Talk:Waterboarding

See also: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Regardless if waterboarding is torture, we have the most absurd definition

Compare ways to start an article:

Intelligent Design is nonscientific. It is a theory involving evidence that a deity created life.

OR

Intelligent Design is a theory involving evidence that a deity created life, and is agreed by the scientific community to be nonscientific.

The definition of waterboarding is NOT torture. The definition is the technique of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages, which happens to be probably torture.

Whether it's torture is ancillary to what it is. c.f.

• Sleep deprivation "Sleep deprivation is a general lack of the necessary amount of sleep."
• Crushing "Death by crushing or pressing is a method of execution which has a long history during which the techniques used varied greatly from place to place. "
• Asphyxia "Asphyxia (from Greek a-, "without" and σφυγμός (sphygmos), "pulse, heartbeat") is a condition of severely deficient supply of oxygen to the body that arises from being unable to breathe normally."

We do not start these article with "Asphyxia is a form of torture".--Loodog (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the lead had been changed to shorten the first sentence and not actually describe the technique. It's fixed now. If you're implying that it's not a form of torture and shouldn't be described as such, we've been through that (please read the Discussion archives). Badagnani (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

My main problem is that the first sentence of a lead should be a definition, not a quality or classification. Bill Clinton is white. is not a definition. I have lesser concerns with declaring waterboarding torture by fiat, when we can do this neutrally, as I had phrased it, in which the organizations calling it torture are named immediately. Compare:

• OJ is a murderer. The [name people and organizations] state this. with

• According to The [name people and organizations], OJ is a murderer. It's misleading to state A is true, and in the next sentence who lends creed to A being true.--Loodog (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is journalistic neutrality we've lapsed on compared to the real newswriters.--Loodog (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are not comparable instances. We do say that Iron maiden (torture device) is a torture device, just as the Rack (torture) is a torture device, a "waterboard" (used for waterboarding) is a torture device, waterboarding is a form of torture that uses a waterboard, etc. There's no problem here. Just because the Rack (torture) and the Iron maiden (torture device) are not currently in the news, and U.S. personnel are not in jeopardy of being prosecuted for using those, we shouldn't have a double standard for exempting from definition a practice the U.S. has used in the last few years. Badagnani (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Byff) I'm going to weigh in, offering my military experience. Although it connotes different things in different contexts, here "torture" is the systematic employment of pain and disfigurement for political reasons. It is most often used to gather information, but a very common peripheral use is to inflict terror. It was very frequently employed by the Baath regime in Iraq, prior to our liberating the country. Saddam Hussein's intelligence-gathering apparatus was extensive, operating throughout the Middle East. Torture was his primary means of keeping an eye on his subjects. It was also his primary means of enforcing his rule; the scarred and often disarticulated victims were frequently released back into the populace to serve as visual reminders of his might.

And therein lies one of the most essential truths about torture: regimes that employ torture do not disguise the fact that they do. They wish their people to be aware of the penalty for dissent.

That's certainly not true of the United States, it it?

Waterboarding is a method of inquisition that involves subjecting the victim to the sensation of drowning. The intent is to provoke a physiological panic reaction. After experiencing this reaction a number of times, a threshold for panic is achieved, and the subject's resistance to interrogation breaks.

There is no permanent damage. There is no scarring. There is no maiming. This is not a psychological method of terror; it's a method of inquisition. Hell, if you watch "Burn Notice" on USA you see far worse "tortures" which likewise involve no pain, just a physiological response to panic. And we consider those to be ENTERTAINMENT.

As a soldier in the Army, I was subjected to very harsh training, especially during the initial entry phase. The training I and others endured involved a great deal of physical pain and humiliation. At times, for punishment, we were forced to perform exercise to the point of exhaustion, and thereafter to endure the agony of torn and fatigued muscles. Injuries were common; I suffered stress fractures on both tibias during Basic Training, and profoundly sprained both ankles while at my duty station. At times I was dragged through water by a rope, experiencing the exact same physical response as people being subjected to waterboarding. At other times I was compelled to jump into deep water, from a great height, while burdened with a uniform, helmet and dozens of pounds of combat equipment. It was impossible to swim, indeed impossible to even tread water. Yet I did it, and so did everybody else I served with.

If waterboarding is to be outlawed as torture, then the entire rulebook on military training will have to be outlawed as well. I think the definition of "torture" needs revision. (end Byff)

Sorry, but your personal opinion is somewhat irrelevant. There are a large number of reliable experts - lawyers and judges, both civilian and military, physicians, psychologists, and human rights experts, who have with clear unanimity, and sometimes at great personal cost, described it as torture. See e.g. [1] and [2], and literally thousands of other sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In defence of the man two above, there are also many people who decree that waterboarding is not torture. I would say that it probably is, but you can't say that A is B, and then only quote the sources which agree with this, and not the ones which don't. For example [3] and [4]. I think there is a valid argument to change the opening sentence to something like: "Waterboarding is considered by many to be a form of torture [sources], yet there are those who argue the opposite. [sources]" Quote sources all you want, and I'll keep quoting back. A quick search in google brings up hundreds and thousands of articles defending waterboarding, and insisting it is not torture.

"Many people"? You cite two opinion pieces, both by right-wing pundits with no significant medical, legal, or historical credentials. We have been digging through reliable and semi-reliable sources, and the position that it is not torture is an extreme fringe position. Even finding non-committal statements outside the blogosphere is extremely hard, and we have been unable to find any such opinion in the peer-reviewed academic literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So the White House stating that it is not torture is not a reliable source? [5] And a Republican Senator is just another moron? [6]. And a lawyer? [7] "Even finding non-committal statements outside the blogosphere is extremely hard" this is not true. Just search on google and you can find many people who disagree with classifying waterboarding as torture. Look, I think it is, but I also think Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which needs to show all points of view, whether they agree with you or not. Alan16 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ummm...what part about "reliable third party sources" is so hard to understand? All three of your sources are involved with the very government that perpetrates the act - indeed, two are parts of the administration. Of course a self-serving statement by an involved party is not reliable as a statement of fact - it's questionable even as a statement of opinion. And even so, despite the mistaken headline, Hartmann did not deny it was torture. He dodged the question (Quote: "I’m not equipped to answer that question"). If it is so easy to find good sources for the "not torture" position, then show them, don't just wave your hands. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Look, I've said I agree that it is torture, but can we just ignore these people because you consider them right wing, and unreliable? As I've said, I'm playing the Devil's Advocate, but I think if you are stating facts, you should be as close to possible to 100% agreement on them, and there is no such agreement here. Far from it. Alan16 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you read the sources or just blindly Google for the phrase? This is not a statement, but speculation on how a defense lawyer in a hypothetical case might argue. It's also a blog. Diana West is a columnist, not an expert on torture or the law. I don't know who or what Matt Margolis is, but he posts on a blog. Mukasey is not a third-party source, and also weaseled around the question. Ashcroft is not a third-party source, but a representative of the perpetrators. I'll grant you Lieberman, who really seems to be remarkably stupid, at least with respect to this topic. But as far as I can figure out, his only formal qualification is an LLB, i.e. an entry-level law degree. He is not an expert by any means. These opinions are included in the article, but they have no bearing on the basic definition. This is based on the informed opinion of experts, as found in reliable sources, not on political blabbering and commentary. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is certainly less credible than some of those cited above. It is quite lacking as the first-quoted source. The proper, neutral terminology to be used in the opening definition is coerced interrogation. It is then proper to go on and explain in the very same paragraph that many experts and/or government officials have concluded that is considered a form of torture, which is already the case in this article. Here is a great source (the quite liberal NY Times) [15] that never once mentions the T-word, but refers to waterboarding and similar techniques as coerced interrogation, specifically calling waterboarding one of the harshest of these. The 2005 Harvard study which supported the use of such highly coercive techniques will also be used to bolster my argument about rewording this if necessary. Stop reinventing history. Bsharkey (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean the "great source" that has a page two? Anyways, what some source does not call something is entirely irrelevant. Your suggestion, "coerced interrogation", btw, is not in your source, neither on page one not on page two. It's also obviously wrong - its not the interrogation that is coerced, but the victim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"what some source does not call something is entirely irrelevant". In most cases I'd agree, but not this time. It would have been easy for them to say torture, but specifically avoiding it is not an accident. Alan16 ^talk 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that it is an article that deals with interrogation in general. And they do approvingly quote Kleinman saying "the mistakes of the past five years have made interrogation synonymous in many people’s minds with torture.” --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"interrogation synonymous... with torture". Saying it has become "synonymous" with torture is not the same as saying it is torture.Alan16 ^talk 23:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is a form of torture that has been used for interrogation and coercion, as well as many other things, including punishment (as in the Khmer Rouge regime). Badagnani (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you, but you can't just assume that everyone else has to. There will always be people who disagree. You can't just ignore them. Alan16 ^talk 00:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A number of individuals believe that the landing on the Moon didn't happen as well, or that the use of the rack (torture) is not a form of torture. They don't get the privilege of changing the actual, well-understood definition of those things, however. Badagnani (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

<undent - the number of colons was getting ridiculous> Am I trying to change the definition? No. I'm not. I'm just annoyed by people who think that everyone should conform to the majority. And can we delete these damn two comments below this one? They're out of place, add nothing, and are just getting in the way. Alan16 ^talk 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

also one of the USA presidential candidates - John McCain. --Fremte (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Lieberman quote/opinion is notable, we could add it to the article, to document the point of view of a prominent U.S. politician. Badagnani (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not waterboarding is torture, stating "Waterboarding is torture." as the first line of the article clearly takes a point of view of a controversy and, therefore, violates Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I have therefore altered the article to adhere to a neutral point of view. Evil666 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not legitimate controversy. It has been discussed at great length before, and we found that an overwhelming preponderance of sources (all except right-wing, conservative pundits) consider waterboarding to be torture. So, have you ever edited Wikipedia with another account? Jehochman ^Talk 03:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the issue. I actually agree with you that waterboarding is a form of torture. What I'm making a fuss about is twofold. First, the first line of the article should state the definition of waterboarding. The line "Waterboarding is a form of torture." is a secondary statement that, while adding to it's description, does not encompass the true definition of waterboarding. For example, the first line of an article regarding France would not be "France is a country," but is "France, is a country located in Western Europe, with several overseas islands and territories located on other continents." The first sentence should fully define the subject of the article. Second, by making the first line "Waterboarding is a form of torture," you unduly emphasize the statement, regardless of merit, and add to the article a clear bias towards an extremely political issue. By doing so, you inherently create controversy and bias, regardless if you feel justified in doing so or not. My edits were made to specifically eliminate this obvious bias while both emphasizing the true definition of waterboarding and still making a prominent note regarding its implementation as a method of torture. Even if you and I are correct, and it is torture, it would be better to not make such an emphasis of the current first sentence. You speak of conservative pundits. These media leeches will use this as ammunition against Wikipedia, further contributing to the perceived "liberal bias" of Wikipedia. I am not a supporter of this unfair statement about Wikipedia, yet I see its potential when things like this happen. Stop. You are hurting the image of both Wikipedia and its community, regardless of whether you're right or not (and I think you are!) 129.210.129.125 (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence is "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages." This seems structurally similar to "France, is a country located in Western Europe, with several overseas islands and territories located on other continents." So I'm not sure what you're going on about--but you seem to be a concern troll. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The perils of an ever changing encyclopedia. The first sentence(s) were "Waterboarding is a form of torture. It consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages." until a few hours ago when I changed it to what you quoted. henrik•talk 18:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your quote has two sentences instead of one, but doesn't have any difference in meaning, so I don't have a problem with that version either. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just come across this discussion and find the point interesting from a strictly lexicographic standpoint. If we just put to one side such aspects as legal and medical definitions and considerations, we are left with the term itself and its usage. Loodog argued that the word "torture" is not properly part of the definition based chiefly on his three other examples, but in fact those are all more general terms commonly used in cases where the question of torture does not arise: a person can suffer sleep deprivation when working night shifts and caring for young children at home during the day; they could suffer asphyxia because a gas-fired water heater was leaking carbon monoxide into a badly ventilated room or some such mishap (I know: carbon monoxide death involves poisoning but it is the top asphyxia cause listed in Wikipedia); and a person could undergo death by crushing accidentally if caught on a steep mountainside by a major rockfall.

On the other hand, the term "waterboarding" refers exclusively to something done by people to other people, with the sole intention (even within BDSM) of causing some considerable degree of suffering and (outside of BDSM) with the sole aim of forcing the person to whom it is done to do something they are extremely reluctant to do otherwise, such as supply information or confess to some alleged crime. Now, the Wikipedia article on torture defines that term via a United Nations quotation, which says that torture is defined as the act of causing suffering to someone with the purpose of obtaining something of that kind from them. Moreover, the term "waterboarding" is not used in any other context. The BDSM world apparently also uses the word "torture", whether or not outsiders consider it frivolously, referring to certain activities characteristic of their world.

It therefore seems to me (as a detached observer of this debate) to be perfectly logical and appropriate, in the article on the topic, to begin the definition of "waterboarding" by saying it is a form of torture, just as it is appropriate to do so in the article on any other activity of which the sole purpose is to cause suffering for those same purposes, such as the article on Foot whipping or indeed any of those other ghastly things in the List of torture methods and devices; and indeed it is equally appropriate to begin the definition of any of those devices (such as the iron maiden) by saying that it is a “torture device”. In summary, the term is unambiguous (has no other meaning), refers exclusively to an activity that in all cases has a sole purpose and goal as set out in a "world standard" definition, and therefore is properly defined beginning with the term that most clearly orients the reader to the only context in which the term is used. Iph (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FTW, thanks for posting a reasoned argument Iph. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

Reflecting further on the wide range of sources cited in the next section, some apparently (or is the better epithet "ostensibly"?) authoritative on the legal point who are on the "no side", I wonder whether it would be helpful to be reminded that it is the definition of "torture" that those on that side need to be addressing. That is to say, if all sides agree that:

• the experience is necessarily intended by those doing it to be sufficiently unpleasant to cause those subjected to the treatment to say things they are otherwise extremely unwilling to say
• because we have seen that some defenders of it have called for evidence of its success to be declassified by the U.S. government & therefore published, we can conclude that the practice is quite successful, from which it follows that it successfully overcomes the victim's unwillingness to co-operate, and that it is therefore indeed extremely unpleasant so that, judging simply on the dictionary definition of "suffering", we can therefore conclude that such unpleasantness equates to suffering so the proposition that waterboarding causes suffering is accurate.

The "no" side are semantically at odds either with all the competent English dictionaries or with the U.N. definition of torture when they asset their claim. Since, although they may like to use long euphemisms such as "interrogation technique" for waterboarding — and "collateral damage" for civilian casualties in war — it is the U.N. definition that they need to have revised if they want to persuade everybody else of their case. For example, the U.N. says at the end of its definition: "It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions." but it also says (a line or two above that) "... when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity." The latter wording makes explicit two interesting points:

• that the sentence about "lawful sanctions" does not mean that an activity is not torture if it is instigated or approved by an official of a territory where the activity happens
• that when the activity is not approved by an official of a territory where the activity happens it does not fall within the U.N. definition! That is, if a person subjects another person to some form of suffering for some private end (such as, for example, to force the victim to give up a combination to open a safe and steal valuables from it) it is not a United Nations matter: it may be torture according to the English dictionaries and to the law of any adequately governed land, but it is a matter for that land's criminal courts and not for the U.N.

