Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Torture/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2022 [1].

Torture

[edit]
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article went through a GAN, GOCE copyedit, and a peer review. I really appreciate all the comments I got, which helped improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by comment: I glanced through and didn't see anything about criminal torture -- I'm thinking of e.g. the Shankill Butchers; for Murphy in particular it seems the sectarian conflict was opportunity rather than motivation. Shouldn't there be something about the topic in this article, either under perpetrators or purpose? Or is there a separate article covering that topic? I see the definition in the lead of "state-sponsored" would exclude this, but then where would criminal torture be covered? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie, thanks for your comment. RS on this subject follow the definition in international law and focus on state-sponsored torture. Other uses are covered on torture (disambiguation), and perhaps that dab page could do a better job listing related articles. In most legal systems, non-state actions that would be classified as torture if carried out by the state would be legally classified as a different kind of crime. For example, it seems the Shankill Butchers were convicted of murder. There is no such thing as non-criminal torture (at least since the second half of the twentieth century) as it's a state crime. (t · c) buidhe 13:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I didn't mean to imply that state-sponsored torture wasn't a crime! I think following the RS definitions is reasonable, and I guess that means it's not an issue for this article. I do think some other article is needed, though -- the topic of psychopathic behaviour such as Murphy's isn't going to be covered under murder. But that's not your problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment, although I may review later: As much as RS focus on torture as committed by governments and organizations they sponsor, I think a general definition needs to be briefly mentioned in the lead to avoid confusion. Most people (incl. me) probably immediately think of a relatively general definition. How about something like "Other definitions may include non-state-sponsored organizations or individuals" as the second sentence? Ovinus (talk) 15:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would see that as unnecessary verbiage since the article clearly demarcates its scope and directs readers to the dab page for other uses. Definitions of torture also doesn't really contain much information about other uses of "torture", so I'm not sure how it would help readers. (t · c) buidhe 16:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't see that. Hm. For what it's worth, the OED takes a cautious approach: "The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. [specifically] judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or quasi- judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information; a form of this (often in plural)." This is quite tricky, and I'm not sure if the dab page is the best way to do it. I think my suggestion, combined with a brief blurb about the generic use of the word in Definitions of torture (which definitely belongs there, since it's a "definitions" page) would work. The "definitions of torture" link could be incorporated into the lead into a different way. And maybe it should be anyway, since it seems to be a major point of contention based on the couple articles I've read. Ovinus (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or how about changing the article title to "State-sponsored torture"? The article's definition section starts with the dictionary definition and points out that the UN Convention against Torture uses a restriction of this. I do think there is a disconnect between the article's topic and the likely expectations of a reader, based on the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with a rename, since this article covers the topic of virtually every RS about "torture" that you can find on google books and google scholar. Also, the article is not exclusively about state-sponsored torture, since it touches on non-state groups.
I've added a sentence to the lead to cover definitions, hopefully that's an improvement! (t · c) buidhe 23:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tension here is that "torture" is both a common English noun and a formal crime in various jurisdictions, and the definition of the latter differs somewhat from the former. The UNCAT only considers state actors, and US federal law defines torture as "an act committed by a person acting under the color of law". On the other hand, in California and probably in other US states the crime of torture does not require the perpetrator to be a state actor.
A better formulation of the second sentence might be "The definition of torture under international law only covers agents of the state as possible perpetrators, though other definitions include non-state organizations or individuals." Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's a bit of an oversimplification, as there are cases where international law can encompass some non-state perpetrators (depending on which instrument you are talking about)...
There are many legal systems in the world so the article is focused on the definitions used by RS about torture (not dictionary definitions which is more a matter for Wikitonary, imo). (t · c) buidhe 19:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pages 4 to 5 of Understanding Torture quote four definitions of torture, of which two (the Red Cross's and the World Medical Association's) do not require the perpetrator to be a state actor, nor does the definition of torture by the Inter-American Convention Against Torture, quoted on page 259 of Psychological Torture. So I don't think the flat statement that "Torture is carried out by the state" is correct, and moreover it is neither cited itself nor a plausible summary of the cited sentences in the "Definitions" section. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't mean to imply that all torture is carried out by the state regardless of how you are considering it. I will try to think of a better wording. (t · c) buidhe 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new version is good. Ruбlov (talk • contribs) 12:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning any of the organizations here? I only glanced to see if they are discussed, so I might have missed it if any of them are. Aza24 (talk) 03:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

image review

I'm not sure so I replaced with File:Lauritz Sand recovering after his release, May 1945.jpg (t · c) buidhe 13:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe / Nikkimaria: I switched the light green in the map to yellow, but I am not 100% a fan. What color do you think would work better? -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch

[edit]

Drive-by comments.

