Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

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)

"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)

Yes and DONE. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

DONE. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

after the first statement about Eric Holder

I would like to add the following at the end of the "Torture?" section, right after the first statement about Eric Holder:

However, on May 14, 2009 Holder was forced to admit during questioning by the House Judiciary Committee that U.S. Navy Seals who are waterboarded as part of their training are not being tortured because there is no intent to inflict lasting physical or psychological harm, and that it is "intent" which determines whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture. [Source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31882] Given that interrogators were under strict limits as to how long and how often a terrorist suspect could be subjected to waterboarding, and the great care that was taken to avoid permanent harm, and that the interrogators' intent was to solicit information rather than to inflict harm [cite memos recently released by the Obama administration], Holder's previous statement that "waterboarding is torture" might appear to be a self-contradiction.

I don't want to attempt to edit the article myself and risk being banned, so if one of the approved editors could insert this for me (or explain why not) I'd appreciate it. He or she should also feel free to edit the above as long as the intent (no pun intended) is not significantly altered.Doobie61 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

articles need to be built around reliable sources, not opinion pieces and original research.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 04:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Former Conservative Talk Host now believes Waterboarding to be torture

Here is a former member of the "its just pouring a little water on someone's face" to its "absolutely torture" in 6 seconds.[1].

Better source; http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Mancow-Takes-on-Waterboarding-and-Loses.html  ; ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:38, 23 May 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)

The above statement fills the vacuum created by a discussion devoid of any sense of proportion.

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. [2] 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.

• [3] "Human rights groups, who say that waterboarding amounts to torture"
• [4]"CIA officials will not be prosecuted for using harsh interrogation methods often considered as torture"
• [5]"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 [6] 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)

[7] --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)

Drowning and reviving people is a form of torture. Waterboarding, which simulates drowning, is a form of enhanced interrigation. Murder is illegal yet we're not critical when the United States puts people to death who are on death row. It's the same thing. Even if waterboarding is torture there is a difference between personal ethics and governmental ethics. I don't think any country would "turn the cheek" if it got attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.252.130.19 (talk) 07:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Drowning and reviving people is a form of torture." Yes, and thats what waterboarding is, it does not "simulate" drowning it is Controlled drowning ask MANCOW ^{(Hypnosadist)} 13:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It's the "reviving" part that seems to be missing in some methods, as it's not needed. Hence my believe that it's "simulated drowning", not "actual drowning". Your OR may vary. htom (talk) 14:15, 23 May 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[8] 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 [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14271 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[9][10]) 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 [11] --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[12] 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[13] 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_9#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 /Archive9 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) Linke fixed. Graham87 12:36, 1 June 2023 (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 [14] 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 [15] 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)

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)

yes, 6.3 should be moved to the 21st century article, but do we have to do each subsection one at a time? can't we all just agree that all of 6 should be relocated?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all of 6 should be removed. Nada (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I want most of it moved, some should remain though as part of the history section. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Controversy over classification of Waterboarding as torture

I updated this section yesterday to reflect the latest status on the OPR investigation into the memos on enhanced interrogation techniques, to add key info including some above regarding the debate over the nature of waterboarding, to add the recent opinions of significant Republican figures within the Bush Administration, and to correct references that were not working properly.

Here are recommended future changes to other sections of the article: (1) I believe that the section of the article on the legality of waterboarding would benefit from (a) reference to the Texas case under Governor Bush in which a sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison for waterboarding (cited in the material I added) and (b) the opinions of former head of the OLC Goldsmith and others within the Bush Administration also cited in the material I added, and (c) more legal analysis and the failure of the author of the memos to cite the seminal case on Presidential powers during wartime:

Yoo failed to cite the key precedent relating to a President’s war powers, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, a 1952 Supreme Court case that addressed President Harry Truman’s order to seize steel mills that had been shut down in a labor dispute during the Korean War. Truman said the strike threatened national defense and thus justified his actions under his Article II powers in the Constitution. But the Supreme Court overturned Truman’s order, saying, “the President's power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Since Congress hadn’t delegated such authority to Truman, the Supreme Court ruled that Truman’s actions were unconstitutional, with an influential concurring opinion written by Justice Robert Jackson.[16]

(2) I believe that the piece should reflect the recent testimony of Ali Soufan:

Soufan said he gained valuable intelligence by using traditional non-coercive FBI interrogation techniques when questioning suspected al-Qaeda prisoners.

He said he was replaced at the insistence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which he said was using inexperienced contractors, not CIA operatives, to conduct interrogations.

Soufan told senators that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques were ineffective and unreliable, and "as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al-Qaeda."

"It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda," he said. [17]

Likesausages (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Search function for archives

I´ve noted that other articles have a searchfunction for archived discussions. I´d like to have one here, but don´t know how to add it.

--Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Added. It's a bit more involved to add a topic index, and I have no time to figure this out now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Abu Zubaida information is flat wrong

The information about Abu Zubaida says that waterboarding was what gained actionable intelligence. According to many sources, including the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html) this is flat incorrect.

Abu Zubaida was talking BEFORE torture was applied. After that, nothing he gave was of use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sink (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That information is outdated, and new information has come to light recently. Here's what another source said - [18]

According to my reporting, James Mitchell arrived at the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah [...] The FBI had agents present at the scene, and because the CIA’s interrogation team had not yet arrived, they began to interrogate Zubaydah. And what they used was classic rapport-building techniques that almost every FBI agent is trained in, which is to find common ground with the person you’re interrogating, to treat them with humanity. And, lo and behold, Zubaydah responded and talked, and not only talked, but gave them the name of the person who had been the entire master planner of 9/11: K.S.M. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, referred to as Mukhtar. He identified him. He identified Jose Padilla. In other words, there was every indicator that rapport-building techniques were completely effective.