It follows from this that the U.N. has in its definition separated the simple matter of what the dictionaries say from its own realm of interest. It is only interested in activity causing pain or suffering that (1) is approved by officialdom of the government that is in control of the territory where the event occurs (2) it is not just the side-effect of a punishment for some crime for which the recipient has been fairly tried and convicted, where that punishment is "lawful" (presumably under some other section of U.N. documentation about the punishment of convicted criminals for normal crimes --- by which I mean murder, robbery etc. but not "political crimes" such as criticizing the governemnt; but I do not know the details: I am not a lawyer).

From that, in turn, it further follows that if those of a particular opinion on waterboarding wish to make any headway in persuading others of their point of view, they should seek to have the U.N. definition amended so as to exclude waterboarding by modification of the wording including extending the exclusions from the above two to include (if you can "include an exclusion"...) situations in which a government is struggling to protect its population from certain categories of danger, in the course of which the practice is proved to be necessary. Perhaps there should be a new function for the International Courts of Justice: to hear arguments from national governments seeking a ruling that in a given situation they need to employ a given "interrogation technique" and that therefore in the circumstances the technique shall not be deemed to count as torture within the meaning of the U.N.C.A.T..

All of the above cosideration is so far outside the remit of a lexicographer or an encyclopedia author that it should be apparent that it is pointless to debate here whether this particular practice "is" "torture" on the basis of what prominent people in public life, or lawyers involved in the issue for their work, have said or written on the subject; that debate belongs in fora about moral philosophy, or about international politics and jurisprudence, or perhaps in many other places, but not in a space devoted to consideration of the wording of an encyclopaedia article.

In summary, same conclusion. For this article, (1) the purely lexicographic standpoint is the neutral standpoint (NPOV); (2) the serious dictionaries agree with the basic elements mentioned in the UNCAT phrasing: causing suffering to coerce certain behaviour from the victim; and (3) clearly that description applies because apparently (so its defenders assure us) it works. For this talk page, debate about the definition is not relevant to the wording of the top paragraph on the page; but all of that might be relevant to cover in another article section (or a new related article titled perhaps "Waterboarding: the debate on whether it constitutes a form of torture under the U.N. Convention") presenting a study of the long debate about the issue that is reflected in the many postings in this Talk page by various people. Iph (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Torture?

This site is so far left it's sad. If waterboarding was torture, it would be illegal. Since it's not illegal, it can't be called torture. Can we stop with the word games? 68.143.88.2 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says it's not illegal? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you think it's legal, can I pick you up and shackle you to a board and deprive you of oxygen until you pass out without getting in trouble? Also, you might check out the letter from 115 law professors who advised the Attorney General that waterboarding is illegal and prosecutable under United States law. Vivaldi (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I can remember that being done to me by a girl wearing lots of PVC, and I paid her for it, It was quite arousing, but I don't think it was going to kill me Therubicon (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Link me to an official .gov page that states waterboarding as a violation of the law.. Or to a supreme court decision classifying it as illegal (never mind, I just found an article that states Obama made the practice illegal. Terrorists across the globe should be pleased) 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely they are not. They lost one of their best recruiting tools when Bush left office. And your demand is entirely unreasonable. Show me a link that explicitly says that applying the parrilla is illegal, or that throwing someone from a helicopter into the jungle is ("I did not kill him, gravity did"). That's not how laws are written. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree how laws are written. I'm saying that liberal ideology injected into laws is so illogical; it's mind boggling and downright depressing. Example?: Wickard v. Filburn. Completely insane. 68.143.88.2 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You might try St John's Wort or Prozac. Do you have anything to say that's remotely on topic? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How is "liberal ideology" injected into laws about torture? And how is torture even a liberal or conservative issue? There are conservative Republicans and other conservatives that recognize that depriving people of oxygen is a torture method. Even the Republicans chosen leader in the last presidential election thought that waterboarding was torture and should NEVER happen. [16] Vivaldi (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

User:68.143.88.2 asks for a link that establishes waterboarding is a violation of law. Well, if Japanese torturers who waterboarded American GIs, during World War 2, faced war crime trials for having done so, would you agree that establishes the USA considered it a crime in 1945? Geo Swan (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that waterboarding probably does constitute torture. However, calling it torture is highly controversial and should not be stated as unqualified fact in the first line. Obviously the opinion of some, including those who practised it, is different. It would be better if the opening took the form "Waterboarding is the practice of immobilizing a victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards... It has been called torture...". --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No. We have discussed this over and over again. The opinion that it is anything but torture is extreme fringe among reliable sources. It is constrained to an extremely small group of politically motivated and typically involved people. Independent lawyers (and even many US military lawyers and judges), NGOs, victims, courts, physicians, and other experts are unanimous in calling it torture. See WP:FRINGE and the archives of this page. It has been called many things, but it is a form of torture just like the parilla, the rack and the Pau de Arara. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It has been discussed but no consensus was reached. I also notice an inaccuracy in the first footnote (at least I believe it's an inaccuracy): "In the United States in recent years, arguments have been put forward that waterboarding might not be torture in all cases after it was revealed that this technique was used to interrogate suspects in relation to the war on terror". As I understand it, it was decided in 2002, before the practice was revealed, that waterboarding did not constitute torture. If NGOs, victims, courts, physicians, and other experts call the practice torture, the opening paragraph can say that. From a quick search on Google news it's quite clear that, while most people agree it constitutes torture the question is still a matter for argument and the mainstream media is still pretty unanimously treating the question as controversial rather than settled (see below). One important principle of WP:NOR is that WP:SECONDARY sources that evaluate mainstream opinion should be preferred to the stated views of experts, which are primary source material in this case. A fringe theory is one that has little recognition among secondary sources and I'm not sure it applies here. Most reliable secondary sources that claim to evaluate mainstream opinion, as opposed to sources that give an opinion, treat the question as unsettled. In the case of true fringe theories, we don't write that "Elvis Presley is widely believed to have died in..." or "John F Kennedy is widely believed to have been shot by Lee Harvey Oswald", but nor does the source material. That just isn't the case with the definition of waterboarding.

• [17] "Human rights groups, who say that waterboarding amounts to torture"
• [18]"CIA officials will not be prosecuted for using harsh interrogation methods often considered as torture"
• [19]"CIA agents who may have tortured terror suspects during the Bush administration will not be prosecuted. That decision was announced today by President Barack Obama. The Justice Department also formally rescinded Bush administration memos used to justify harsh techniques including beatings and waterboarding." --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections in the next day or so I am going to change the opening to something more neutral. WP:NPOV is absolutely clear about this, it simply isn't acceptable to state controversial opinions as fact: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist... None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"... Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

It just isn't true to say the CIA's definition of torture is an extreme fringe view or that there's no serious dispute. If that were the case, there wouldn't be articles like this [20] appearing in the media. There's no point trying to pretend a point of view doesn't exist just because you believe it is politically motivated. This is a highly significant opinion and it is wrong for Wikipedia to take sides in such a controversial matter. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been in this article for more than a year, as far as I remember. This speaks for a strong consensus. There is an extremely limited debate about the status in the US only, where the issue has been heavily politicized. No-where else in the world is there even a discussion about the fact that it is torture. And again, even in the US the informed opinion is extremely unanimous. Have you looked at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition yet? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Last night I spent a couple of hours going through archives, RFCs, RFAs and so on. I've not read the mojority of it but I've got a good idea. It seems the dissembling and repeated introduction of new RFCs made any sort of agreement impossible and eventually one side gave up. There were some rather nasty accusations made on both sides (though certainly not by you). Some users seemed to find the whole thing so stressful they gave in. "Strong consensus" certainly isn't a phrase that I would use to summarise the whole thing. You say "No-where else in the world is there even a discussion about the fact that it is torture". Have you seen the link in my previous post, a British source? And why exclude the debate that is taking place in America? Your characterisation of world opinion is really nothing like the reality of the situation. Opinion is not "extremely unanimous" at all. In fact, the world's media is unanimous in using phrases like "may be torture". I have no problem with more weight being given to the torture definition, in fact that is how it should be. It is important though that a majority opinion not be presented as fact.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to push for a new opening lead and a new consensus, feel free. But I would recommend that you hash out your specific proposal here on the talk page first because otherwise I am sure there will be endless edit wars like there was in the past. Remember (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(dedent)If you (Lo2u) are referring to the BBC article: That is a report on the US debate, not a sign of a debate in Britain. Your Guarding source farther above refers to a number of knowledgeable source calling it torture. N-TV, a center-right German news channel, titled just this week CIA-Gefängnisse -Ärzte folterten mit (CIA Prisons - Physicans participated in torture), Straffreiheit auch bei Folter - Obama schont CIA (Immunity even in torture cases - Obama spares CIA), Scharfe Kritik von rechts und links Obama und die Folterknechte (Bipartisan criticism - Obama and the torturers). Or look at this left-wing rag. The Independent says it's internationally condemned as torture. The Times writes about the CIA’s torture techniques. The Baseler Zeitung in Switzerland talks about the autorisierten Foltertechnik des sogenannten Waterboard (the authorized torture technique of waterboarding). And I could go on for ages. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your UK Times link says "Opponents of the practice have described it as “torture lite”." See, they're making a distinction. Granted, most of the people who make a show of claiming to oppose torture like to say it's the same thing as real torture.

Your Economist link uses the phrase "which are commonly held to be torture." That would be a nice way to put it.

Back when I was previously debating this here (I'm not staying long), someone who wanted to say it was always torture created a list, and even he slipped up and used the phrase "generally is torture". I thought that would have been a good way to put it. And yet he didn't want the article itself to say "generally".

That said, Lo2u, it's a nice thought, but sometimes it's best that a biased article gives clues at the beginning so that the hapless reader knows what to expect.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Times article also talks directly about "the CIA’s torture techniques", and the Economist about "the officials who authorised torture". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, thank you. I won't do anything until something is agreed. I'm not denying there is lots of sourcing for the opinion that it is torture. The article should be weighted to reflect that. What we should not be doing is using WP:FRINGE to ignore an opinion that is so well sourced and prominent on a topic that is treated as controversial by most media. When the BBC is debating something and presenting something as a matter of opinion, it should not be possible to check the internet and say "apparently it is torture. It says so on Wikipedia." Once again, I return WP:NPOV. We only treat something as fact if it is "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." This isn't even borderline. It doesn't matter whether it is only disputed in America (it's not actually, because the British government is still unwilling to use the term) the disputes are prominent and well-documented and it is highly inappropriate that we should be taking sides.

My proposal, it's been suggested before, "Waterboarding is the practice of laying a victim on his back... It is widely regarded as torture." That is fact, not opinion and is acceptable for Wikipedia. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

< out The discussion was not aided by the use of sock and meat puppets, when led to an Arbitration Committee thing, which grew to be even larger (IIRC) than the talk archives here and eventually the very noisy and Wikipedia experienced pro- "torture is a definition" crowd's opinion was locked in, with dire penalties threatened if attempts were made to change it. htom (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I can see the subject has been left for a while and I hope it can be discussed without arbitrations, RFCs and so on. As you say, last time one side's view was locked in by default, not by consensus and it mustn't happen again. A smaller number of honest editors, a discussion of what the relevant guidelines such as NPOV actually require and perhaps a willingness to compromise are needed. In this case, the best way to ensure consensus is never reached would be to launch a few unnecessary RFAs and RFCs. Fortunately, we're at nowhere near that stage. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Whats the difficulty with understanding this-->

AEB

Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations. David Miliband, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary described it as torture on July 19, 2008, and stated "the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture."

What meaningful sources do the "not torture" group have to dispute this? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

David Milliband used the term without the blessing of the PM after President Bush resigned. Anyway as I say it's irrelavant, the veiw exists. By the way I'm not a member of the "not torture group", actually if anything I'm a member of the "torture group". What you need to explain is on what grounds you wish to suspend the convention that Wikipedia does not state opinions as facts, unless there is no serious dispute? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

When did President Bush resign? Did I miss something? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact there is no serious dispute is why we state it as fact. Just because the President of Iran thinks that the holocaust did not happen does not mean that wikipedia says that the holocaust might of happened. Again What meaningful sources do the "not torture" group have to dispute this? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious dispute. It is disputed by a 2002 memorandum. The President of Iran's views on the holocaust are irrelevant to the history of the holocaust. The legal advice received by the US government which said waterboarding did not constitute torture was the basis for authorising it. Furthermore, there is a vast body of evidence that the question is still disputed among media sources that discuss the question. That isn't the case with the existence of the holocaust. If the only people who thought the practice doesn't constitute torture were the President of Iran, Gerald Toben, David Irving and a few anonymous bloggers it would constitute a fringe theory. As it is, it constitutes a notable minority view. It should not be given undue weight but should not be ignored either. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats it, your serious, the Bybee memo. "The legal advice received by the US government which said waterboarding did not constitute torture" WRONG the memo does not say its not torture, just that it MIGHT not meet a very narrow definition of Torture if done right (the memo concludes that torture 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,"). Thats not dispute its the case for the defence, now lets try and find a THIRD-PARTY Source that says its not torture (thats not the same as legal for the CIA to do it!) ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bybee memo gives guidelines to the CIA on practicing waterboarding in a way that would not constitute torture; if you accept it as anything more than a WP:FRINGE view, it is difficult to see how we can say anything more than that waterboarding probably constitutes torture without a breach of NPOV. Equally important as evidence of a serious dispute about the definition are the countless mainstream media sources that discuss whether waterboarding should be defined as torture. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bybee memo does not do any such thing. It invents an extremely limited definition of torture that is inconsistent with both the common semantics and essentially all other legal definitions of torture. It also has been withdrawn and superseded. As Hypnosadist pointed out: We don't let thieves redefine the meaning of property. And the media covers the excuses of the US government and very few fringers, it does not (or extremely rarely) "discuss whether waterboarding should be defined as torture". Do you know about any notable and significant third party WP:RS that denies the fact that waterboarding is torture? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of the wording of the memo and of the political motivation of certain sources is original research. There are plenty of media sources that discuss whether waterboarding is torture without drawing conclusions. What is the BBC article if not evidence of a "serious dispute" over whether waterboarding constitutes torture? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Which source? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[21] --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I accept the practice is torture. I accept most people agree it's torture. I want the article to reflect this. I do, however, regard it as my opinion rather than fact. I just think we need to be careful in the first sentence to avoid the appearance of bias and the remark in the next sentence about which groups regard the practice makes the position quite clear. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I take it that is a "no" to my question? And no, that is not my OR, but rather the overwhelming opinion of all experts who have discussed the issue. Also see Bybee_memo#Subsequent_OLC_opinions for the deprecated state of that memo. If you actually read the BBC article (which, by the way, is nearly 1.5 years old), the only person mentioned as denying that waterboarding is torture (and even that very indirectly) is Cheney. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It is the opinions of certain current and former members of the American government that are leading the press to avoid calling the practice torture. I'm just suggesting we follow their lead. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"I'm just suggesting we follow their lead" We are not G.W.Bushes or the american governments P.R. guys, we are here to build an ENCYCLOPEDIA, these contain facts about the world such as WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE, it was when the french did it, it was when the Dutch did it (300 F'ing years ago) and it was torture while the CIA did it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That source does nothing but show that the people who ordered the waterboarding claim its not torture, this we know and document it in the article, and they are Fringe compared to the Medical/Legal/Military sources we have, they have one lawyer they paid for and thats it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No they're minority views. Fringe theories are theories that have no relevance to a topic that are not dealt with in mainstream secondary literature on a topic. Ahmadinejad has nothing to do with the holocaust so there's no reason to mention his views, except perhaps in his own article. These views are wrong, they constitute a small minority but they're also important to the topic. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

They are important as historical facts, but they are irrelevant to the definition. For all the claims of "executive privilege", the US government does not yet have the right or the power to redefine the English language. And BTW, how much more mainstream the USA Today do you need it? Report: CIA ordered unnecessary torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"These views are wrong, they constitute a small minority but they're also important to the topic." Yes and they get way to much weight, remember these are the OPINIONS of a few politicians, as weighed against the Medical/legal and even Semantic RS's from all over the world. World expert Doctors in the treatment of Torture victims from New York to Helsinki say its Torture, Legal opinions from Harvard to H.M.Gov say its torture. Were are the sources to counter these? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get drawn into this, but Hypnosadist, you tell others to remember that the non-torture peoples opinions are just that, opinions, yet I would remind you that the Medical/Legal peoples opinions are also simply opinions. I think waterboarding is torture, but the problem I have with the article is that it is very opinionated. Yes, more weight should be given to the non-torture people because they are lawyers, doctors, etc, but for a site which is supposed to be NPOV, in the first paragraph I think it could be mentioned that there are people who oppose the definition. Just a short sentence - it wont do any harm seeing as the list of people who consider it torture is both weighted and long. Alan16 ^talk 22:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"I would remind you that the Medical/Legal peoples opinions are also simply opinions."Nope they are the educated views of reliable sources. Read the NPOV and RS, we give weight to those who know what there talking about not those that don't, thats why its an encyclopedia. Whats the difficulty, find someone with a Phd or Degree in international law who says its not torture, other than the fact no-one with believes that who is not implicated in the current mess in america. So again show me the sources. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, they are reliable sources yet they are opinions, reliable or not. And I'm not going to waste my time looking for sources. I can think of two of the top of my head. One is a medical doctor who says he considers it not torture, and the other is the politician Liebermann (spelling not necessarily correct) who has a basic law degree or something. And I don't know if it is deliberate, but you come across as very abrasive, and you are getting the desired effect as I can't be bothered arguing with someone who appears so derisive.

