authorized by CIA" by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, September 6, 2006
  21. ^ "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
  22. ^ Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005
  23. ^ Cheney endorses simulated drowning, "Financial Times" October 26, 2006
  24. ^ Katherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."
  25. ^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html
  26. ^ CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt."
  27. ^ Open Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch
  28. ^ "Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said." Mayer, Jane (2005). "Outsourcing Torture". The New Yorker. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  29. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07waterboard.html
  30. ^ In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
  31. ^ Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on."
  32. ^ Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer."
  33. ^ http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_his
  34. ^ According to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate 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." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
  35. ^ A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.
  36. ^ Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
  37. ^ http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htm
  38. ^ http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002
  39. ^ "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005
  40. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5&oldid=1158019205"