I'll see if I can find additional sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See the Ali Soufan testimony above. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following because it was not supported by the sources: "While in U.S. custody, he was waterboarded, and subsequently gave a great deal of information about the 9/11 attack plot. Such information was used by the Canadian government in seeking to uphold the "security certificate" of Mohamed Harkat."

Should something be added in its place to explicitly say that Zubaydah was cooperative before waterboarding, and useless after? Dawn Bard (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Using "torture" as a general factual term for waterboarding is incorrect.

Toture is used in the first sentence however only later in the article is it clear this is according to a UN definition. It is fine to use the definition torture but the organization classifying it that way should be mentioned in the same sentence. "The UN....defines waterboarding as a form of torture, howevere,.... does not." Something along those lines would be much more accurate. The way this article reads it is called torture at the top and later in article it is claimed it is not torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyonetoday (talk • contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

there are no reliable sources that are not fringe theories that say waterboarding is not torture.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 11:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

So anyone who says waterboarding is not torture is a fringe theorist? How absurd! So Bush, Cheney, the GOP, etc. are all fringe theorists? This topic is a matter of debate in the political community and wikipedia should not be taking one side of the argument. It is articles like this that really hurt Wikipedia's credibility.--76.108.9.103 (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bush, Cheney and the GOP may be many things, but they are not reliable sources. They also operate under a severe conflict of interests. And which GOP do you refer to? John McCain's? Colin Powell's? Richard Armitage's? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"Bush, Cheney, the GOP, etc." could be reliable sources on some topics, but they definitely aren't be reliable sources on defining torture or interpreting the geneva conventions.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 10:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Mancow is the latest media personality to be waterboarded. (See section below.) He changed his mind in six seconds. Do you want to join him?F (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not wish to join Mancow but I do wish to clarify that if the article is dealing with waterboarding in the US, with regard to whether or not waterboarding is torture, the standard should be the US legal definition of torture, not a UN statement that it is. UP2U2DO (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about waterboarding in the US; it has sections that are about waterboarding in the US, but this article is about waterboarding in general. And I think that the distinction between the international law definition and US law is explained well in the Legality section. Is there anything in particular that you think needs to be addressed. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1)This article is about Waterboarding NOT waterboarding in the US.

2)The UN definition is the US legal definition of torture, as UNCAT was signed into law by Ronald Regan.

3)The only reason that this article covers so much about the US is that "certain groups" need to "legitimise" torture by playing word games. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Larry O'Donnell cites a misleading section of this article

Larry O'Donnell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_O%27Donnell) has claimed on two talk shows that the US Army has prosecuted military people for water boarding based on this article.

The topic referred to by O'Donnell is within this article. The topic referred to has no citation, is not a NPOV and spurious even based upon the sources cited. It confuses (either deliberately or unintentionally) Water Boarding with Water cure (which is) is a form of water torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cure.) I recommend that someone having editorial capability clean it up.

The first sentence has no citation, but says "without attribution" that water boarding was called the "water cure." There is no basis for this statement. The New Yorker article cited clearly explained what the Water cure was: "A letter by A. F. Miller, of the 32nd Volunteer Infantry Regiment, published in the Omaha World-Herald in May, 1900, told of how Miller’s unit uncovered hidden weapons by subjecting a prisoner to what he and others called the “water cure.” “Now, this is the way we give them the water cure,” he explained. 'Lay them on their backs, a man standing on each hand and each foot, then put a round stick in the mouth and pour a pail of water in the mouth and nose, and if they don’t give up pour in another pail. They swell up like toads. I’ll tell you it is a terrible torture.' "

This is clearly not the same as water boarding.

After the Spanish-American War of 1898

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the "water cure" at the time. Reports of "cruelties" from soldiers stationed in the Philippines led to Senate Hearings on US activity in the Philippines. {needs citation}

ShashNahalin (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Shash NahalinShashNahalin (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

1)Each sentence does not have to be atributed, if you look in that paragraph you will find the sources you need such as http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_kramer and http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6647.html

2)The only differneces in the two practices is that the torture victim is flat not head down (a enhancement developed some time in the middle of the 20th century) and the absence of a cloth. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Another historical use

The article is locked, so I'm unable to add the following historical use. If someone could please add it (or something along these lines), I'd very much appreciate it:

'Against Prisoner Slaves in the South after the Civil War'

Per Douglas A. Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name, Anchor Books, at 71 (2009):

"One witness told of the use of water torture at [the] Eureka [iron-ore mine in Alabama], on convicts for whom whipping was deemed insufficient. Such prisoners were physically restrained. Then, 'water [was] poured in his face on the upper lip, and effectually stops his breathing as long as there is a constant stream.' Over the next thirty years, variations of this medieval water torture technique were repeatedly employed in southern slave labor camps, in some cases supplanting whipping as a preferred method of punishment. Many convict managers chose this terrifying method because the convict was able to more quickly recover and return to work than after a severe flogging." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.7.237 (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

here's a citation for whoever wants to add something from the book mentioned above:

{{cite book |first=Douglas A. |last=Blackmon |authorlink=Douglas A. Blackmon |title=Slavery By Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II |publisher=[[Anchor Books]] |location=[[Garden City, New York]] |year=2009 |page=71 |isbn=0-385-72270-2 |oclc=232980384}}

  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 18:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mancow Mueller

He is mentioned twice in the "Classification as torture" section (near beginning and near end). I´d like to remove the first one, it seems misplaced.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding by UK police???