And you completely ignored my point. It was that there are people who do not call it torture, whether Bush lovers or not it doesn't matter. There are two groups with two different opinions, and OK, one has more academics, but this is a controversial issue and it does not show in the article. And I think that is wrong. Simple as. Alan16 ^talk 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"One is a medical doctor who says he considers it not torture" Love to see that source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

AEB2

Hypnosadist, will you please try to be civil? Stephan, you know I don't think the US government has the right to redefine the English language. That has nothing to do with it. What it does have the right to do is express an opinion. Of course these are "historical" facts, in the sense that they are opinion that were expressed in the past like all the opposing opinions, why does that exclude them from being considered? They are also being debated right now.

To be clear, this isn't a discussion about weight. We all agree that this is a minority opinion and deserve to weighted appropriately. This is a discussion about neutral point of view The policy requires that 'where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist... none of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth"...' You have asked where is the evidence of multiple perspectives. Dick Cheney, the US Office of Legal Counsel, David Rivkin[22] a consititutional lawyer and member of the US Council on Foreign Relations "I think any objective person who arrives without preconceived notions about these memos would conclude the following: tough techniques to be sure but falling well short or torture or inhuman and degrading treatment." Rudolph Giulianni: "it depends how it's done", US lawyer general Michael Mukasey and Dennis Blair, nominee for director of national intelligence have been asked to condemn the practice as torure and refused.

Regardless of the politics or geographic location of these opinion, they are notable, they are being widely reported and they exist. They cannot be ignored. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)"find someone with a Phd or Degree in international law who says its not torture" see above --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Again read NPOV and RS, what qualification does Rudolph Giulianni or Dick Cheney posses to decide what is and is not torture? Which university did they qualify at and how good was that university? Have they produced and peer reviews journal work on torture? That is how you work out if a source is reliable. In the case of Rudolph Giulianni and Dick Cheney they are not RS's. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Michael Mukasey refused to comment on future legal opinions he might have had to try without reading all the evidence (He did not have the high level CIA clearence to read the files). This has been deliberately and grossly misinterpreted to mean ITS NOT TORTURE, thats just not true, he just refused to give a legal opinion that may have bound him without all the evidence. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(In reply to comment at 23:15) With repect, I'm not sure that is true. We always look for academic qualifications when writing on matters that are purely academic. If we want an opinion about the justice of executing Ruth Ellis, we might look at what the media of the day said. If want to know when someone was born, we might read his biography, if we want to know about the circumstances of Ian Tomlinson's death, we read a newspaper. Not everything needs to be backed up by a PhD. As Alan says, this article comes across as opinionated. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No its true we look for the most academic sources, this is the area of specialised lawyers and doctors, to decide what is and is not torture.^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You don't quite have the hang of civil discourse, do you?

You seem to like lawyers so: Waterboarding was once legal. So at some point it was surely not torture - a view some people still share. Sorry, I forgot, we can't talk about them. Alan16 ^talk 23:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing two things, 1)if something is legal 2)if something is torture. So i'll give an example; In Rome it was legal to torture and even kill your own slaves as they were your property, it was still torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not talking about Rome. By american law, torture is illegal, yet waterboarding was legal. Conclusion? Obvious. Alan16 ^talk 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That is simply wrong. I doubt that waterboarding was ever strictly legal in the US, while plain old torture surely at least widely tolerated. Not actively prosecuting something does not make it legal, it just grants effective immunity to the perpetrators. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats the exact problem OR,please read the archives. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There are 115 professors of law that advised the AG that waterboarding was illegal and a punishable crime under US law. How many professors of law hold the view that is absolutely legal and unpunishable? Vivaldi (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hypno, please do try to be more civil. Are you saying that where multiple opinions exist we find the "most academic" one and report is as the truth? If so, what NPOV says is that where multiple opinions exist, we report them all, we weight them appropriately and we do not present one of the as "the truth". --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No we show all notable POV's with RS's and report them, there are no RS's for Not-torture so we don't cover this in the intro. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If there were no reliable sources, not only would we not be able to cover this in the intro, we would not be covering it at all, which is clearly not the case. In fact, there are reliable sources, it just happens that there are fewer of them. Counsel for the CIA, various politicians, lawyers, doctors. They all exist and their opinions are all reliably sourced. And this is a medical and legal matter but it is also a political matter. If a prominent and involved politician has a contradictory opinion, is it right that we disregard it? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"They all exist and their opinions are all reliably sourced" Ok it looks like i found the problem, if the BBC quote Fred about waterboarding then his views are reliably sourced but that does not make Fred a reliable source on waterboarding. If the BBC quote Barnie a world renowned expert in the legal definitions torture from Harvard Law School, Barnie is a reliable source on waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

May I offer as evidence Richard_Nixon#Watergate? "The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of illegal and secret activities undertaken by the Nixon administration" - although a "prominent and involved politician" claims that the president's blessing automatically makes an act legal. No, involved politician and the CIA are not reliable sources. Which other doctors and lawyers do you have? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You dodged an important point of his there. If there are RSs to have controversy in the article, then there are enough RS to have it in the first paragraph. Alan16 ^talk 00:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Alan16, I'll be frank. You want what dispute there is about waterboarding's status as torture to be mentioned in the lead, to be part of our definition of the concept.

No.

In your five posts here, you're not concerned about the effectiveness or moral status of waterboarding, but about problems with NPOV. Thanks, it's a refereshing change from what usually goes on here. Unfortunately, it is not neutral or unbalanced to present two opposing camps as equal regardless of the popularity or merit of their opinions. That is the worst kind of cable news sleazebaggery. NPOV is not, and has never been, about giving views equal time. Now, I'm not accusing you of demanding equality - you say that views in favor of it being torture should have more weight - but presenting the "not-torture" side in the lead, as central to the definition of the matter, would go a great way towards that by giving them massive overimportance. You mention that "Just a short sentence" "won't do any harm", but it would do very definite harm by distorting the issue. It'd make it look like the recent U.S. claims are fundamental to the definition of waterboarding. --Kizor 10:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a couple of lines about this back in January. Allow me to copypaste - they probably won't do any good for the discussion, but what would?

"Good evening, I'd just like to bog down this discussion even further by speaking on behalf of the rest of the planet. Arnold Reinhold mentioned that most of the world probably doesn't know what waterboarding is. Probably not - less than 50% of human beings have proper access to the news media - but here in the First World the USA's human rights status is a very visible issue, and waterboarding's a central part of that. You probably could pull a random person off the street in Western Europe, Canada or Australia (possibly Japan too), ask what waterboarding is, and expect an answer. Here's the thing: there hasn't been any debate, controversy or any other discussion about waterboarding not being torture in any of these countries, including staunchly pro-American ones.

It is not reasonable, balanced, informative, neutral, fair or accurate to rewrite the description of a global concept that's centuries old because of the dissenting opinions of a handful of politicians in one country during one single administration, when even within that country waterboarding has been consistently treated as torture by administrations past and future. In fact I'll go as far as state that it is not going to happen. Everyone involved, drop the issue and go do something useful, like phoning a family member. Seriously. In the five-years-and-change I've been on this website I've had to pick up on how the place operates, and trying to get waterboarding's definition as torture contested is entirely tilting at windmills." --Kizor 09:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Kizor, I've been here for roughly the same length of time as you and my interpretation of NPOV is the one that I see operating in nearly every article on Wikipedia. Nobody is talking about presenting the two opinions as equal. What we are talking about is not presenting a controversial matter with two well-documented opposing opinions as if there exists only one opinion. If we think Dick Cheney et al are wrong we don't say so, not explicitly, because that introduces POV. Instead we present the views of others as documented in reliable sources and we place a much greater weight on the majority opinion and leave the reader to draw his own conclusion. That has always been the Wikipedia way. In his comments above Hypnosadist speaks of using "the most academic sources". If it were the case that Wikipedia always reports the most academic opinion as fact to the exclusion of less acaademic opinion, there would never be any need for the neutral point of view on a controversial topic because we could simply pick the view with the support of the most PhDs and claim it's fact.

Can we examine what the reliable sources say? I am aware of one academic publication, an article in the Lancet, that discusses the definition of torture and that would certainly meet the strict requirements of the scholarship section in WP:RS. Apart from that, we're reporting primary and self-published sources, and media summaries. As well as academic articles, which are preferred, newspapers are also considered reliable sources and what they most frequently say is that waterboarding is often considered torture. That basically is the opinion of the reliable sources. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at Talk:Waterboarding/Sources? Reliable sources that do take a position take one in particular. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And then the archived discussions so we don't have to cover the same ground every 3 months. And then read NPOV and RS please. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, if you are unable to be polite and show good faith you shouldn't be posting here. I've discussed NPOV in virtually every comment I've posted here so please don't imply I haven't read it. The fact that your interpretation differs from mine does not mean I've not looked at it. Stephan thank you, I hadn't noticed that discussion. It doesn't contradict what I said though, does it? We're still looking entirely at non-scholarly non-peer-reviewed comments reported in the media or self-published, aren't we? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. We do have a number of remarkable open letters (the JAGs and the Law Professors come to mind), which qualify under the WP:SPS expert clause. If you look carefully, there are also some papers in Jurist, there is the academic collection "The Torture Debate in America" by Greenberg and a host of academic writers, Wallach's paper in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, the IRC, and various other experts. On the other hand, there are virtually no opposing views. You keep insisting that newspapers do not clearly commit to one position - well, that's not their job. They report - and they report that waterboarding is indeed widely held to be torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also the "non-scholarly non-peer-reviewed comments reported in the media" are quite usable if person making the comment is qualified to do so and the paper is trusted to accurately report what he/she said. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also sources like this --> http://www.irct.org/Default.aspx?ID=3558&M=News&NewsID=1236 are not self published either. Also yet others testified to congress and other political bodies. 22:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So, Hypnosadist, what you are saying is, the President can't decide what the law means, but 115 law professors can. Even though they weren't elected by the people, and don't have access to all the information regarding the detainees that were waterboarded. Also, you are saying that Executive Branch officials are not RS about how the Executive Branch enforces the law. Lastly, you are saying that all of the sources that agree with the "waterboarding is torture" idea are reliable, but the Executive Branch of the United States is not. Is that what you mean? I'm just looking for clarification. Joshua Ingram 06:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Hypnosadist, but no, the President cannot decide what a law means. It's called separation of powers. Neither can 115 law professors. But what they have, being experts, is a well-qualified opinion (which, by the way, is shared by a huge group of other experts, including any number of military lawyers and JAGs). The Executive may or may not be a RS on certain topics (read up on Iran-contra affair or Watergate), but its not an applicable source on the semantics of the English language, or on the legal definition of certain terms. -Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AEB3

I only skimmed this part of the discussion and I'm not entirely sure what the specific dispute is, so I'll just offer my view here. I changed the introduction to be more NPOV. Wikipedia can cover both sides, but it can't take a stance either way and categorically stating "Waterboarding is a form of torture" in the first sentence is a violation of NPOV. The only circumstance where it wouldn't be is if it were some fringe minority view that wouldn't even be covered in the first place. The fact is, both camps have sizable support for them, regardless of which side has more "experts" or is even better reasoned.

NPOV is not to be confused with a previously proposed and rejected policy, "scientific point of view" ("legal point of view" would be analogous). So long as both sides have substantial support, regardless of how intelligent or stupid that support may be, Wikipedia isn't allowed to take a factual stance.

However, NPOV does require showing the positions in proportion to how much support they have, so if one has 30% support, it should be about 30% of the article. You can subdivide this for sections/proportions covering scientific viewpoints, legal viewpoints, general population viewpoints, etc... We are only talking about reliable sources in terms of representing how these views are proportioned in the respective groups. So yes, academic sources would be great for a purely academic discussion, as someone said, but this is also a political and ideological issue.

This is why, for example, articles on the evolution controversy are split about evenly, in proportion to how supported they are in the general population, but strictly scientific articles are pretty much 99% pro-evolution.
-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, whats your point, this is a scientific article just like Evolution as theory and fact. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been had many times before. The reliable sources virtually all say that waterboarding is a form of torture. We are not in the business of polling what the pundits say. If we look at scholarly sources, there is no debate. Jehochman ^Talk 11:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources show plenty of people who support the viewpoint that it's not torture. As I said, it is called Neutral POV, NOT Scientific POV. This kind of discussion has been tried many times and it's always been the conclusion that NPOV =/= SPOV. This is precisely why opposing viewpoints haven't been removed from evolution articles. Good luck on convincing them that Wikipedia abides by SPOV. Pay special attention to the Undue Weight, Balance, and Impartial Tone sections of WP:NPOV. Remember, there is a big difference between proportioning according to belief and the article taking a stance. Aside from the legal aspect, there is even an issue of who would be considered a relevant scholar, anyway (i.e. whether it's linguists, ethicists, doctors, etc..). That's one of the many reasons why Wikipedia has to represent both sides and not take a stance. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't revert an entire statement that establishes a NPOV for the intro simply because a part of it has a weasel word (which I marked as such myself, btw, as a note to myself and others to put the relevant cites there). You reverted the first and second half of the sentence, even though only the second half had the weasel word. It's against the idea of WP:WEASEL to remove a phrase when it's obviously true (who really believes that only some fringe minority holds the opposing view?) and the article itself even later cites specific groups and individuals who hold the opposing viewpoint. It was only a matter of condensing some of the other sources and perhaps some new ones with citations at the beginning, which I hadn't gotten around to yet. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Stephan. The Department of Justice (DoJ), at the direction of the President, can decide how they want to enforce the law. For instance, we have Obama telling the DoJ not to enforce immigration laws.