  • I don't see any reference to the Torture Memos, and—a separate but related topic—to the domestic laws applicable to the practice of torture and the admissibility of the related evidence in the context of the criminal process, which seems to be an important topic.
    • A lot of sources focus on the US, but I'm worried about giving undue prominence to one country when torture occurs in many. For example, the article also does not cover the legal justifications for medieval torture, torture in Israel, torture in Nazi Germany or torture in other countries. For the exclusion of evidence, the article already states, "Even when it is illegal under national law, judges in many countries continue to admit evidence obtained under torture or ill treatment." There are a lot of legal jurisdictions in the world and I'm not sure it's possible to summarize them.
  • "Torture is prohibited under international law for all states under all circumstances, under both international customary law and various treaties". Jus cogens is somewhat separate from customary law and treaty law, so saying that it is prohibited in all circumstances under customary law and treaty law is not perfect. Rather, it should be that the prohibition of torture is a peremptory norm of international, and also part of customary and some treaty law. Should probably be double-checked, though.
    • Interesting, I have seen sources that describe jus cogens as a subset of customary international law, but now that I double check this it seems there is some dispute. Rephrased.
  • "Torture was the primary issue that stimulated the creation of the human rights movement." Not sure about the accuracy of this. I would double-check with one or several sources on the history of human rights.
    • I think you're right, after checking it seems Hajjar may have overstated this somewhat.
  • I was expecting some coverage of what the World Organization Against Torture has been doing. Not very high-profile but known on the international scene.
    • I'm not convinced this particular organization is WP:DUE to mention, it does not come up on any of my general searches relating to human rights and torture or opposition to torture. I think it would be great to have a separate article on anti-torture movement where activism against torture can be covered in detail.

JBchrch talk 16:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a full review so I can't formally support, but I'm certainly not opposing. JBchrch talk 22:25, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wretchskull

[edit]

@Buidhe: A few comments.

  • The word torture is repeated too often throughout the article, even within single sentences. "Torture is commonly mentioned in historical sources on Assyria and Achaemenid Persia. Societies used torture both as part of the judicial process and as punishment" - why not replace "Societies used torture" with "Societies used it"? If the context allows it, replace "torture" with "it". In fact tell me if you approve of such changes and I'll do it myself.
  • Why isn't genocide mentioned? If used with requisite intent, torture can be genocide. Perhaps also mention that it is a frequent act prior to executions during genocide. Both covered in reliable sources.

That's all I have. The GA passed with flying colors apart from small contextual and grammatical issues. I've also conducted a source review and no significant faults were found. Therefore, I support this FAC. Wretchskull (talk) 08:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Societies used it"— the way I was taught English grammar, "it" would refer to the last singular noun, in this case "Achaemenid Persia". So I tend to err on the side of avoiding "it".
  • As for torture and genocide, I don't believe this is an aspect emphasized in RS. Torture defined more strictly has played only a very peripheral role in the genocides I'm familiar with. I guess one could consider something like death marches during the Armenian genocide, or enduring a Nazi concentration camp to be torture , but RS don't seem to discuss it this way. It's also questionable if the purposive element of torture is satisfied by genocidal acts directed indiscriminately against members of an ethnic group (genocide is not committed to extract information, punish victims, or intimidate a third party).
Thanks so much for your support. (t · c) buidhe 09:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

[edit]