This story is just breaking --> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6466430.ece ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC) BBC on the story, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8092417.stm ^{(Hypnosadist)} 14:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Alan Dershowitz, US Attorney?

The Etymology section of the article states this "The U.S. attorney Alan Dershowitz is reported to..." with a link to the Alan Dershowitz page on Wikipedia which says nothing about him ever being a US attorney. At least this part of the article appears to be flawed. Contributions/142.46.214.106 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Alan Morton Dershowitz [...] is an American lawyer [...] He is known for his career as an attorney []". Lawyer implies attorney, American (in this context) is US. In other words, he is an attorney from the US. I don't know if he also is or was a United States Attorney, i.e. a federal prosecutor. If not, the statement is still correct, but could be improved for clarity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

George W Bush and waterboarding

Talk:George_W._Bush#Calling_Waterboarding_Torture_is_factual

George_w_bush#Treatment_of_terrorist_detainees

Bush authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, a form of torture, as an enhanced interrogation technique.

Or

Bush authorized the CIA to use waterboarding as an enhanced interrogation technique, but which has claimed to be a form of [[torture].

OR

While Bush stated that the United States does not torture he authorized the CIA to use waterboarding, which is commonly considered to be a form of torture, as an enhanced interrogation technique.

A recent discussion, as an extension of a prior discussion, about the opinion that Waterboarding is "a form torture" as opposed to "some consider waterboarding to be a form of torture" or "is commonly cnosidered to be a form of torture" has spouted on the George W Bush page. I would appriciate any input from this page concerning the reliablity of whatever waterboarding is and what your recommended text for that part of the section should be. Thank you. RTRimmel (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On another note

• Webster's Definition of waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTRimmel (talk • contribs) 17:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding has been added to Webster's dictionary [19]. Might be useful to mention in the article. Remember (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also interesting to note, that "torture" is not part of the definition. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Also interesting that the Miami Herald seems to think its torture - read the caption of the image. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The article states that it is undisputed that waterboarding is torture and yet Webster's dictionary does not even classify it as such. We've already determined that many consider it torture. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC

Webster's silence is not a source. --agr (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What evidence do you have for that claim? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster's also does not categorically deny that Waterboarding is torture. The absence of a statement does not equate to the negation of the same statement elsewhere.Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster's defines the technique as "interrogation." --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning" Webster's waterboarding does not mention the detainee being immobilized and having then head inclined downwards. Seeing as Webster's is not describing waterboarding as it is commonly used, or how it is required to be used to be effective (a free to move person will get away quickly and without the head inclined downwards the water does not flow properly to induce the drowning sensation per expert opinion), I don't see how it qualifies under WP:Undue. RTRimmel (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think, Webster's dictionary is a reliable source and it states that the technique is "interrogation." --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Weight and WP:Fringe, this is not a standard definition of waterboarding. Webster's waterboarding certainly doesn't sound like torture... or waterboarding as it is performed by anyone according to all of our sources. RTRimmel (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster's dictionary is completely unbiased and the main source of a word's definition, and therefore it does not use the term "torture," which is a non-neutral description.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And its not describing waterboarding as it is commonly used. It is the only source I have seen that uses this description of waterboarding and therefor is not usable under WP:Weight and WP:Fringe. You may certainly argue for its inclusion further in the article, such as the controversy section as all other sources and all expert opinion argue for immobilization and head at a down incline as critical for successful implementation of the technique, the definition is not standard no matter how well respected Webster's is. RTRimmel (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And it does not say that waterboarding is not torture. As such it can not be used to refute the fact that waterboarding is torture. At best all it could be used for is to state that waterboarding is a form of torture which has been used for the purpose of interrogation but as that is a standard use of torture that's rather unnecessary. Rather we can shorten that (brevity is good) to waterboarding is torture.Simonm223 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And we do describe its use for interrogation in the first section of our article.--agr (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there you go. So, remind me, why are we even having this conversation?Simonm223 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Many sources will abide by Webster's definition. I have also seen many neutral articles that refrain from using the word torture to describe the practice. For example, NPR explains in this piece why it will not label waterboarding as torture. Reuters and the AP describe the technique as "harsh interrogation." --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster's is no stranger to using the term torture, as seen in the definition of iron maiden. [20] --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My original point stands. For the record this is the last time I'm going to bother replying to this argument unless you have something more than "it's not in websters"... The fact that websters does not contain the word torture in their definition is not an explicit refutation of the fact that waterboarding IS torture and is, as such, irrelevant. And the USA National Public Radio service is not an expert in what constitutes torture.Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're simply ignoring facts and I'm sure you didn't even read the links. An "is" statement is non-neutral in this context, as shown by the media outlets, who have the same sources available as wikipedia to describe the practice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCKSimonm223 (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I recall a talk that Laurence Moran gave regarding evolution. He pointed out (starting at the 18:15 mark) that dictionaries often get the definition of evolution wrong because they're written by non-experts. He speculates that definitions may even be written by undergraduates who "sat down and said, 'hey, what is evolution?' 'I think I know what it is' 'hey, why don't we ask a scien--' 'naah, let's not ask a scientist.'"