Also the President has the ability to issue Executive Orders. President Bush signed EO 13440 on July 20, 2007, which authorized the CIA and the military to use the "enhanced interrogation techniques" authorized by the Bush Administration. While I agree that the President cannot interpret the laws, which is the job of the Judicial Branch, it can decide what the law means, in the context of Executive Orders.

And way to go, Nathan! Joshua Ingram 12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That is plain nonsense. The president can indeed influence how laws are enforced, but not what they mean. Illegal immigration remains illegal, even if immigrants are not send back immediately. Torture remains illegal, even if Bush authorizes it. Indeed, as Commander in Chief he can order all kinds of atrocities - he has the power, but he does not have the right. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't getting my meaning. I am not saying, or advocating, that a President has the right to declare what laws mean. What I'm saying is, a President does have the right to declare what his Administration says the law means. For instance, (THE FOLLOWING IS COMPLETELY HYPOTHETICAL!!!), let's say President Obama decided that, for whatever reason, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was a threat and needed to be assassinated. But, he runs into a problem: EO 12333, written by President Ford, specifically prohibits assassinating foreign heads of state. Solution: The President declares a Presidential Finding, stating that the EO doesn't apply in wartime. In the simplest terms, a Finding means the law means what the President thinks it means.

Someone might notice this idea is not original. I know, I stole it from Debt of Honor by Tom Clancy. I'm not saying that Ahmadinejad needs to be assassinated, just using an example. Torture is illegal. Absolutely. However, the President can write an EO that says it is not illegal to use certain interrogation techniques on enemy combatants arrested on a foreign battlefield that are not a part of a uniformed army. And that's what Bush did. He didn't change the Constitution, he didn't suspend Habeas Corpus, he just said that civilians caught committing acts of terror against US Armed Forces are not POW's, and are not subject to the Geneva Conventions, or the Bill of Rights.

And by the way, and I'm saying this because I haven't seen it stated on here yet, (I haven't read the whole thing, so if this argument has been made, I didn't know, and I apologize) but they do put something over the face of the subject, so no actual water goes in the mouth or nose. Also, there is a medical doctor observing-in person-at all times when waterboarding is used, to make sure there is no physical harm. Joshua Ingram 15:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm about to listen to ManU so i can't talk for 2 hours but please read Iph's very good argument above about torture and please remember that america is only 5% of the world and waterboarding existed 200 years before america declared independance. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"medical doctor observing-in person-at all times when waterboarding is used" The same was true for the Gestapo, they were still found guilty of war crimes in Norway. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We cover the issue of Bybee memo in this article, but it does not effect what the rest of the world say is illegal. The UN, EU and CoE all say waterboarding is torture and illegal under the UN charter of fundamental human rights, we also have much legal president on the illegality of waterboarding even in wartime. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• The UN? Is this the same UN that gave Pro-Abortionists (Not Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortionists) Human Rights medals? The same UN that commits these kinds of lawful acts? The UN that put the Sudan and Zimbabwe on their own Human Rights Council? Oh, okay. I'm with you. Joshua Ingram 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes that UN. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, the United States is not a member of the European Union, or the Council of Europe (I'm assuming that's what CoE meant), so their laws are not applicable to us. Joshua Ingram 19:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is written from a global perspective, see NPOV, the European court of human rights has said as legal opinion that waterboarding violates UNDHR and UNCAT, those were signed up to by the USA. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the United States probably broke the rules (I say probably because I actually haven't followed the international side of the story that well) with some international treaties. I am not disputing that waterboarding is considered illegal by some world organizations. I am also not disputing the correctness of your facts. However, it was not considered illegal under the Bush Administration, and we are not subject to EU and CoE laws. My point is, it is not POV to dispute the illegality of something that is primarily illegal outside of the jurisdiction the "crime" was committed in. If we violated a few treaties, yes, that is illegal. However, you can't throw the EU and the CoE around as if we are subject to their laws. That's like me calling the PRC a bunch of illegal abortioners simply because they do not follow American law. It's not right. That's POV, as well, whether NPOV states a global perspective or not. I do not have a problem with the statement that it is against the law in several places, but you have to mention that the US is not subject to those rules. And, is the European Court of Human Rights declaration binding in any way, or just a statement? I ask because I've never heard of them. (I am quite ignorant to the international side of law.) If it's not binding, then you can't say that it is illegal, only that it is considered illegal by some people. Joshua Ingram 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Heres the source used for the article http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2008/02/europe-rights-court-upholds-absolute.php ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Josh, there are so many things wrong with your post that it will be hard not to lose track. First, let me say that a thriller by Clancy is not a reliable source and indeed, a very bad source of legal opinion. Secondly, it may be surprising, but it already is illegal to kill foreign heads of state, or indeed anybody, in nearly all situations. Ford's order does not create this illegality, it only confirms this explicitly and with reference to the CIA. And Obama cannot make such an action legal, no matter what he declares. He may succeed in ensuring that the law is not enforced, in particular not under US jurisdiction, but that again has no effect on the legality of the act. But anyways, all this is an aside. No matter if Bush authorizes waterboarding, no matter if the US congree declares it legal, and the UN suports this, even if a voice from Heaven declares "thou shallst waterboard the unbelievers", it still remains a form of torture. Oh yes, and those medical doctors not only violated basic human rights, but also their professional ethical duties. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) First of all, I was not using Debt of Honor as a fact reference, but I used it to point out that the hypothetical storyline I gave is not an original idea, and not my original idea. Second, who says it's illegal for the government to sanction the killing of enemy heads of state in wartime? Thirdly, I have agreed that it is a form of torture all along. Thanks for making it look like I haven't. However, we have an obligation to remember that there is a difference between legality and morality. Is it moral to waterboard enemy combatants? That would depend on your point of view. My opinion my OPINION, is that it is not moral, but sometimes you have to get your hands dirty to save lives. Am I glad that they waterboarded three people? Yes. The information they got stopped more terrorist attacks. Was it legal? According to the US Government, YES it was. Maybe illegal to everyone else in the world, but not according to the Bush Administration, and from 2001-2009, they were the elected head of the government, and they had the right to do whatever they deemed necessary to protect the people, with the consent of the people's representatives. Do I like that fact? No. No, I don't. Joshua Ingram 18:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"Maybe illegal to everyone else in the world, but not according to the Bush Administration, and from 2001-2009, they were the elected head of the government" That POV is documented in the article, it does not change the fact waterboarding is Torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that "they had the right to do whatever they deemed necessary to protect the people" would make Jefferson spin in his grave at 18000 RPM or more. *must*avoid*Godwin's law*... ---Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson once shot a man on the White House lawn for treason. (Without a trial first, I might add.) I think he'd be cheering in his grave. Joshua Ingram 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You must live in a very different world. In this one, Thomas Jefferson did not shoot any man, neither on the White House lawn, nor, to our knowledge, elsewhere, and neither for treason nor for any other reason. May I suggest you check your source? I already mentioned Tom Clancy novels as unreliable sources. The same holds for most Hollywood movies and also for most things found on WorldNetDaily. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

During Jefferson's presidential administration, Rodney Cox, from North Carolina was discovered in the act of providing former Tories with information regarding the American naval forces capability to secure American shores. After a brief ad hoc trial, Cox was convicted and sentenced to death by firing squad. Jefferson, being a notorious Anglophobic at the time, served as the sole member of the firing squad. With a single bullet dispatched from a flint lock rifle, Cox received a fatal wound. It took 10 hours for Cox to expire, during which he lay prostrate on the White House lawn. Afterwards, he was committed to the sea in a right proper burial, albeit, without any fanfare. Source -Robert Ludlum, PhD, American History, U. Wisconsin Is that good enough for you? Joshua Ingram 20:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And I am going to politely ask that you stop making personal attacks. If you don't like what I have to say, you can respond just like every other rule-abiding user, you can report me, I don't really care. But stop acting like an assclown. Joshua Ingram 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You know what? Nevermind. I have lost my faith in good faith users on disputed pages. Please, bash me all you want, because I'm sure you are going to anyway, you cowards. I am done with all of you closed-minded assclowns on this page. As for those of you brave (or stupid) enough to continue, Godspeed. Joshua Ingram 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

AEB4

Njyoder admits that they didn't read the discussion before adding weasel words to the lede. We don't care what Bush, Obama, DOJ or Amnesty International think. They are not reliable sources for anything axcept their own opinions. We don't get to NPOV by doing a mashup of opinions. We get to NPOV by surveying reliable sources. We've done that, and the situation has not changed since then. Nobody has brought forward a reliable source stating that waterboarding isn't torture. Again, politicians are not reliable sources. Those who continue arguing disruptively could be subject to arbitration sanctions per the message at the top of this page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not able to access the internet very much at the moment. I'm on a slow dialup connection and until my ISP gets its act together, probably another week, I really can't keep an eye on this thread. The thing is, I don't think that's really true. We're mostly reliant on self-published sources for the opinion in the first sentence. It has been claimed that they some are acceptable under the expert clause of WP:SPS. Fair enough, but such opinions ought to be treated a bit more cautiously. The footnote speaks of "legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations". Some legal experts, politicians and intelligence experts have voiced the opposite opinion. Some of them are mentioned above. "Nobody has brought forward a reliable source stating that waterboarding isn't torture." There is at least one undeniably reliable, academic source. That is David Rivkin, who has said unequivocally that the practice is not torture. He is a clear expert (see publications[23][24]) Frankly I can't be bothered discussing this much more, when one editor is so incapable of civilised discussion. I'm starting to think an opinionated, biased opening is better than a subtler bias. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately i do not access to that source, but when amazon searched it i could not find the words Torture or Waterboarding in the abstract. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the expert clause of WP:SPS, which was also cited by Stephan when I suggested, correctly, the torture definition sources were mainly self-published. This is an established expert on the subject of international law and these publications are evidence of that. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, now where is the source were he says waterboarding is not torture? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned the Radio 4 source above (note 22) (The World Tonight, 20/04/09 "I think any objective person who arrives without preconceived notions about these memos would conclude the following: tough techniques to be sure but falling well short or torture or inhuman and degrading treatment." ) Also see [25] --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there are no sources to the contrary belief of many is simply stupid. The problem with the debate on the NPOV of this article has never been to do with sources, etc, it is to do with certain users being so being so single-minded and brash. The idea that debate can happen on this talk page is entirely disingenuous. Alan16 ^talk 23:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Debate can happen given you know RS and NPOV. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"The idea that there are no sources to the contrary belief of many is simply stupid." I and others have not said that, there are plenty of sources of americans (and only americans) saying waterboarding is not torture. None so far have met the criteria for being a Reliable Source for that opinion. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The article is excessively opinionated. It's as simple as that. When I read a Wikipedia article I do not expect to gain an insight into the politics of its author. That is always a bad sign. It says, as evidence in support of its assertions that politicians, war veterans and intelligence operatives all say waterboarding is torture. We point out that not all of them say that and some of them are recorded as saying the opposite. The retort is, "well politicians and war veterans aren't reliable sources". In that case, why is any value placed on their assertions? Why are they cited in the first footnote? That said, the evidence of the sort of expert, academic source that Hypnosadist asked for does no harm. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"It says, as evidence in support of its assertions that politicians, war veterans and intelligence operatives all say waterboarding is torture." Nope it has half a HISTORICAL ARTICLE devoted to the COVER STORY of the Bush admin, anyway lets have a look at this supposed RS. Mr Rivkin is an actual lawyer, that makes him a step up from the talk show hosts that are usually claimed RS. He even has some experiance of international treaties but only in the area of Energy. Once you look into him hes just a corporate lawyer (quite good ,with a big company), he has no training or expertise in UNDHR or UNCAT or GCIII. Nice try, this is getting closer, now try to find a lawyer who is qualified to talk on the nature of torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add him to the Controversy over classification as torture in the United States section. But to believe that his legal opinion carries the weight of 100+ legal professors, JAG's who served thier country for 20+ years or internationally renowned experts on Human Rights has no basis is wikipedia policy. 11:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypno, I've complained several times about your uncivilised tone and I don't know whether you're taking notice. It really isn't polite to begin every post with "Nope." Especially in this case, when my description of the first footnote in the article was accurate. If you were familiar with legal scholarship, you would know that it is perfectly normal for professional rather than university lawyers to write academic journal articles and that their scholarliness (or otherwise) is judged not by their job title but by the quality of the peer-review process and the number of citations other authors give them. According to WP:V: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses". I have just pointed to a journal article published in the Washington Quarterly, which is one of the most reputable peer-reviewed journals on international affairs, which is also published by the MIT Press. For you to claim its author doesn't fit the requirements of a reliable source, when in fact he fits the requirements of the most reliable sources, is quite disingenuous. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes hes published, he would be great RS on international treaties to do with Energy,his area of experience. He is not an RS on Torture! Let me explain, a man with a Phd in the area of Enzyme Bio-Kinetics is not an RS on Climate Change. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you ask Joe Barton... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly you're trying to partition legal scholarship into extremely narrow artificial disciplines like international energy law and torture law that don't actually exist. The climate change example isn't relevant. In legal academia specialisations are far broader than that. Secondly, have you looked at his publications? This one[26] from the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy specifically discusses Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East and the legality of various measures designed to prevent terrorism. This one[27] discusses the legality of the Iraq war in international law. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading the sources see you tomorrow. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Rivkin's statement on a BBC radio show qualifies as a reliable source. Now, look at the sources listed at Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_7#Is.2Fisn.27t_torture_--_list_all_sources_here. The overwhelming majority of them say that waterboarding is torture. The application of WP:WEIGHT is clear, yes?

Furthermore, that's a list from 2008, now that some of the Bush admin memos justifying the use of "harsh interrogation tactics" have been released, I have no doubt that there are more sources that state waterboarding is torture. This interview with Darius Rejali in Harper's is relevant, as is Rejali's book Torture and Democracy.