I'm glad to see such an important article getting attention and being so well-written. I would suggest, as another editor mentioned, being careful not to give undue attention to torture as it pertains to the US, as this is such a widespread, global issue. Specifically, a good chunk of the images depicting modern torture since 1900 (including the one in the main heading) have to do with the US. I would suggest changing out one or two to better depict the global scale of this topic. --Maryam.Rosie (talk) 23:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely about avoiding undue focus on the US. Unfortunately, it's hard to find quality images on this topic that have geographical diversity. Personally, I think it serves our readers better to have photographs of people being tortured than possible alternative images that might be used, some of which are artistic depictions of unknown accuracy or less relevant. (t · c) buidhe 23:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but at over three weeks in and with only one general support, this one will have to be archived in a few days if a significant progress towards a consensus to promote does not form. Hog Farm Talk 17:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reidgreg, Ovinus, thanks for your comments at the peer review, do you have any more input on this article? (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry buidhe, I don't really have the energy to properly review a difficult article like this one, at the moment. The US-centrism in images isn't a deal breaker, but I think it needs adjustment to make it more appropriate for a general audience. I'm obviously unfamiliar with the scholarship and history here, but it currently feels like a rather scholarly and specialized article in places, specifically the "Prevalence" and "Perpetrators" sections. In those sections I see a disconnect between the average reader and the tone of the article. Someone well-exposed to analysis of (historical and present) human rights abuses would not be confused by sentences like "Torture cultures value self-control, discipline, and professionalism as positive values, helping torturers to maintain a positive self-image", but more context is needed for the layman (like me). (The first part of that sentence sounds like a great place to live!) Ideally, we'd give relevant examples for some of the points made in those sections, so as to make them concrete and clear, but then we get into nasty POV issues. I think the rest of the article is more or less up to standard. Ovinus (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ovinus, thanks again for your feedback! I've copyedited the relevant sections with an eye to increasing comprehensibility. (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • I have the impression - which may be wrong - that in the Middle Ages burning to death as a punishment for heresy was quite common. Is it generally considered a form of torture?
    • Capital punishment, especially historically, has been seen as separate from torture. Nowadays this is less true, but I don't see sources commonly including such medieval executions under torture.
  • Reasons for abolition. I have read of a case where torture was abolished because it was proved to a judge that it is easy to get a false confession under torture. Was this a factor in its abolition more widely?
    • This criticism of torture had been around for thousands of years, and the cited sources don't mention it as a reason for abolition.
  • "The use of torture declined after its abolition and it was increasingly seen as unacceptable." This reads to me as a bit odd. It would be worthy of note if torture did not decline after abolition, not that it did decline. Also, did not unacceptability in most cases cause aboliton rather than following it?
    • Removed this sentence. The origin of the anti-torture norm is covered in the "Prohibition" section.
  • "During the first half of the twentieth century, torture became more prevalent in Europe". Presumbly only in some states?
    • I imagine that this does not apply to a few European countries such as the UK or Sweden, but the sources just say Europe so that would be original research.
  • "Torture of political prisoners and torture during armed conflicts have received a disproportionate amount of attention." "disproportionate" is POV.
    • "Disproportionate compared to what it should be" is an opinion, but I've clarified that the meaning is disproportionate relative to its occurrence.
  • Perpetrators. You do not mention people who torture because they enjoy hurting people.
    • The main reason for this is that in most cases, hurting people for enjoyment would legally be classified as a different type of crime and therefore is not covered in the sources.
  • "Many authoritarian regimes choose indiscriminate repression as they are otherwise ineffective at identifying potential opponents." I am not sure what "otherwise" means here.
    • Rephrased
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This tactic was used in show trials in the Eastern Bloc and in Iran." This needs clarification. When and by which regimes? "was" implies that it is not used now, which seems unlikely.
    • Hajjar isn't that specific so I just deleted the sentence. Eastern Bloc doesn't exist anymore and the source doesn't say whether Iran still does this.
  • "non-international armed conflict" This is a clumsy expression. As you link to civil war, why not use that expression?
    • Done (NIAC is the legally correct term, but probably not necessary in this article)
  • "The prohibition of torture has motivated a shift to methods that do not leave marks in order to make torture more palatable for the torturer or the public," So if the public knows torture is going on but not leaving marks they think it is OK?
    • Edited to clarify that non-scarring methods are more deniable, harder to prove, and less likely to be perceived as torture by others.
  • Palestinian hanging. I think this term is better avoided, particularly as the article on Strappado says it is not used by the Israelis or the Palestinians.
    • Done
  • "Current circumstances, such as housing insecurity". I would delete "Current" as it does not mean anything here.
    • Done
  • "Uncontrolled studies on torture survivors". Presumably uncontrolled means without a control group but it needs explaining.
    • Removed this: basically it means that populations of torture survivors were sampled without comparing to a similar group that had not undergone torture.
  • "Torture carries a higher risk of traumatic sequelae than any other known human experience." How can a human experience be unknown? Also the claim must be very difficult to prove unless reliable studies have been done on every type of traumatic experience.
    • Perez-Sales states, "The percentage of survivors with long-term sequelae is greater than that of any other traumatic experience. On average, and across studies, around 40 per cent of survivors develop lasting PTSD and one out of five manifest long-lasting impacts on their identity, belief system and worldview."
      • "An average of 40 percent meet the diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a higher rate of long-term sequelae than any other human experience."This seems to me over-technical and vague. How about "An average of 40 percent suffer long-term post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a higher rate than for any other traumatic experience." Dudley Miles (talk) 08:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done (t · c) buidhe 09:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was widely condemned despite these regimes' secrecy and denial" Maybe "widely exposed"? Presumably the point is that the cover ups were unsuccessful.
    • The point isn't about the cover-ups, it's how the violation of the "torture taboo" and the reaction to it actually strengthened the taboo as "something those bad guys do". Rephrased.
  • "actual procedure correlates much better with the incidence of torture than legal rights" "actual procedure" does not mean anything here, although I recognise that it is difficult to spell out what you are trying to say. Effective procedural rules to prevent abuse?
    • Clarified that this means what is done in practice, rather than legal rules
  • "A 2009 study found that 42 percent of parties to the CAT" Maybe "states which are parties".
    • Used "states parties"
  • A first rate article - just a few statements which are a bit vague. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ovinus

[edit]

Alright, I'll take a stab at this one now. The article is looking even better than it was at peer review, so hopefully the points I was concerned about at PR will have been ameliorated. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk. Ovinus (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: 3 supports, image & source review (by Wretchskull), can I nominate another article? (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Buidhe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Torture/archive1&oldid=1090715858"