So if they can get the definition of evolution wrong, it's possible they could get waterboarding wrong. Considering that the definition in question is simply neutral as to whether it's torture or not, it can't be used to prove or refute the torture status (all the other sources can be used for that). Attempting to prove that it's not torture by omission of the claim of torture is like looking up the definition of elephant and concluding that an elephant doesn't have an anus because the definition omits it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Torture can be used for the purpose of interrogation and harsh interrogation can be used as a form of torture, so unless you can refute Waterboarding is torture with enough reliable 3rd party sources as to give some amount of weight to your opinion, I don't see consensus as changing. Saying a "Hammer is used to pound nails" doesn't negate "a hammer is a tool" after all. RTRimmel (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is correct or what you think of dictionary writers, the definition is disputed. Neutral sources will not describe the practice as torture because they understand the dispute. Wikipedia should not be any different, unless wikipedia is non-neutral. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What's neutral when it comes to word usage (which is what dictionaries aim to reflect) is different from what's neutral when it comes to factual accuracy. Definitions can often be silent on aspects that Wikipedia is not. This includes Ptolemaic system [21], aether [22] (definition 5), Lamarckism [23], intelligent design [24], and asbestos [25]

The first 3 are superceded theories, the 4th is unequivically unscientific, and the 5th is toxic. The dictionary definitions say none of this and the Wikipedia articles say this information in their lead sections. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The definition of Los Angeles would not include its area. Doesn't make the definition wrong. The definition is the opening sentence. More information comes after. What's your point?--Loodog (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you asking me? I stated my point above which is pretty much in agreement with what you just said. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Neutral sources will not describe the practice as torture because they understand the dispute." No true definition would refrain from calling it torture.--Loodog (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture?

This is a disputed statement. It should be removed for NPOV reasons. Many consider it torture, that doesn't make it torture. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead contradicts itself. In the first line it says that it "is" torture then a few lines later states that it is "considered to be" torture. Which is it? If it's simply "considered to be" by some then how can it be labeled as such in the first line? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No contradiction. It's both. Gravity is a force. It's also considered a force by most informed people. The Earth is round. It's also considered round by most informed people. As for the basic point, please look through the archives. We've had years of discussion and an ArbCom case. The opinion that it is not torture is not found in any peer-reviewed source and is extreme WP:FRINGE among informally published expert opinions. The issue is discussed only in the public sphere, only by politicians, and only in the US. And even there it's a fringe opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're stating facts and this is more or less subjective. The facts you listed above are considered facts by everybody. This is not. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My example about the facts was in response to your claim of contradiction. There is no such contradiction. My statement about expert opinion was in reply to your first statement. No, this is not disputed in any meaningful way. There is not even a discussion outside the US and there is unanimity among the published literature and expert opinion even in the US. Sorry, a handful of talk show hosts and politicians are insufficient to call this into question. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So then you believe that if a majority holds an opinion, it becomes fact? --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. But to turn this around: How would you define "fact"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A fact is something that can be verified without doubt. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Then there are no facts outside pure mathematics. The fact that waterboarding is torture is actually more verifiable that gravity - we have a widely agreed operational definition for torture, and waterboarding meets it. Gravity, on the other hand, is a fickle physical concept and may (logically speaking) stop at any moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No true facts outside of what is seen, heard and documented. Otherwise you should use a qualifier. The definition itself of torture is disputed, so I can't see how the article can state in clear violation of WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves that something "is" something else rather than "considered." The lead is akin to stating on the abortion page that "Abortion is a form of murder." The definition is disputed. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"Seen, heard, and documented?" So 2+2=4 is not a fact? It's neither seen nor heard (the phrase may be either, but the fact is not). "Seen and heard" by whom? Eye witnesses (and ear witnesses) are known to be extremely unreliable. And yes, if you had 150 legal experts that claim "abortion is murder" and no significant opposition, that might well be a statement of "fact as commonly used (as opposed to logical fact)". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You can see that 2+2=4. If I have two apples and add it to two more, I have four. If a definition is under dispute, like I've said, you can't state that something "is" something. You must state that it is "considered" something. For example, you can't state in the lead of Death Valley, that it "is" hot, but that it is the "hottest location" because this is a documented fact. Documentation requires common sense to determine what is fact, but that is off topic. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You mistake the abstract with the concrete. You can see 2 apples, but not 2. If it help, it's also a fact that 1234567890123456789*987658127363=1219331010461823275103989017407. Picture that in apples (or oranges). Anyways, the statement that waterboarding is (a form of) torture is a well-documented fact, where my definition of fact is "a statement or claim that is so well-supported that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, that can be pictured, but for the most part small calculations formed the basis which gave us mathematics. What you are describing with your definition is a believed fact, which requires a qualifier in order to remain neutral. How can you document a subjective defintion and then state that it is undisputed fact? Opinions can never be used to create a fact and you agreed with this earlier in the discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I did - what gave you that idea?I I disagreed with your characterization that I might think that at an opinion held by a majority becomes fact (with the unstated, but I think mutually understood assumption that it becomes fact only because the opinion held by a majority). But in a matter of language use, an opinion held by the overwhelming majority of experts does indeed become fact - by the same mechanism by which we agree that the symbol 2 is used to represent the abstract number 2, and that + represents addition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You agreed with my statement that "if a majority holds an opinion, it becomes fact." Now you say "an opinion held by the overwhelming majority of experts does indeed become fact." So does that mean that prior to 1492 that the earth was flat? Or that god exists? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagreed with your statement. As for the flat Earth, see Talk:Global_warming/FAQ#There_was_once_a_time_when_most_scientists_believed_the_earth_was_flat.21. In 1492 all the experts agreed that the Earth was round. I don't think that there is an overwhelming majority among experts on the question of god one way or the other. But that's all besides the point. The meaning of a word is a matter of definition and agreement. The shape of the Earth is a question of physical reality. One is decided by consensus of qualified experts, the other is not. And I won't discuss wether Dawkins or Gould are right about the question of the classification of the god hypothesis, or if they are both wrong ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The 1492 bit was just for comparison. Experts on god includes only Theologians. Nobody else is qualified because it isn't their field. Therefore, theologians from different religions believe there is a god and therefore by your logic, God exists. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No and no. Philosophers and anthropologists are certainly just as much experts on the existence of god (if not on god - a different subject). But anyways, you still fail to see the difference between a definitional fact - like the definition of torture or "2", a physical fact - like the existence of gravity and the shape of the Earth, and, to be provocative, a vacuous fact like the existence or non-existence of god. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. But the difference is that the definition is disputed in this case. Take into account that the number one legal expert from 2001 to 2005 in the United States, former Attorney General John Ashcroft believes that it is not torture. [26] It would probably be a BLP violation to describe his beliefs as FRINGE on the level of conspiracy theorists. This is a widely held belief, and to discount widely held definitions of torture because they are not qualified to make a statement is akin to only believing the theologians on the existance of God because their definition (that the greatest thing that can be thought of and which therefore embodies existance) is the only definition that can be taken into account. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Ashcroft claims he believes it is not torture. Since he is a member of the administration that did use waterboarding, you might just as well ask a burglar for a definition of property. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You are simply discounting sources you don't like. He believed it was not torture and that justified its usage to him. It's somewhat funny how the article labels "some right wing politicans" as being the only individuals disputing the definition. I think you should be consistant and place in the lead that it is considered to be torture by wikipedia. What is wikipedia's definition of torture? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. I'm discounting Ashcroft as an involved party. Wikipedia does not have a private definition of torture, but we do have an article which contains a number of legal definitions, all of which have a common core and all of which, as far as I have checked, include waterboarding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is mentioned once in the article. And I notice that the article does not have an "is" statement but this article does. If the definition is not definite, how can you possibly use an "is" statement in this article? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The current United States Government position is that waterboarding is torture. Absent any other official body that disputes this position, that should be the end of the discussion as far as our lede is concerned. If waterboarding is currently torture in every know jurisdiction in the world, our article can and should say upfront it is torture, without qualification. We should of course cover the efforts by the Bush administration to find legal cover for its use, but even there, as the recently released Justice Department memos on waterboarding make clear, the DOJ effort was focused on finding a way to construe 18 USC 2340's definition of torture narrowly enough to permit waterboarding's use, not to say it wasn't torture in the ordinary meaning of the word. (For example 2340 requires "specific intent" to cause pain.) Indeed the real debate in the U.S. is not over whether waterboarding is torture, but whether there are extreme circumstances where torture should be employed. Does anyone seriously suggest that those who advocate waterboarding use against terrorists would object to use of other traditional torture methods, say electric shock to the genitals, if terrorists were discovered to have trained to successfully resist waterboarding? --agr (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So the positions of different country's governments allows for this article to have an "is" statement, even though the definition on torture is not definite? --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The essentially unanimous agreement of all the governments in the world on a question of international law? It doesn't get much better than that.--agr (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Then state that in the article, rather than using an "is" statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's clarify what we are debating. William, do you have an alternative proposal for the lede? or any specific language you want to change? How do you want it changed? Remember (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See Category:Torture devices where "is" statements are used throughout and in none of the articles I looked at is the torture status as well sourced as for waterboarding. At some point we are allowed to say a swimming bird with a broad beak that quacks is a duck. WP:WEIGHT is quite clear on this.--agr (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a form of interrogation, considered a form of torture by legal experts, politicians, war veterans, medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations." No other views are even being discussed." --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not a form of interrogation. One of it's uses is in interrogation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the other uses, punishment? Because they can be added. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Punishment, coercion, blackmail... all the usual applications of torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say blackmail, but you can say that "Waterboarding is a form of interrogation, punishment and coercion..." although Websters classifies it only as interrogation.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackmail as in "you sign this confession or I continue to waterboard your daughter", as opposed to coercion of the form "sign this confession or I continue to waterboard you". I have the haunting feeling that there is a better word than blackmail...