By the way, the sources listed in /Archive7 are by and large not self-published, so we don't really need to rely on WP:SPS here. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the application of weight is clear. I don't want to write this article in a way that gives the impression that this is anything other than a small minority opinion. Indeed, if you think the "not torture" definition is given too much weight, I'm open to the possibilities of cutting it down. My only concern is for getting the right opening sentence. If we wrote, for example, that the relevant experts are largely of the opinion that waterboarding is torture, or even that they are almost unanimously of that opinion, would that not fulfill the criteria of weight? It certainly wouldn't be a weasel wording if attributed in the footnote. I appreciate there are probably additional sources since archive 7 but that is probably the case for the contrary definition too. Though I haven't been able to access this [28] to see what argument is made and the wording of the title is rather open to interpretation, it does appear that this is an argument against the torture definition too. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW Akhilleus, I know editing others' comments is generally frowned on so I hope I'm not being too presumptuous: I've just corrected your link to archive 7. I will review these comments tomorrow and it will make life a little easier. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting the link. In my opinion, the lead sentence is fine the way it is, and properly represents the overwhelming majority of expert opinion on waterboarding. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lancet article Lo2u refers to [29] is freely available after free registration. It is only a one-page opinion piece, strongly condemning waterboarding as torture: "[US President George W Bush] has stated consistently that waterboarding, which simulates a near-drowning experience, is not torture and within the law....Such a position violates not only the moral precepts of my own faith and many others', but also the Hippocratic oath. How can those of us who made a commitment to use 'our art' to help the sick and to 'never do harm' remain silent when we know such actions occur?...I believe that torture is abhorrent to all that is moral and sacred to us as civilised beings. ...I do believe that as physicians—healers and guardians of the public trust—we should speak out forcefully and clearly on this issue." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Point taken.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the global warming article has been referred to quite a few times now and the situation is similar to this one. I'm wondering if the precedent of that article might provide some sort of consensus. Expert opinion is largely on one side but there's a vocal and attributable minority opinion. In the opening of the global warming article, no mention is made of theories that there might be other, more significant factors causing climate change or that global warming isn't happening. The idea is completely ignored. However, the article avoids a wording equivalent to "Global warming is an anthropogenic phenomenon", by instead stating what the IPCC has concluded. If anything this lends authority to the assertion because it cannot be dismissed as merely the opinion of the editor. Would a similar approach overcome objections of undue weight here? We don't even hint at the possibililty of another view in the opening but we reword it to say, for example, that the UN Committee Against Torture has concluded that the practice constitutes torture? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the global warming article starts with a clear statement of fact - "Global warming is..." - just as this article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

To Lo2u, I don't think it is clear at all. Short of the only opposition being a fringe minority viewpoint (which this clearly isn't), you can't state something as a matter of fact. Even one of the sources claimed, John McCain, actually retracted his previous statements against waterboarding in February of 2008 (not sure why he's an "expert" though as that would mean any politician would be). I would appreciate it if you responded directly to my comment as well, as Jehochman seems to be the only one who has tried and he more just reiterated his original point.

There are two main points here that I had state before: 1) what is an expert source in this respect is unclear and 2) NPOV does not give special precedence to scholars any more than it does to equally prevalent journalists, except as it concerns portions of articles specifically about that type of scholarly analysis. Legal analysis is only one aspect of this, there is also a semantic aspect (and an embedded ethical one in that). Legal analysis only answers "is it legal?" We don't have any linguists or experts in semantics as sources. If we did, we'd see that a massive number of people exist on both sides of the fence, semantically. Ethically, who do we turn to? And obviously, Bush had his legal experts author their views that he used to authorize this and high court judges have made decisions on the matter. Was there a legal survey done on this?

Long ago (and this is reiterated by Jimbo himself), it was rejected that NPOV was "scientific POV." By extension, it's not "[insert type of expertise] POV." This article isn't called "legal analysis of torture," thus all other POVs on this matter apply--linguistic, ethical, or any else. If this was "expert POV," the articles on evolution would be radically different. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add a bit. It was brought up that the POV statement in the beginning cited "authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations." Only legal experts, and potentially a military judge, could really be called a legal expert. If we're using psychologists as experts (which intelligence officials are usually not), then we'd need to survey psychology sources and deal with the issue of whether or not a widely accepted psychological definition of torture even exists (I am doubtful and as such, they'd only really be experts on what effects it would have, not what it is). The second source cited is an article from vanity fair, and it's not clear who they're citing as experts, since the implication from it (and the APA's ok) that psychologists exist on both sides. It doesn't seem like the editors have looked much into psychology journals and opinions of torture psychology experts thus far. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The APA now (after much feet dragging due to earning a lot of money form the military) state that waterboarding is torture and participating in it is a breach of medical ethics, a view backed up by the Lancet et al. "intelligence officials" covers people like the current head of the DIA not the members of the APA. "military judge"s which are unanimous on the subject say waterboarding violates GCIII common article 3 (also they are all americans). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, could you please specifically address the things that I've said? All you did was simply reiterate your original position, even though I offered counter-points to it. And please don't put words into my mouth. I said that I skimmed it, there is a big difference, especially considering the discussion's size. You haven't offered any good reason for my original statement to not remain as it is, nor why you did a complete revert, as opposed to a partial one, which inherently renders it a violation of NPOV especially as reliable sources do exist as specified later in the thread (which meet your own standard). Please specifically respond to my points regarding the link sections, the evolution analogy, how weight is distributed, types of experts, and why this isn't "scientific POV" (or "expert POV") for that matter.

Accusing me of "arguing disruptively" is a bad faith assumption, especially when you are not specifically addressing my points. If you aren't willing to discuss this, all I can do is re-modify the opening statement to make it NPOV, with necessary citations (because you seem intent on ignoring the purpose of WP:WEASEL just to further your viewpoint on the issue). -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to read evolution there is no mentions of the unscientific views of religion until right at the end. One reading that article would not know millions of people are too brainwashed to understand science. evolution is written from a scientific point of view. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

AEB5

A couple of points I wanted to add to this discussion:

1. When we say "waterboarding is a form of torture" we are not making a legal conclusion under any country's law and instead we are simply using 'torture' as it is defined commonly (usually something along the lines of experiencing intense physical or mental pain). Therefore, the findings that a court or a jurisdiction would find waterboarding to not violate a prohibition on torture would be interesting to note, but not necessarily dispositive on whether we report that "waterboarding is torture".

2. Those in the Bush administration that defended the use of waterboarding as not qualifying as torture legally still acknowledge the following:

(1) those subjected to it experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning ("the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning...although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain"),

(2) those subjected to waterboarding as a method of interrogation have a reasonable belief that they are in fact being put to death by waterboarding or will die as a result of waterboarding ("We find the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death… Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject's mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute.")

3. The Bush administration's legal conclusions (which were later withdrawn by subsequent legal analysis) depend upon two conclusions, which in fact are disputed by experts:

(1) waterboarding does not inflict pain ("Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain"), and

(2) that the threat of immediate death would not cause prolonged mental harm ("Although the waterboard constitutes the real threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering… We have previously concluded that prolonged mental harm is mental harm of some lasting duration, eg, mental harm lasting months or years.Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard… In the absense of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.")

If you disagree with either of these conclusions (which it appears almost all experts on torture disagree with), then even under the Bush adminsitration's analysis you would have to consider waterboarding torture as defined under the law.

That is all. Remember (talk) 11:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

FTW Remember. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And while this clearly is original research, please consider walking up two flights of stairs at a comfortable pace, exhale, and then just hold your breath for 40 seconds. Then imagine this helplessly bound on your back, blinded, with water pouring down your mouth and nose, and without the ability to start breathing anytime you want. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats a very weak version of waterboarding, try the "Hypnosadist Its not Torture Honest BDSM workout" based on testimony from inside Gitmo;

1)First strip naked and go to a public place for your "not torture" to begin.

2)Now you are ready for the warm-up exercises, we call these "stress positions" (do try this at home).Stand with your feet shoulder width apart(you might like to have your "not torture"er degrade you publicly by saying how ugly and tiny your genitals are to enhance this interrogation), bend at the knees until they are at right angles keeping your torso vertical. Now keeping the knees bent and torso vertical raise up as high as possible on tip toes. Stay that way for a week (what do you mean you could only last 2 to 5 minutes before you stopped). That hurt didn't it? after a few days your calves start to swell to up to 2 times normal size, medical staff at gitmo measured KSM's often so they would know when to stop, this is due to the risks of DVT and Stroke. Now given that you have to stay that way for a week you will have to piss and shit yourself, but standing in your own piss and shit in physical agony is "not torture".

3)Now naked, covered in your own shit and piss and in agony from the "not torture" you have already had its time for the Main Event WATERBOARDING. Have yourself tied to a board head down and let the waterboarding begin. After the first 15 seconds you will beg for it to stop, your "not torture"er will then listen to you beg and offer sexual favours for it to stop.Then they will then waterboard you again, and again and again. After about four lots of "not torture" your body will be unable to physically endure any more so we will have to stop (too high a risk of heart failure). So its back to the stress positions and the shit 'n piss for a day or two.

4)Repeat for perhaps ever (thats one of the worst thing about "not torture", never knowing when it will end)

Hope that has explained the real nature of "not torture". ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

What i love is that none of the pro torture people have challenged my discription above as not torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't take too much satisfaction from that. There is plenty to challenge there. You're just not worth the time.

It's not our business to say whether or not it is torture under the given circumstances.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's understand what's at stake. Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney are now in jeopardy of being indited for authorizing torture of prisoners. It's not yet clear what process will be used to investigate what happened, but it looks like some sort of investigation will take place. When folks look for information about waterboarding on the internet, as many citizens and journalists do, the very first search result is our article, and our lead sentence Waterboarding is a form of torture appears on the search results page. We would be very naive to think that Cheney, Rice, et al will not be engaging in an intensive public relations campaign to defend themselves. No doubt folks sympathetic to their position will try to meddle with our article. We must not allow this to happen. We must also not allow the opponents of the Bush administration to use this article to further their goals either. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Jehochman on this as Cheney, Rice, et al have more important things to worry about, like there upcoming trip to the Hague. Though their supporters do turn up regularly, they are free to do so. I know the wounds are raw on the disruptive editing of 2007 but none of what has happened has reached that level, some editors have just not read the sources (all 150+ used in the article and more not) or the archives and have dived in feet first into an argument that covers vast ranges of topics.^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you are right, but am not so optimistic. We need to be vigilant, though not vigilante. Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, look at the contributions summary of the people who have edited this page. Do any of us look like PR campaigners on behalf of Bush, Cheney et al? You should perhaps have a read of WP:AGF too. This is indicative of the problem with the article. Some editors are so convinced that theirs is the only point of view that when other editors suggest not everyone agrees with them, they can't help but suspect their motives. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 01:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember, that is not torture "as it is commonly defined," as there isn't a single definition agreed upon by the majority. There is a huge debate over whether or not this semantically qualifies as torture. People are clearly heavily divided on how it is defined with respect to waterboarding. This article stating that waterboarding is torture is thus a clear NPOV violation. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"as there isn't a single definition agreed upon by the majority" Actually yes there is, that of UNCAT which has been signed up to and ratified by the governments of virtually all countries. A definition it clearly meets see the "Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims" source. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"There is a huge debate over whether or not this semantically qualifies as torture." Not in the real world, here only the Gestapo and G.W.BUSH claim that waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique(yes they used that same euphemism). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As for me, I saw the opening sentence and was stunned that this article was not flagged as being in violation of NPOV. And I went directly to the discussion page, without even reading the article. Since I came here for NPOV information and immediately concluded that I wasn't getting such, the article was useless to me. Now, you can claim that you have WEIGHT and enough RS to make such a statement, but that won't change the fact that there is considerable debate among the public at large as to whether it's a true statement. If you want the article to be useful to people, you can't start it off with such an apparent (whether or imagined or real is immaterial) NPOV violation. It lessens the value of the entire article. I'm sure I'll be vilified for this conclusion for a variety of reasons (I can list them in my head already), and since I have no desire to engage in a pointless argument, this is the only and only post I will make on this topic. But I won't use the page in my research, either. Cjbreisch (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"but that won't change the fact that there is considerable debate among the public at large as to whether it's a true statement." Yes we know, about 30% - 50% of americans claim waterboarding is not torture, their still wrong and every Medical source says there wrong, the ECHR says their wrong, American military Judges say their wrong etc etc etc. We don't write this encyclopedia based on what the under-educated masses of america think (such as beliefs in aliens, ghosts or creationism) we use RS's, they say its torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance is a global phenomenon. We should welcome the ignorant. Welcome them because they need an encyclopedia most of all. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct and i'm not vilifying Cjbreisch (hopefully), if he/she is serious about researching waterboarding it won't matter we they look they will find it is torture. I would say look at the work of Dr Keller at NYU who is america's top expert on the treating of torture victims, also the statements of torture victims such as Sen. John McCain and other american serving and ex military personel who view it as torture (as well violating GCIII). ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding BDSM play

Although considered as extreme, waterboarding is also used within the realms of sado-masochism play. Generlaly much less water is used, but the gag reflex is achieved just the same as part of consentual play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTobester (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt that that may be the case, but to add it to the article we need to have a reliable source saying so. henrik•talk 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that reliable source or not, it has no place in this article. Everybody who looks for this article is looking for an article on the torture used in places like Guantanamo Bay, not about BDSM. Alan16 ^talk 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was used at Insex.com but only once or twice as it was too tough on the Subs. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bybee memo

User:Remember has added text from the Bybee memo to the technique section. I'm a bit concerned, as this is a) a primary source and b) a very involved one. It also is incompatible with many neutral descriptions in that it claims that the victim can, in fact, breathe, when all other sources seem to agree that the gag reflex makes this impossible. I suggest to move this down to the US discussion (where, indeed, it already is covered). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps those "neutral descriptions" that were so reliable and popular were ... exaggerated ... no, couldn't be, someone here would have objected. htom (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have re-edited the description to just include information on the specifics of how the technique is performed and not to go into details about whether water enters the lungs or whether the person can breathe because these are more controversial statements. As the quotation is currently used, I think it is very helpful because it provides an authoritative primary source that describes how the technique is implemented. Remember (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's wrong. It describes how Bybee understood the description given by Rizzo, when Rizzo apparently wanted to apply the technique and asked for a legal opinion that would support this. It's a primary source, but not an authoritative one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Implicit in your point it seems is that Bybee might have gotten the wrong or incorrect impression of what waterboarding is and therefore citing to this description is not accurate. That is fair. I think the information is useful so I would like to keep it in the article (even if all it does is demonstrate an incorrect understanding of the technique), but I can see how it may need to be incorporated elsewhere. Remember (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, those "neutral descriptions" were anything but.

This article does say that water enters the lungs. I think the main trouble is that there are different methods of waterboarding, and there has been little interest in making distinctions. That's a major failing, IMHO.

The newly released docs show that the CIA was only authorized to use waterboarding if it was under certain standards, one of them being that water didn't enter the lungs. But this was already known long ago. Steven G. Bradbury testified under oath last year:

The method was not, he said, like the "water torture" used during the Spanish Inquisition and by autocratic governments into the 20th century, but was subject to "strict time limits, safeguards, restrictions." He added, "The only thing in common is, I think, the use of water."

Let's face it, this article's main purpose is to focus on the CIA's use of waterboarding. That's why most of its readers come here. To give all the details about how bad it can be, and has been in history, while understating the CIA's safeguards wrt the law is misleading.

Clearly, the critics who said otherwise back then weren't briefed on the CIA's exact procedures, but I'm not necessarily in favor of dropping any of the critics' quotations. I just think it should be remembered that they didn't always know what they were talking about.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"weren't briefed on the CIA's exact procedures" Yes giving the victims a teddybear means its not torture LOL!. One more time :- THERE IS NO SPECIAL NICE WAY OF WATERBOARDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Even so, "water didn't enter the lungs" is still a point of interest.