Webster is of course defining the word and its usage, not the concept. It also has a strong US bias (not in the sense of being apologist, but in the sense of reporting on the recent usage of the word). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not describing waterboarding. And despite your opinion about Webster's dictionary, it is still a reliable source. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Webster's definition is: "an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning" which is, at most, an uncommon description of waterboarding and misses the immobilization and keeping the detainee's head at a downward incline, both of which are critical for the technique to be effective. At best, this is a poor source that does not reflect consensus with experts as to what waterboarding actually is. RTRimmel (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My original point stands. For the record this is the last time I'm going to bother replying to this argument unless you have something more than "it's not in websters"... The fact that websters does not contain the word torture in their definition is not an explicit refutation of the fact that waterboarding IS torture and is, as such, irrelevant.Simonm223 (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See below. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've added a source to the lead sentence, and re-worded accordingly.[27]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the changes. Good job Ferrylodge. The edit took the unnecessary POV out of the lead. It's too bad that a biased editor reverted the change. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose these changes to lead; a politically motivated fringe opinion does not change the definition of this very well understood practice. Please read the discussion archives in their entirety before commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have evidence that the view that waterboarding is not torture is a fringe view? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, I ask that editors commenting here read the archives of this discussion page (all of them) before commenting here. Most of the questions asked here, including the one just above, have already been answered, in great detail, therein. Badagnani (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time to read all of the past discussion. If you could point to me where my question is answered or just tell me, that would be great. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - We've encountered many editors such as yourself, and the recommendation does not change because we are busy. Many of us have invested hundreds of hours of careful research and discussion in this article, and it is not unreasonable to ask all editors to edit with the same amount of diligence, care, and seriousness. This involves, in this case, due to the importance of this topic, taking an attitude of utmost seriousness, involving the reading of all the discussion archives before commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If you've encountered many editors such as myself, why would you think this is not a problem? Why isn't there a clear answer to my questions somewhere that isn't hidden under years of discussion. The statement that "waterboarding is torture" is akin to saying that god exists, if the majority feels this is true. Recent developments need to be discussed such as the Webster's dictionary definition which labels the practice as "interrogation." --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Badagnani, here. If you don't have time to read important past discussions, then you don't have time to make important changes regarding this issue. Considering that there's no rush to get the reading done, it sounds a lot more like you simply don't have the patience to read it. What you're asking for entails detailed answers that are answered in detail in the archives. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you can't show me in the sea of discussion where my question is answered, I will not believe you. If you don't want to have editors questioning the wording of the lead, leave a note or at least a summarization of the past consensus. But remember consensus can change. I reject the claim that the 29% of Americans who believe waterboarding is not torture can be equated to a fringe view. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would Talk:Waterboarding/Definition be sufficiently narrowed down? Talk:Waterboarding/Definition#List of what the sources say (identical to Talk:Waterboarding/Sources) might answer your specific question, though you've demonstrated enough skepticism to make me think that might not be sufficient. I suppose there are a number of ways of finding what you're looking for without reading everything in the archives. You could read the section titles in the TOC and skim the ones that don't seem related to your question. I must tell you from personal experience that printing out all the archives, placing them under your pillow, and sleeping on them only works to give you neck pains in the morning. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 08:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They are just as fringe as the 45% of Americans that believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." We are interested in the considered opinion of experts, not a publicity poll in any one country. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lets say all experts agreed that God exists, as they did in parts of history. Would this be stated in the God article? --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Most experts agree that Hitler is evil. Should this be stated in the Hitler article? --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Round and round we go. See our existing discussion above, which amply answers these rhetorical questions. BTW, I'm intrigued by the attempt to use the Goldberg quote "The U.S. government has [...] sought to redefine torture [...] to exclude [...] waterboarding" (emphasis mine) to support the claim that "it is widely though not universally considered a form of torture" is "surprising". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I William's opinion, torture is like hot. There are varied scales to it and depending on the severity some people might consider it torture while others would consider it merely unpleasant. He described reading a post I had made as torture once, for example. The problem is that we are all using torture as it is defined in the dictionary and he sees it as a value added term that somehow changes the entire debate and forces us into POV land due to the nature of it. His viewpoint is somewhat supported by his NPR piece, though that article is the subject of widespread scor... dispute in the journalistic community. [[28]] is my favorite commentary of the piece, but I've found 15 or so other articles dealing with the fact that its a load of cr... highly controversial. The majority of those opinion express that journalists call it torture because its torture and not calling a duck a duck does not serve the public interest. I'll argue that not using a commonly defined term to define anything will only serve to confuse. But I view thumbscrews as torture. I view waterboarding as torture. I view the rack as torture. I view the iron maiden as torture. I'd argue that the Iron maiden was a worse torture than waterboarding, for example, but there is no doubt that both fall under the common definition of torture. RTRimmel (talk) 11:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The above comment regarding God and Hitler does not make sense in this context. Hitler is defined as a deceased ruler, God is defined as a deity, and waterboarding (the suffocation of a bound prisoner with water) is a form of torture by all definitions save those concocted by those who wish the U.S. to be able to use it when they wish, against "bad" people. Again, please read the discussion archives in their entirety prior to commenting further. Badagnani (talk) 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding is closer to a college prank then torture but that will not stir the same emotion. Wiki should place a stronger warning on the article about the logical flaws involved in the definition of torture.

It is not fair to continue to call it torture. Liberal ignorance is torture to many persons and rape with a glowing red hot iron poker is most certainly torture that nobody would submit to. The fact that so many would agree to submit to the hazing is evidence that it is not a true torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.250.162 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"This is not for general discussion? Give me a break. The definition of waterboarding is about two sentences. It does not include anything about the liberal hero Obama, not does the definition include Dick Chaney. I am so damn tired of most liberals. Walk and talk like sheep. Why do Liberals think they are the only ones with the right to free speech? That's right, they created censorship and called it "political correctness". Take the crap of the definition, and I will stop commenting on it.LiberalPrisoner (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment on recent edits

A recent edit to the intro by editors wishing modify the blanket statement that "waterboarding is a form of torture" contains the following assertion. "When a waterboard is used to make a person believe he is being killed, its use is considered a form of torture by legal experts" Inducing a fear of drowning is central to the effectiveness of the waterboard. Even the infamous Bybee memorandum, issued in secret by the GW Bush administration in August 2002, concluded "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." [29] Even U.S. special forces soldiers in SERE training, who are highly trained to remain calm in life threatening situations and who know they they are in a carefully monitored exercise, report an uncontrollable belief that they are drowning, and succumb in a matter of seconds.

Perhaps one way forward might be to update the third paragraph of the current article, which summarizes the Bush administration's use of waterboarding, to mention its secret memos that attempted to justify waterboarding by claiming it did not constitute torture under U.S. law and questioned the constitutional authority of the Congress to ban use of torture by the Commander in Chief. It should mention that these memos were subsequently withdrawn by the Bush Justice Department and are no longer the policy of the U.S. Government. --agr (talk) 11:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the following source has been scrubbed from this Wikipedia article:

Goldberg, Elizabeth. Beyond Terror: Gender, Narrative, Human Rights, page 213 (Rutgers University Press 2007): “the U.S. government has, since 9/11, repeatedly sought to redefine torture so as to exclude acts once accepted as torture, such as waterboarding.”