But I'm not sticking around. It's not in my interest to make an obviously biased article appear less unreasonable.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

""water didn't enter the lungs" is still a point of interest." Nope thats just a unprovable CLAIM made by the people committing the crime, if we say had a video of the interrogation it might be possible but that evidence was destroyed by the people who claim it was NICE WATERBOARDING. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PS The claim that interrogations were subject to "strict time limits, safeguards, restrictions." did not work for the Gestapo charged with warcrimes for the use of TORTURE (including waterboarding in Norway). Infact the torture was often carried out by a fully qualified doctor, that must make Gestapo waterboarding even nicer than CIA waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, the article should be moved to "CIA's illegal use of waterboarding" htom (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read the article? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As one of the parties named in the ArbCom case, well, yes. More times than I care to count. I was primarily referring to the comment above by Randy2063 about about the article's purpose. This article is not about waterboarding. It has been about the use of water for torture, and blaming the Bush administration. htom (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I see. So that's why it discusses the Spanish inquisition, the Algerian war, and the Khmer Rouge? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it mostly discusses CIA or American use during the Bush years (although now not mostly referring to him by name); the others are mentioned either historically or almost en passant as other repressive regimes. The confounding and conflation of waterboarding (in the various forms), the water cure, ... continues. htom (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes and it will stay that way until the pro-bush camp stop attacking the definition of waterboarding as torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. htom (talk) 00:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm aside i would rather the US section was just like the Khmer Rouge just saying when they used waterboarding, where and on whom. But those pushing a political POV have to add sillyness like the Bybee memo to try and make it seem like there is a discussion that waterboarding is not torture. The "not-torture" group have yet to find ONE SINGLE THIRD PARTY RS that says waterboarding is not torture, if there was a real discussion there would be many that could be found. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I would reduce the amount of time this article deals with recent US waterboarding by removing the "Controversy over classification as torture in the United States" as well as "As a political issue in confirmation hearings" and "As a political issue in 2008 presidential election". If htom you think its better just to split those sections into a new page i could agree to that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"The burned child shuns the fire." If you think that would be better, division into a group of articles about the various practices that have been called waterboarding over the years, as well as articles about those who practiced which, I urge you to be bold. Someone proposed that long ago. htom (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Which Bybee memo?

Currently, this PDF from 72.3.233.244 is linked as the Bybee memo. But the Bybee memo article links to a PDF at findlaw.com. How confident are we about which is the correct memo?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The copy at 72.3.233.244 appears to be the same as the ACLU's copy.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Chris for doing some good work on the references. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

% of time spent

If you do the math, for Khalid to be waterboarded 183 time in one month he must have been waterboarded ~every 4 hours. If anyone knows the duration of a water board session we can calculate what % of time Khalid spent being waterboarded. For instance, if it was a 1 hour session than he would have spent ~25% of a month being waterboarded. Which is considerable when you consider that if you sleep 8 hours a day you spend roughly 33% of your time per month asleep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.84.63 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting, but would represent original research. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather new to commenting on wikipedia so please forgive me, but it seems like if someone says "Product X costs Y cents" then transferring this to "Product X costs Z dollars" wouldn't be original research, so much as applying a conversion factor to a fact such that it is more understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.84.63 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's original research in that you don't know the times involved, so you can't accurately make the conversion. It could be that he was waterboarded once every two minutes for two hours on three occasions (61x3=183). htom (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate to add any additional controversy to this discussion but here goes... It was told, by an unnamed official to Foxnews (please refrain from Foxnews bashing, it just indicates your political bias), that quote:

"The water was poured 183 times -- there were 183 pours," the official explained, adding that "each pour was a matter of seconds."

and as a matter of verifiable fact:

Waterboarded 183 times is like saying I ate cake 25 times, if it took 25 bites to finish a piece of cake. It's sensational journalism to define 'waterboarding' as each time water is poured, even if it's only for 10 seconds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.75.182 (talk) 08:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

"The Times and dozens of other outlets wrote that the CIA also waterboarded senior Al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah 83 times, but Zubayda himself, a close associate of Usama bin Laden, told the Red Cross he was waterboarded no more than 10 times."

Even the number of "times" that individuals have been waterboarded is in dispute. As for this discussion, I don't really care all that much. However, one needs to at least attempt to look past their personal beliefs when editing such a controversial topic. This seems to represent another article on Wikipedia that has been taken over by ideologues. Jon4514 (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction of "no lasting damage"

For the sentence "The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage." to be followed by a list of the damage, lasting and everlasting (death), that can be done by the technique, is a bit nonsensical. Should the latter sentence not be removed? The lasting damage do:ne by waterboarding, to wit: "extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[14]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.157.98 (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the sentence is correct. On the one hand, lasting physical damage is not inevitable. But on the other hand, there is a risk for such damage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is accurate and essential for a properly encyclopedic coverage of this subject (our aim at Wikipedia). Badagnani (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be accurate, but the fact that these two sentences (that it is not permanently damaging, but then again it CAN be) is extremely confusing. The wording of the sentence itself is also perplexing. ("does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage.") I'm not sure how best to rephrase that, or I'd do it myself, but there has to be a better way to say what the article is trying to say here. Glal14 (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a contradiction. There's clearly a difference between whether one is waterboarded by the U.S. or by one of its enemies.

Let's face it: some Americans are waterboarded by the U.S. military after hundreds of thousands of dollars (in some cases over one million) had already been spent on their training. They have to be more careful about it than some communist is going to be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Buy a history book Randy! The last american enemy to use waterboarding was the Nazi's, since that americas friends have used waterboarding such as the dictatorships in Chile and Argentina. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention the use by american troops in Vietnam etc etc etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You missed the Korean war. Although not necessarily against U.S. troops, it has been used a lot more recently than that. I shouldn't have to mention the Khmer Rouge.

I am surprised you forgot to mention the French. Theirs was also a war in which they used waterboarding while their enemies' use of torture was usually excused. It's rather funny how that works out.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you brought up the Khmer Rouge, if you bought that history book (or read wikipedia) you would know that the Khmer Rouge were stopped by ... the Viet Cong who had just beaten someone else. PS I added much of the stuff on the french in algeria and the Khmer rouge to the article and you who argued against it but hey. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of who stopped the Khmer Rouge, but it's not a sign of some communists being better than others. The communist Vietnamese didn't have clean hands when it came to human rights. No communist really does. Those who didn't use waterboarding simply chose other methods.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Waterboarding can cause or not cause damage, but just the wording of the sentences is causing me some confusion. I am only suggesting changing the wording to make the sentences appear not in contradiction to each other. Captain Gamma (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This statement a good candidate for rephrasing. I would rephrase as follows:

Waterboarding can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[14] Nonetheless, the technique does not always cause lasting physical damage.

While mindful that I could be biasing the passage in the other direction, I am taking into account that people ordinarily regard actions as hazardous even if the potential damages manifest themselves only a very small fraction of the time. The idea that waterboarding is hazardous to the person waterboarded, in my opinion, is more important to the theme than the idea that some people have been waterboarded without experiencing a permanent injury. So, I would list the hazards first. --Corwin78 (talk) 01:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change in order of Sections

Now; Intro> technique> effects> etymology> historical uses> Contemporary use> Legality. And change this to; Intro> Etymology> historical uses> Legality> technique> effects> Contemporary use>. Not content would be cut, what do people think? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like this. Legality is always discussed within a given legal framework and situation - in this case, most of the discussion about legality deals with the contemporary use. Thus, it makes no sense to discuss the legality before describing this situation. I suspect it was legal for the Spanish Inquisition, while the use by the French in Algiers was just as illegal as the CIA's. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Legality is always discussed within a given legal framework and situation" Agreed, but in this case we have a Global legal framework in UN charter on human rights and Geneva conventions. "I suspect it was legal for the Spanish Inquisition, while the use by the French in Algiers was just as illegal as the CIA's." Perhaps the Legality section should have a history section before the current two? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can this idea. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of text

Whoever has been removing text from this article over the past week, kindly explain why this was done, and where the consensus for such may be found above. Badagnani (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoever has been removing text from this article over the past week, kindly explain why this was done, and where the consensus for such may be found above. Badagnani (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but is there anything that you miss? Most edits in the last week has been Chris Capoccia carefully cleaning up the references. We lost a few bytes of nominal length, and a lot of things got shuffled around. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chris Capoccia probably did it. Many whole sentences. Please look and tell me why these were removed. This question has been ignored so far, a very bad sign! Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That is not very helpful. Can you point out some of the sentences that have gone? Or some of the problematic edits in the history? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The edits were multifarious, complex, and numerous, and several entire sentences were removed without comment or prior discussion. Simply select the last 100 edits, do a diff, and you will see the removals. Attention to this really is important. Badagnani (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd do the donkey work. It appears that the removal of about 3kB of stuff has happened recently. You two can decided the positives and negatives of said removal. Alan16 ^talk 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Much of what has been removed has been removed from from within refs not body text, the rest is formating. Unless i've missed something it looks fine to me, i have been looking at the edits live and thought they were fine and have just reviewed them. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just the messenger - I'll take your word on it. Alan16 ^talk 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your link was very useful, thank you. Chris's reasons given below also seem very good to me.^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd stop being lazy and actually look at the link, and as Chris explains in more detail below, it all seems suitable. Alan16 ^talk 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani, you really should be more specific and point to specific diffs instead of just posting a general complaint against editing. There really is a lot of material that could be removed from the article (or split off into smaller articles) because the article is too long. If you're complaining about quotes in the citations, I got rid of all the quotes from sources that are freely available. even WP:CITE#HOW says quotes in citations are rarely used.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The text should be restored, and huge deletions should be discussed prior to removal in the future. Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The text was within source refs not in the body text. Also all edits conform to wikipedia policies so i would support all those edits made. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Source of the ICRC-report

The source of the strictly secret report of the International Committee of the Red Cross should be mentioned: <ref name=icrc >{{internetquelle|hrsg=New York Times/International Committee of the Red Cross|url=http://www.nybooks.com/icrc-report.pdf?|titel=ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen "High Value Detainees" in CIA Custody|zugriff=2009-04-22|sprache=englisch}}</ref>. Neckpic from Berlin (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This section (HEALTH PROVISION AND THE ROLE OF MEDICAL STAFF) is very interesting;

This accepted role of the physician, or any other health professional, clearly does not extend to ruling on the permissibility, or not, of any form of physical or psycholog- ical ill-treatment. The physician, and any other health professionals, are expressly pro- hibited from using their scientific knowledge and skills to facilitate such practices in any way. On the contrary, the role of the physician and any other health professional involved in the care of detainees is explicitly to protect them from such ill-treatment and there can be no exceptional circumstances invoked to excuse this obligation.

With the exceptions detailed in the above paragraph, any interrogation process that requires a health professional to either pronounce on the subject’s fitness to withstand such a procedure, or which requires a health professional to monitor the actual proce- dure, must have inherent health risks. As such, the interrogation process is contrary to international law and the participation of health personnel in such a process is con- trary to international standards of medical ethics. In the case of the alleged participa- tion of health personnel in the detention and interrogation of the fourteen detainees, their primary purpose appears to have been to serve the interrogation process, and not the patient. In so doing the health personnel have condoned, and participated in ill- treatment.

As it deals with the specific offences of the medical staff at gitmo. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for additional external link

Could an approved editor please add a link to this page to the external links section: http://web.mac.com/fmprhoads/Videos/Active/Entries/2008/4/4_Waterboarding_is_torture.html There are not a lot of songs about waterboarding, I think it is worth adding this link to the article. Happy to discuss this. JonWedd (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

I vote NO, the article is well over length as it is, and this is just not important IMHO. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting a fork? I am not aware of any policies that authorize suppressing otherwise valid material solely on account of length. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people seem to be talking about forking, i'm going to start a thread. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorporating new information from the recently released memos in an NPOV manner?

I know this has been a controversial article. I haven't been following it that closely. But I remember some commentators who questioned whether the USA used torture have argued that even if US officials used waterboarding, there were different kinds of waterboarding. Some commentators have suggested some kinds of waterboarding weren't torture. Some commentators have suggested the kind of waterboarding used by US officials was some kind of waterboarding-lite -- that didn't quite rise to the level of torture.

I think the recently released memos erode this interpretation. I am wondering how to incorporate this new material in an NPOV fashion.

Some of the commentators I read today have pointed out that the large number of times Abu Zubaydah and KSM were waterboarded erode any claims that they were tortured in line with a "ticking time bomb scenario". In the ticking time bomb scenario interrogators know the captive has the information to stop the ticking time bomb. These commentators have suggested that Waterboarding KSM 183 times shows his interrogators were on a fishing trip.

It has been pointed out that the controversial authorization memos specified pouring a light stream of water onto the suspect's face, but, as implemented, interrogators were pouring a much heavier stream. So this suggests that were one to recognize different types of waterboarding the kind actually used by the USA were not the lesat extreme. Geo Swan (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that all this new information is just coming out, and I would wait before adding material from the memos in. It's certainly possible that we or others are getting the wrong impression of things from the little bits that were declassified. The Squicks (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOT news. I think we can afford to wait for a few weeks to let the dust settle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stephen, if you want something new to add look at the two sources i posted below, especially the WP article on the Democrats that supported the Bush 43 use of waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This may same like a silly 180 degree reversal, but the fact that Dennis Blair explicitly wrote: "I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given" seems very notable to be since that means that he's going against the offical Obama administration position.

When it comes to the more questionable, redflag raising details-- such as KSM getting all Hollywood evil genuis like with his interrigators and boasting to them before the torture-- I'm not so sure. The Squicks (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

User:The Squicks wrote: "It's certainly possible that we or others are getting the wrong impression of things from the little bits that were declassified." If you or I contribute material that is written from a neutral point of view then how are our personal impressions irrelevant? Could you please explain what you mean by "the wrong impression" and how you feel that complies with the policies on neutral point of view, no orginal research and verifiability? Geo Swan (talk) 03:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to when reports from reliable sources are uncorraborated by previous sources, with a dispute about facts occuring (not opinions), as that falls under WP:REDFLAG. The Squicks (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you please rephrase your comment above? I don't find it clear... Geo Swan (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am drawing a distinction between two things: (1)What has been widely covered in the news media in the last few days- Dennis Blair's comments and the number of waterboarding events and (2)What has not been widely covered and is more questionable- whether or not they are relasing more memos and what KSM said while waterboarding.

I am doing so based on my reading on WP:REDFLAG (and WP:V more generally). The Squicks (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fork?

This article is too long, should we fork and if so how? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the post 9/11 sections should all be moved to Waterboarding by the CIA or some such title, other than a small mention at the end of the history section. Anyone got any thoughts on this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

sounds ok to me. should involve sections 4.1, 6 and 7.2.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that much of the US content should be forked out, leaving a summary. Right now there is undue weight on the contemporary US use of the technique. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes three; Randy, htom, Alan any thoughts? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer spinning off an article with a title like Use of waterboarding in the 21st Century or Use of waterboarding in modern times. When modern states, or non-state actors use waterboarding, and we can document that from WP:RS I think including that material would provide balance and context.

I agree with some of our contributors who have pointed out that, because the USA is an open society, and other states aren't, there will be more references to instances when rogue GIs, or CIA officers, make use of questionable interrogation techniques, even when some other states deserve a much worse record. I agree that makes it important to cover every instance when we can document the recent use of questionable techniques by other states -- when they can be documented.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. Well, one article describing (I know, BEANS and NOTAHOWTO) what the different things done to a person have been that have been called "waterboarding" (including the confounding done here). Others about "water tortures in history and the 20th century", "water tortures in the 21st century", and "tortures by the CIA", perhaps. htom (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This article would have more room to discuss the various water tortures that are not waterboarding and why they differ (and links to there articles) if we get these silly minor political arguments out of here to Waterboarding in the 21st Century. We could do a section in the Techniques section saying what isn't waterboarding and why. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On the matter of other states i was looking for sources on Burma using Waterboarding on pro-democracy campainers, anyone got any? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 10:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the press censorship and closed nature of Burma, I don't understand why would expect to see that. The Squicks (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but we live in the information age and there are many groups like Amnesty and HRW. Link to alleged waterboarding in Sudan. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR54/045/2008/en/d928e18f-bf8a-11dd-9f1c-69adff6d2171/afr540452008en.pdf

Indian army http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/14/india-army-killings-fuel-insurgency-manipur

Tunisia http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/02/fate-worse-guantanamo anyone got the US State department report that this talks about. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK i've Forked the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not support removing any text from this article, as this is the article users will be visiting when looking for 21st century information. Badagnani (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

nothing is being removed from wikipedia. it's being relocated to Waterboarding in the 21st Century because the article is too long. see WP:SPINOUT.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You could have said something before, you claimed i did not discuss this when i planely did. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

also, Badagnani, your careless revert undid unrelated and constructive edits: [30] and [31].  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Uber Source

What waterboarding is like, i just can't write this. http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article3476414.ece ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Who knew what and when in the american government. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the Times of London listed that story right alongside one about Lindsey Lohan looking for a date... for some reason, that just felt weird while reading that. The Squicks (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree anyway, I've been looking at the article and i think the Times article should replace the following section.