It's one thing to suggest a different way of describing what a source says, and quite another to remove a source altogether.

Additionally, I'm concerned that the lead sentence is an oversimplification. Attorney General Holder, for example, has testified that waterboarding during a training exercise is not torture.[30]

"REP. LUNGREN: [I]s it currently the position of the United States, when we submit our Navy Seals and other Special Operations military personnel to waterboarding as a part of their training, that we are currently subjecting them to torture?

"ATTY GEN. HOLDER: No, that's a -- not in the legal sense. I think that's a fundamentally -- fundamentally different thing. We're doing something for training purposes to try to equip them with the tools to, perhaps, resist torture techniques that might be used on them. There is not the intent to do that which is defined as torture -- which is to inflict serious bodily or mental harm. It's for training. It's different."

Ferrylodge (talk) 12:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the source, but, as indicated above, it actually supports the claim that waterboarding is torture. Do you think it still adds something? The book does not really focus on waterboarding, but on gender issues and human rights and war on terror. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It indicates that the issue is unsettled. As Holder has said, waterboarding is not invariably torture. Also, your quote from the Bybee Memorandum says "the subject is not aware of any of these precautions." So you agree that waterboarding is not torture when the subject is aware of these precautions?Ferrylodge (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem including the Goldberg source, but it is out of date. The US Government now says waterboarding is torture. Of course, a specific use of a torture technique in a limited way on volunteers for training or demonstration purposes need not be torture. That does not make the status of the torture technique itself "unsettled". Finally, as to your last question, a prisoner subjected to waterboarding can't be expected to give much credence to any assertions by his captors that he is actually in no danger and, in any case, the Bybee Memo also says "As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject's body responds as if the subject were drowning—even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning." --agr (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Anyways, Goldberg reinforces that the issue is settled, otherwise the government would not try to "repeatedly redefine" the term torture. As for Holder: a hammer remains a tool, even if I can also use it as ballast for a boat. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When you failed to get concensus here you went to the NPOV notice board. When the statements from the NPOV noticeboard were to categorically advise you that there was not a neutrality issue with defining waterboarding as torture your response was just to go ahead and edit anyway? Are you trying to start an edit war?Simonm223 (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223, are you referring to me? If so, your comment is way out of line. I never started any discussion at the NPOV noticeboard about this. I happened to be at the NPOV noticeboard on another matter, and commented briefly about the waterboard issue.[31] I did so before researching the matter, and before I found the new reference (which has since been scrubbed) by Goldberg. When I inserted the Goldberg reference into this article, I specifically said in my edit summary: "There seems to be a consensus at the talk page that this is an acceptable change (two editors have said so). Feel free to revert, if you explain at talk page. Thanks."[32] So, if your accusations of edit-warring are directed at me, I would appreciate if you would retract them, because they are incorrect.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, my statements were not directed at you Ferrylodge. They were directed at William S. Saturn. Sorry for the confusion.Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Regarding the Goldberg reference, it is:

Goldberg, Elizabeth. Beyond Terror: Gender, Narrative, Human Rights, page 213 (Rutgers University Press 2007): “the U.S. government has, since 9/11, repeatedly sought to redefine torture so as to exclude acts once accepted as torture, such as waterboarding.”

The quoted statement remains very true: “the U.S. government has, since 9/11, repeatedly sought to redefine torture so as to exclude acts once accepted as torture, such as waterboarding.” The Goldberg reference is dated 2007, which is not long ago. Obviously, there has been a change of presidential administrations, but still it is true that “the U.S. government has, since 9/11, repeatedly sought to redefine torture so as to exclude acts once accepted as torture, such as waterboarding.” Also, the definition remains somewhat unclear. Is it "torture" if the captive believes he will get the same treatment as a SERE trainee? The present U.S. Attorney General says "no."[33] The first sentence of this Wikipedia article ought to be modified accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, so the US government has sought (as in "tried") to redefine torture. They have failed, unsurprisingly. And no, your interpretation of Holden is absolutely wrong. That is not what he said. Note his restriction "not in the legal sense" and that the definition of torture for the purpose of the UN Convention Against Torture, e.g. demands that it "is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession[...] ". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of this section, I would support including the Goldberg quote in the third paragraph of our article, adding that the U.S. government no longer takes that view. --agr (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The Goldberg reference indicates that there has been substantial recent controversy about whether or not waterboarding is "torture", and so we shouldn't start out this article by saying unequivocally that it is torture. Also, waterboarding does not invariably cause a person to believe that he or she is dying (see SERE), contrary to the first sentence of this Wikipedia article. Additionally, the statement by Attorney General Holder (not "Holden") also indicates that waterboarding is not invariably torture.

If you would like to clarify in the first sentence whether we are providing a legal definition or not, then that might be helpful as well. Are we?

Furthermore, according to the "Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" (to which the U.S. has been a party since 1994): "the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions." If waterboarding is not done for these purposes, then it clearly is not torture, contrary to the opening sentence of this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Goldberg quote is not indicating "that there has been substantial recent controversy about whether or not waterboarding is torture". Read it. It's a statement about an attempt by the US government to redefine torture. And you are conflating the narrow terms of a particular treaty with the general definition. According to that definition, Al-Qaeda is unable to torture anyone (since they are not "public officials or acting in an official capacity"). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You brought up that particular treaty. If the legal definition is inconsistent with the definition given in the first sentence of this Wikipedia article, then the first sentence of this Wikipedia article ought to say so.