1.1 Reported demonstrations

Two televised segments, one from Fox News and one from Current TV, demonstrate a waterboarding technique.[22][23] In the videos, each correspondent is held against a board by the interrogators. In the Current TV segment, a rag is then forced into the correspondent's mouth, and several pitchers of water are poured onto the rag. The interrogators periodically remove the rag, and the correspondent is seen to gasp for breath. The Fox News segment mentions five "phases" of which the first three are shown. In the first phase, water is simply poured onto the correspondent's face. The second phase is similar to the Current TV episode. In phase three, plastic wrap is placed over the correspondent's face, and a hole is poked into it over his mouth. Water is poured into his mouth through the hole, causing him to gag. He mentions that it really does cause him to gag; that it could lead to asphyxiation; and that he could stand it for only a few seconds.

What do you think? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace? No... But I personally would favor distilling down that text into, say, two sentences and then adding the Times of London story after that.

And, for the record, I'M AVAILABLE LINDSEY! The Squicks (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where is the truth statement?

The first paragraph mentions that several people believe waterboarding to be torture, but it doesn't state that these people are incorrect in their belief. The average reader might get confused into believing that it is. 173.89.210.101 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is torture as all RS's capable of defining torture say its. Read the sources, the source i placed above from the Times of London for a report on what the Torture Waterboarding feels like. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 11:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the paragraph about Khalid Sheik Mohammed: "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times while being interrogated by the CIA, and is the person who has survived the most water torture sessions.[95]" treats the subject of waterboarding as if the controversy were already settled. It does not fit with the voice of the rest of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pskouson (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Obama's section

Obama as photographed in 2006.

I tried to be as meticiously netural in the wording, in the content, and in the tone as possible. Any thoughts? The Squicks (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you mentioned that he just backtracked yesterday, saying that he would not be opposed to the prosecution of those who developed the legal framework that allowed waterboarding to be conducted by U.S. personnel, stating that such a decision would be up to Eric Holder. Badagnani (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. He appears to have reversed position again today.

At this point, I don't know what the heck he is thinking and what the heck the page should say. Ugh. The Squicks (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like you're now sharing the plight of the rest of America!173.89.210.101 (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding in the 21st Century

I've started this article and rm a load of rubbish from this article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I would not support either the new article nor removing anything from this article. Badagnani (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The new article appears to be nothing but a C&P of certain sections of this one. As the current one hasn't reached a size where forking content into sub-articles is necessary, I don't see the point. --GoodDamon 19:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've no objection in principle to splitting the article, though really I just don't see the need. That said the way this was done, to "remove some rubbish" was inappropriate. What actually happened was the creation of POV fork designed to avoid mentioning a significant opposing POV because an editor thought it was wrong. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not a POV fork its a temporal fork, if your so bothered by the bias add those sources of other countries using it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The term itself was only coined several years ago so it is logical to keep discussion 21st century usage (almost exclusively by the U.S.) in this article, to which it is central. The move was hurried and ill-advised, also as regards the title of the new article, which does not mention which nation primarily engaged in it. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"21st century usage (almost exclusively by the U.S.)" This is a classic bit of anti-americanism with no founding in fact. If you looked at the sources above you can see its been used by the Indian army, as well as Tunisia and Sudan in the 21c. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But what about the actual term? I see lots of mention of phrases like "the water cure" but when did the phrase "water torture" come about?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

tortura del agua Spanish Inquisition name, one difference between thier technique and the CIA's is that the person is laid flat and a cloth rammed in the mouth onto which the water is poured. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the end of the cloth was placed in the mouth, and the victim forced to swallow a length of the cloth with the water. Then the cloth was ripped from his stomach, damaging his esophagus. htom (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Has that point been raised before? I've wondered about this. Surely, strictly speaking "waterboarding" is the name given to specific techniques developed by the American government and a lot of this article belongs in the Water torture article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has, waterboarding is the name of one specific water torture, the name is recent the torture has been used in america and by americans for about 120 years, it was just called A water torture. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So Badagnani was right in what he says, wasn't he? I'm just asking, please tell me if I'm wrong. Water torture is the practice of almost drowning people, there are all sorts of ways of doing it. This article describes the practices of British East India Company, which are rather different from those of the American government. On what basis are they presented here rather than in water torture? Waterboarding is a type of water torture developed by the CIA post-911, isn't it? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No its been round for years, just look at picture of the Khmer Rouge doing it in the exact way described in the Bybee Memo. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But not the East India Company. Some of these techniques are a little closer to the generic water torture definition, aren't they? I mean they're simulated drowning but not necessarilly of the same type. If you want to split the articles up and separate the post-9/11 stuff, a better way of doing it might be to put the post-911 stuff in this article and merge the techniques used by the Khmer Rouge and the Dutch, which were never called waterboarding in English anyway, into the water torture article. This could then be qualified with a "This article is about the techniques used by the American government. For other uses see water torture" notice. Just a suggestion. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately we have RS's that say these are all waterboarding, if you had read the articles sources you would know this. PS in this case the British East India Company were the victims and the Dutch the Perps. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is why i called for the Etymology section. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

""This article is about the techniques used by the American government. For other uses see water torture" notice" Any article that targeted only the US government would be a POV fork. To keep a global perspective all waterboarding has to be treated equally. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hypno, if you have something to explain to me, just say it. This "unless you have read four years of archives and 111 sources line by line, you have no right to touch this page" attitude is a form of ownership. I'm not denying these terms could be called this. However, they could also be called water torture. I'm also aware that simple deductions are not original research. I'm proposing a way of apportioning material between two articles, one of which is a little bare and one of which is a discussion of a 21st century term. I'm not claiming the current arrangement is original research or wrong or anything. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"This "unless you have read four years of archives and 111 sources line by line, you have no right to touch this page" attitude is a form of ownership" Nope its a know what your talking about before you edit this page attitude, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The water torture article is bare because a wikiwar has not been waged on it for five plus years. Please add whatever the sources support to that page. This on the other hand is overlong and sourced to the point of near stupidity. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are several weeks of reading here. You've edited this article for many years. It would be quicker if you just told me things politely because I'm no intention of reading everything and I'm still entitled to discuss. Consensus is an ongoing process, not something you work out three years ago that prevents an article from ever being changed. "Any article that targeted only the US government would be a POV fork" - Why? POV forking is the practice of separating a certain opinion into a different article so that two different POVs are presented in two different articles. As long as all POVs on the subject of American practices were presented it wouldn't be a POV fork. A POV fork isn't something that fails to keep a global persepctive, otherwise (e.g.) Capital punishment in the United Kingdom would be a POV fork. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you included all the instances of waterboarding in US history, but any by country Fork would just end up being all about BUSH BUSH BUSH. Without my edits half the article is devoted to the waterboarding of three men. That was a slow afternoon for the Khmer rouge. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding, just as used by the CIA, has been known for a long time. It's depicted e.g. in the 1975 WIP flick The Big Doll House, it has been used - in exactly the same form by the Khmer Rouge in the late 70s, there are reports by the Washington Post from the late 60s, and so on. I don't know when the term was first used, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. If this article is overlong and has a ridiculous number of sources though there would be nothing wrong with moving some material to water torture and keeping this for a particular subsection of the topic. It's a normal practice. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be moved to water torture as all the historical examples have RS's referring to them as waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

But I'm not talking about removing things, just a way of splitting the article. I suspect they also have sources calling them water torture too. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"I suspect they also have sources calling them water torture too." yes because waterboarding is a torture involving water. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly astonished at how easy it appears to be for someone, no doubt with the best of intentions, to spread confusion and hack great swathes from this article by starting up another, called, Waterboarding in the 21st Century. Can we expect in due course Waterboarding in the 20th Century, Waterboarding in the 19th Century, etc, etc?? This is crazy. Waterboarding is waterboarding. Wikipedia has a moral obligation to promote clarity rather than confusion. Strongly oppose what could be seen as an attempt at 21st-century . . . foxing. Wingspeed (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"Can we expect in due course Waterboarding in the 20th Century" If needed, wikipedia has a moral obligation to NPOV which means all views get represented proportionately, i don't think the people of Nazi occupied Europe or Cambodia get their POV compared to all this recentist stuff about america. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course that would possibly have to be called water torture in the 20th century... Hypno, I'm sorry I go on about civility so often. You're usually polite. It's just now and then some of your comments do come across as extremely derogatory. I'm off to bed now, if you get time will you have a look at my comment at the end of AEB4 and tell me what you think? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

@Hypnosadist: WP and NPOV need, as far as possible, to be synonymous. That is not best achieved, I suggest, by seeking to apply the implications of your insistence: "I don't think the people of Nazi occupied Europe or Cambodia get their POV compared to all this recentist stuff about America." It is not helpful to suppose that "the people" of either have ever held a "POV" on the topic, even if that were possible. The assumption that NPOV can be second-guessed by some species of mass agglomeration of POV, is just another factor making for confusion rather than clarity. Wingspeed Wingspeed (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just because their POV was before the internet does not make it less valid. Norway prosecuted Gestapo members for waterboarding, british and americans prosecuted Japanese secret police for it. Cambodia and Chile have had internal war crimes prosecutions for it, all for waterboarding in greater numbers than the americans have recently. These get dwarfed by arguments over memo's and which talkshow host thinks its OK to do it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are somehow conflating mere "point of view" with verifiable fact - precisely what we need to avoid. I don't doubt "Norway prosecuted Gestapo members for waterboarding, British and Americans prosecuted Japanese secret police for it"; nor for a moment that, "Cambodia and Chile have had internal war crimes prosecutions for it." All the more need to keep such data within the realm of fact and not, repeat not, as you put it, "POV." These are matters of fact, not point of view.

On reflection, what I think I'm objecting to most strongly here is any suggestion (let alone, heaven forbid, a fait accompli) of hiving off the Waterboarding article into a separate article merely labeled Waterboarding in the 21st Century. This would have the effect of reducing by implication a matter of current intense controversy to the status of mere historical/cultural phenomenon. Precisely what the POV merchants would relish. (Typing Waterboarding into the search box would presumably first yield a load of historical background, fascinating and important, for sure. I would only find what I was looking for when I realised I should be typing in Waterboarding in the 21st Century.)

Should consensus, now or in due course, conclude there to be a need to hive off historical data, then the answer is not to make waterboarding sound like a mere historical or local phenomenon. What has brought the subject to global attention is not any "talk show" or "memo" factor (an inference derivable from your choice of words above) but the fact that the US state appears to have been subjecting captives to it on a global level. In this sense, I repeat, waterboarding is waterboarding. Wingspeed (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"You are somehow conflating mere "point of view" with verifiable fact" NPOV is made up of ALL POV's organised according to how RS's record that. Insted of recording that we have insted this page full of non-RS's (talk show host and polititians) from one time and place disputing the entirity of history.

"Typing Waterboarding into the search box would presumably first yield a load of historical background, fascinating and important, for sure. I would only find what I was looking for when I realised I should be typing in Waterboarding in the 21st Century" Just follow the link, whats so hard? This is an historical article in an ENCYCLOPDIA about the historical use of waterboarding and should read;

• 1400's waterboarding invented by the spanish inquisition,they say its TORTURE but they are doing it to save souls so thats OK.
• 1600's Dutch waterboard English, the English complain that this is TORTURE but the Dutch claim they are aloud to TORTURE, WAR between the two nearly starts over the TORTURE.
• 1800's Used in american prisons Still called TORTURE
• 1900's Used by american police discribed as a modern version of a medival TORTURE
• 1940's Used by the Gestapo and Japanese police, they are convicted of war crimes for TORTURE
• 1960's Used by the Dictatorships of Chile and Argentina, people convicted of crimes against humanity for the use of TORTURE
• 1970's Used by the Khmer Rouge, TORTUREERS convicted of crimes against humanity for the use of TORTURE
• 2000's Used by the CIA, decried as TORTURE WORLDWIDE though some americans claim it is not or it is legal to do it.

The modern claims should be a couple of paragraphs or moved to its own article as the recentism violate WP:weight ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All the above, whilst not untrue in itself, is in its emphasis merely the expression of your particular point of view. You are seeking, it would appear, to impose it upon other users regardless. You will need to establish a consensus in order to move (i.e. rename) the present article to Waterboarding in the 21st Century. I suggest any redirecting deemed necessary (again by consensus) would be appropriately from the present article to articles of an historical nature. Wingspeed (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S: As far as consensus is concerned, I've just read through all the comments so far, and what you propose seems to be 4-1 against. Wingspeed (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

did you count the comments in Talk:Waterboarding#Fork.3F?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chris, for pointing this out. What set the alarm bells ringing for me, and possibly others, were the words at the top of this sub-section, "I've started this article and rm a load of rubbish from this article." Didn't even see Fork. Such, possibly, is the nature of forks. (Neither do I see, incidentally, any link in Waterboarding to Waterboarding in the 21st Century - which I see has been brought into existence willy-nilly, as irony would have it, by dint of "Fork", which as a heading will have meant nothing to non-initiates. Meant nothing to me. Now I know.) However: counting up the comments there, my impression is 4 to 4. Where does that leave us? Wingspeed (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

well it was 4-0 in support before Hypnosadist started splitting out the modern occurrences. then Badagnani reverted Hypnosadist's changes and started some new discussions on the topic.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I discussed this for five days and no-one had objected so i felt i was not even being bold in making this move. Most of the senior editors had posted since i started the forking discussion (such a Geo Swan) and so i went ahead. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You did discuss it, and there was NO controversy about it then. I also agreed with you, and asked that you be bold; and still, no one objected. Now this happens. I apologize for the undeserved blame you are getting. htom (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I too request Hypnosadist's forgiveness - for stating above that he'd done all this off his own bat. I suspect we all share the same good intentions, it's just that things have got a bit confused. My concern is that no well-sourced information is either lost or (which in practice can amount to much the same thing) made more difficult to locate. Plus: that anyone who types waterboarding into a search box gets the "current" stuff first, and then the historical background.

Type the word into Google: "about 4,240,000" results come up. As for WP:Weight . . . of the first 100, a grand total of two appear to concern the historical background; and even that two per cent is in relation to the current controversy. On that rough (but I'm sure representative) basis, any grandstanding of the historical would be wildly unrepresentative, misleading as a consequence; and, thus, a violation (however unintentional) of WP:Weight. Wingspeed (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but can't talk today. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S: I note in particular the penultimate sentence of WP:Weight, which reads: "Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." Wingspeed (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

aeb1

Most of our modern sources quote those previous prosecutions as evidence that waterboarding is Torture and/or Illegal. This is especially true of the legal sources. Note that also the Khmer Rouge trials are ongoing at this very moment with the whole country intensely interested in Justice. Also the recentist nature of NPOV by google is why we don't use it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a good reason to have a fork but am not sure Hypnosadist has chosen the best title for the forked material.

There are two different things to be reported on. One the one hand -- and I think usefull on its own page -- there is a "this is what happened" factual account, waterboarding has clearly happened in the past even if it was not yet called this, and contemporary alleged waterboarding by non-US torturers also needs to be included (allegations by whom? what evidence? how reliable? etc. On the other hand there is a specific controversy on the use of waterboarding, and this controversy is doubly specific to the US. Firstly it is specific to the Us in that the question is whether the US should have done it, did the president order it? did he have authority to, etc (I am not endorsing any particular answers to those questions, just setting the scope of the subject matter), and secondly it is fairly specific to the US in that it is pretty much only in the US that anyone is saying it's not torture at all.

So I see the fork not as a POV fork but as a fork between one article giving the wider view in terms of both history and geography, and a second article that should describe fairly the current, US focussed, controversy. So I'd pretty much support the division, but not the title. W/B in the 21st century is not actually about the 21st century - it is specifically about the political/moral/military/law enforcement debate in the US. To label it as geographically generic is an example of the Anglo-American viewpoint mentioned in the FAQ. To keep it in the main article shows even more of an Anglo-Amenrican bias. Even if fair handed, it is insisting that the whole world is focussed on the US debate. To have a separate article, explicitly acknowledged to be focussed on the US issues, and with a title to match, is the appropriate place to present the NPOV on that debate.

62.188.100.254 (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, waterboarding is, in its terminological origin, a fairly recent specifically US (presumably US military) euphemism for a form of what anywhere else in time or space (including, incidentally, the UK) has been labeled water torture. If this is indeed the case, then the article titled Waterboarding in the 21st Century is, in its title at any rate, misleadingly anachronistic and, contrary to what some of its advocates seek to avoid (i.e. an 'Anglo-American' bias), succeeds in reinforcing, more insidiously because unacknowledged, precisely that.

In any event, is this fork and its consequences not merely a proposal, as the editor above seems to think, but a fait accompli in relation to which, for whatever reasons (see above), a clear consensus has yet to be established? Wingspeed (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Rename WB in the 21C whatever you want, just get the recentist stuff about america cut down in this article so this can be the "article giving the wider view in terms of both history and geography" that it should be. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You presumably don't mean that literally: would Waterboarding be acceptable? I think not. You continue to miss the point. The term waterboarding is itself 'recentist' by definition. It appears in origin, I repeat, to be a specifically US military/government euphemism of comparatively recent origin for a particular form of water torture. The fact that a definition has yet to appear in most people's dictionaries is evidence of that. I type the word into my onboard Mac (American) dictionary. Response: 'No entries found.' Nor is it in my dead-tree edition of the complete Oxford Dictionary.

I'd be grateful if you could address my specific points: i.e. the misleadingly anachronistic consequence of the present emphasis, however well intended, and the fact that a clear consensus has yet to be established in favour of what you have already done. Wingspeed (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes i forked the content when four people said it was OK and no-one had objected, i thought you had got over that?

Just because the word was defined recently does not mean the practice is new, as our RS's say (see below). It is our job to define waterboarding and show when it was used and what people thought about it or did about it. Thats what this article does well. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I' don't see a justification for a fork. We already have an article on water torture which could be expanded if need be. The fact that the victim is strapped to a board is not central. In the Life magazine photo from the Vietnam War, for example, the enemy soldier is held down by U.S. soldiers, but the torture is essentially the same. The term waterboarding and the controversy around it revolve around its recent use by the united States government. --agr (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes the term is recent but as you point out the practice itself is old. Modern experts now refer to these pre-2001 examples as waterboarding, when contemporary sources just called it A water torture. If we are to document waterboarding we have to show all the examples named by RS's such as the Dutch East India Company etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional Information

I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place so if someone could inform me weather I am or not, that would be appreciated.

The website I have added has some information that I could not find on the Wikipedia page, or in the discussions so here it is.

"Water boarding was used during the Italian Inquisition in the 1500s. Also during the reign of Khmer Rouge in the 1700's it was used in Cambodian prisons."

The website may include some other relevant information that has not been included although I did not look any further.

Website - http://science.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm Original Article by Julia Layton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenroadtrip (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mammalian Dive Reflex

Does anyone know of a reliable source linking Mammalian Dive Reflex to waterboarding? It seems to be highly relevant. Basically, submerging the face in cold water reflexively induces the sensation of drowning in mammals. HarborBoats (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No i don't and can't recall seeing it mentioned, but this may explain the cellophane method of waterboarding. I'll keep an eye out for you though. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Mammalian_diving_reflex is probably what you're looking for. htom (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Source giving much more historical information

This source mentions "choking" (the Dutch use of a cloth) and "pumping" filling the stomach with water by using large amounts, giving a great number more historical usages. Long-time editors, please read these few pages and see if anything should be added to supplement the historical section of this article. Badagnani (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition (again)

I decided to leave this a few days because it was getting nowhere. However it really does require proper discussion: Hypno, did you not say: "we show all notable POV's with RS's and report them, there are no RS's for Not-torture so we don't cover this in the intro"? Have I not supplied a reliable source whose expert nature you haven't questioned? Given that I agree that this doesn't warrant coverage in the intro, can you not agree that the opening definition needs to be toned down very slightly? Perhaps by the avoidance of the word "is", because multiple sourced opinions exist? It's really a very small concession I'm asking. As I've said, it doesn't mean that we present the two opinions as equal, just that we adopt the neutral point of view, that where conflicting, reliably sourced opinions exist we don't present any of them as "the truth", even if we make it very clear which the expert opinion favours. This isn't a very radical interpretation of WP:NPOV, is it? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The suffocation of a bound prisoner with water is, by definition, torture, just as is the rack (torture). All sources save the fringe opinions of a few U.S. politicians and media personalities verify this. Badagnani (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that is your opinion and although I agree, this isn't a very good approach when it comes to Wikipedia editing. What you're saying is "this is the definition of torture, this is the defintion of waterboarding, therefore waterboarding constitutes torture": it's called the synthesis of published material to advance a position and is considered original reasearch. On it's own it's not a good enough reason to support the existing opening sentence. One important principle of Wikipedia is that we don't publish "the truth", we publish what the reliable sources tell us is true and where there is a significant difference of opinion we opt for a neutral point of view. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the suffocation of a bound prisoner with water is a form of torture, but it is also a fact (following the normal understanding of the word Torture in the English language), and also verified by all sources except the fringe opinions of a few U.S. politicians and media personalities. Please see Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. It's important that you read all prior discussion before commenting further. Fringe opinions may be discussed at Wikipedia but are not allowed to influence well-understood definitions. Badagnani (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the idea that it is not torture is a relatively recent, mostly American view, and doesn't necessarily reflect a worldwide view. It seems like those arguing that it isn't torture are doing it for political cover, not because they are torture experts. Dawn Bard (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, even during the Spanish Inquisition, and afterwards by various regimes, such water tortures were preferred as somehow special or less bad, as they did not leave marks on the body as most other tortures do. Thus, the former U.S. regime was following a long tradition as regards attempts to legitimize this form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(to Badagnani) I've read it. You can claim that following a normal understanding of English implies one thing, someone else could claim it implies something else. It's all original research and it's all completely irrelevant here. Fringe theories are esoteric opinions of non-notable people that receive little coverage in the mainstream secondary literature. This is a minority opinion. Also, I'm not proposing allowing this to influence the definition. I've said all along, the not torture definition should go in its own section and not be mentioned in the intro. (to Dawn) Perhaps, but this is a recently coined American term and I would guess more than 50% of RS coverage coverage is of recent American practice. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 02:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires that viewpoints be represented in proportion to their prominence. The archives of this talk page list huge numbers of expert sources that tell us waterboarding is torture. The fact that one person, who's arguably an expert, said on a radio show that waterboarding isn't torture doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming weight of expert opinion is that waterboarding is torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, I agree. As I've already said, I don't want the not-torture definition to be given more prominence. I've never argued that. What I'm saying is a completely separate matter: that the torture definition should be presented in a manner consistent with NPOV. This has nothing to do with wanting to give additional prominence to minority definitions, I'm discussing how we present what we all agree must be the only definition discussed in the intro. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 03:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely consistent with NPOV as it is. "A hammer is widely considered to be a tool or driving nails, but Guru Swamy calls it the easiest way to enlightenment". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the similarity, do you think Guru Swamy or anyone else actually disputes the mainstream definition of a hammer? Or is he somehow speaking figuratively? And is Guru Swamy a notable or reliable source on the definition of hammers? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that I invented him for the sake of the argument, he is everything I wish him to be, of course. The simple point, as pointed out over and over again, is that waterboarding is torture and it's recognized as such by the vast majority of expert opinion. The dissenting and self-serving claims of some in the Bush government have no bearing on this, and neither does the fringe opinion of a single semi-qualified (and, btw, flip-flopping) lawyer. We report those claims as notable claims, but we do not give them undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will just reiterate some of the points I have made above:

1. When we say "waterboarding is a form of torture" we are not making a legal conclusion under any country's law and instead we are simply using 'torture' as it is defined commonly (usually something along the lines of experiencing intense physical or mental pain). Many of the arguments put forth by the Bush administration have to deal with an argument that waterboarding did not qualify legally as "torture", but did not discuss whether waterboarding would qualify as torture as the term is commonly used.

2. Those in the Bush administration that defended the use of waterboarding as not qualifying as torture still acknowledged the following: (1) those subjected to it experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, (2) those subjected to waterboarding as a method of interrogation have a reasonable belief that they are in fact being put to death by waterboarding or will die as a result of waterboarding. I think it is obvious that subjected someone to the experience of drowning or a false execution would qualify as torture as the term is commonly used in the English language.

3. The Bush administration's legal conclusions (which were later withdrawn by subsequent legal analysis) depend upon two conclusions, which in fact are disputed by experts:(1) waterboarding does not inflict pain and (2) that the threat of immediate death would not cause prolonged mental harm. If you disagree with either of these conclusions then even under the Bush adminsitration's analysis you would have to consider waterboarding to be torture as defined legally.

That is all. Remember (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Definition violation

"Waterboarding is a form of torture" is very clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Words_that_label: "Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint."--Loodog (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not at all. How does it "label a group from an outside perspective"? It accurately describes a technique, not a group. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Loodog you have not answered Iph's points right at the top of this page, why? PS Words that lable is about words like "freedom fighter" "pervert" just as it says. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst says its torture

No time to stop but i had to post this when i came across it http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/21/napolitano_torture_memos/ which contains this sick revelation;

The bias in favor of permitting torture may easily be concluded from a footnote in one of the memos. In that footnote, the author, now-federal judge Jay Bybee, declines to characterize such notorious medieval torture techniques as the thumbscrew and the rack as “torture.”

WTF! see you later ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding include [...]" is incorrect wording

This sentence, in the third paragraph of the article introduction, is improperly worded. This sentence says the list of suspects known to have been subjected to waterboarding includes three people. However, the CIA has only confirmed the use of waterboarding on these three people. Hence, the list of known subjects does not INCLUDE these three names, the list IS these three names. "Include" should be replaced with "are". I don't yet have the authority to make this edit, but somebody should correct the statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickelcokes (talk • contribs) 12:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Spellcheck

Can someone run a spellcheck? absense (sp) = absence. 02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.24.69 (talk)

Reference #1

Does anyone else think that Ref #1 is not really a reference? What does it refer to? I can't figure. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not a ref its a note, i think it should have a different format but i'm not sure. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As in love note? It looks like a questionable item nonetheless. It's also a key note, and should be something more substantive. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its just an artifact of the edit wars in 2007, if no-one objects in the next few days it can be safely deleted in my opinion. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I object. It is a footnote that is suppose to provide substantiation to the claim that waterboarding is torture and point the reader to a fuller discussion of the topic.Remember (talk) 23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the exact thing is said two lines later in the intro (and is sourced), there is no need for it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Keep note per above. Badagnani (talk) 02:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What does this note do? please answer my point above, this is not a vote. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be changed and worked into the main text somehow. It's not a reference; it's more of a parenthetical thought. Some books would have put this information in a sidebar, but I don't think there's any way to do this in Wikipedia.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 06:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It is in the main text already just two lines later, a point at which every claim in that "note" is clearly sourced. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here, and I have to say that the note is useless. It wastes space, isn't even a reference in the first place (why is it even listed there?), and it's clarified at length later in the article. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

so it's already been worked into the text. someone was ahead of us on that. so what's left to do except delete it?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Not even that i've deleted it. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If the reference #1 talked about in this section is the one that is there now, then uh, it's still there. I read the referenced article and it used the word 'torture' once in the opening. The way the footnote is placed right after the word 'torture' make it seem like it is a reference which confirms the act is indeed torture (which, regardless of the opinion here is still a topic of debate) when it does nothing of the sort. The reference seems to be complete unrelated to the idea it follows. I say remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.139.56 (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

you're probably looking at the wrong reference. they're automatically numbered so the first one is always #1. this diff shows what was removed.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 06:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe he is talking about the Vanity Fair ref, while its an interesting source i'm not sure it should be where it is as a source to the word torture so i'm going to remove that source (its used else where in the article). PS "regardless of the opinion here is still a topic of debate)" there is no debate in the civilised world. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Do people think we need to add more sources to the intro or are the 12 sources that say its torture in the first paragraph enough. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding in the 21st century strikes back

I believe the Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride should be deleted from this article and a see also link added for it, discuss. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to delete this section in 2 days now it has its own article and is mentioned in W in the 21c. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RM early due to AFD on W in the 21c. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Grammer/Sentence Correction

Current - In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately.[15] The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage. It can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, other physical injuries including broken bones due to struggling against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death.[4] Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.[8]

Suggested - In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates a almost immediate gag reflex. Although the technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage, it can cause extreme pain, dry drowning, damage to lungs, damage to brain due to oxygen deprivation, physical injuries such as broken bones due to struggle against restraints, lasting psychological damage or, ultimately, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years. Mukesh320 (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Mukesh Mittal

I agree to this change. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Should it be "an almost immediate gag reflex" not "a almost immediate gag reflex"? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Ali Soufan testimony

I propose incorporating the recent congressional testimony from FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, who testified that he personally interrogated Abu Zubaydah, and was able to get the identity of KSM and Jose Padilla *before* waterboarding was used. This contradicts the information given by John Kiriakou - his statements have been discredited by published reports that he has no firsthand knowledge of waterboarding.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30721458/ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?scp=1&sq=%22brian%20ross%22&st=cse Nada (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

should probably go into Waterboarding in the 21st century instead.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok.. actually, what I want to do is reword this line about Zubaydah: "While in U.S. custody, he was waterboarded,[109] and subsequently gave a great deal of information about the 9/11 attack plot." This implies information was only extracted after Zubaydah was waterboarded, but in fact, he was giving information before he was waterboarded. Nada (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

6.3 As a political issue in confirmation hearings

Now that W in the 21C has been speedy kept, i think the next section to be removed should be 6.3 As a political issue in confirmation hearings. As this does not meet the weight/notability guidelines considering that this article covers the 400 year plus history of waterboarding. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)