The Goldberg reference is not about "an attempt" by the US government to redefine torture. Rather, it is about repeated attempts, which obviously signifies disagreement with the "torture" designation.

In any event, no one disputes that waterboarding is still allowed in SERE training, and multiple sources say that is not "torture", right? Isn't there some way to clarify the first sentence of this article to take this into account?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Waterboarding is a form of torture that is included in SERE training (which also includes exposure to many other forms of extreme duress). Badagnani (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The position of the U.S. Government is that it is not torture.[34]Ferrylodge (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Almost any nefarious activity has a benign aspect when used in legitimate training activities to prepare people who might encounter the activity. This obvious factoid does not merit mention in the intro of an encyclopedia article about said nefarious activity. Instructors in a woman's self defense course, for example, often subject students to a simulated sexual assault as part of their training], but we certainly would not mention this "exception" in the sexual assault article.

The attempts Goldberg talks about happened in the past and were repudiated by the Bush administration and are not current U.S. policy. I do think the attempts should be mentioned in the intro. Does anyone object to my adding it?--agr (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean repudiated by the "Obama" administration?

The waterboarding that occurs in SERE training is not "simulated waterboarding". It is the real thing. And it is very relevant to the treatment of detainees. See the following source:

Lewis, Michael. “The Jaundiced Eye of the Beholder: The Case For An Objective Definition of Torture,” Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Forthcoming.

Lewis writes: "Any stressor or form of physical treatment that a nation uses in a non-punitive manner on its own trainees would presumptively not be considered torture when used on a detainee."

Thus, scholars like Lewis do not necessarily consider that waterboarding a detainee is always "torture." I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with people like Lewis. All I'm saying is that our lead sentence in this Wikipedia article should not put us in the position of opposing people like Lewis (or opposing Attorney General Holder, or the SERE instructors, or the Bush administration, or any other notable faction).

There are many reliable sources that are not as categorical as we are. For example, see Armacost, Barbara. “Interrogation After 9/11:The Law on the Books and the Law on the Ground,” University of Virginia Law School, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series (2008).

Armacost describes waterboarding as "a form of simulated drowning that many experts define as torture." That's a much more appropriate formulation than the one we use.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Waterboarding used in training is simulated in the sense that the waterboardee has a "code word" they may use to put a stop to the torture. Badagnani (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

More than that: SERE trainees are all volunteers, they are in a simulated prison, they know their simulated captors are actually on their side, the "secrets" they are not supposed to reveal are simulated, they know that in a few days they will be in some bar with their buddies having a great laugh about the whole episode and that they will gain considerable status and career benefits for completing the training. It's all a simulation of what they might expect if they actually are taken prisoner. And, yes, the George W. Bush administration repudiated the Bybee memo and banned the use of waterboarding by the CIA before it left office. Lewis makes it clear he is proposing a new definition of torture, not the one in current use. Thus it has no relevance to our lede, which should reflect waterboarding's current status. (And I trust once Lewis appears in print, other commentators will point out that many regimes will be all to happy to subject some military trainees to their favorite torture techniques, however harsh, if they can then get carte blanche to use them on prisoners.)--agr (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand your position correctly. There are a number of different definitions of torture, including legal and non-legal definitions. The legal and non-legal definitions that invariably classify waterboarding as torture are the correct definitions for use in this article. The legal and non-legal definitions of torture that do not invariably classify waterboarding as torture are either merely proposals, or else do not count for some other reason. Is that a correct summary of your position?

You also seem to be saying that, according to your personal definition, whether something is torture depends to some extent upon whether victims will later "be in some bar with their buddies." That's a perfectly legitimate definition, but it is not the only one, and should not be the voice of this Wikipedia article. According to Lewis, for example, "the experience really is largely the same for trainees and detainees."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Weight and WP:Fringe both apply here. The majority viewpoint is that its a form of torture. The definition of the word torture, by any reasonable standard, applies to waterboarding in its applied (aka non-training) form. The majority of demonstrated use is for torture, save for training. All of legal precedent is that its torture. The fact that it is used as training to prepare troups for torture doesn't change that classification, training a soldier to throw a hand gernade starts off with hand gernade sized weights so an argument that training is the same as the real thing is on its face rediculous. There is a fringe viewpoint that it is not torture, the viewpoint is not credible enough to be repersentated in the openeing sentence of the lede but is repersented further down. Looking through the whole article, its obvious that the viewpoint that its not torture is a: Recent and B. highly controvertial and limited to a small minority, which is covered under WP:Recentism and WP:Undue. The article is encapsulated through the lede and the lede gives a reader a heads up to whats in the article. If you want the 'widely considered a form of torture' in the lede, you'll have to include enough source in the article proper to support that view and a single source isn't enough especially considering the weight of the sources the waterboarding is torture has available. RTRimmel (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will focus on the article proper for awhile. What you say is clearly wrong, and I've just inserted into the article the CIA's assertion that it has not violated any law (i.e. tortured anyone). More to come, when I get a chance.

I do not want to get into any argument about whether waterboarding is invariably torture, because I am not taking a position here about it one way or the other. All I am saying is that there are notable positions on both sides.

One more thing. Wikipedia is not the place for a trial and conviction. CIA agents waterboarded about three detainees, according to my understanding. None of those agents have as yet been convicted of wrongdoing in a court of law. Maybe they should be, or maybe not. But the first sentence of this Wikipedia article says they are guilty. This is WP:Crystal ball at its worst, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

AEB

Wikipedia is written from an international perspective. There is one widely accepted international definition of torture and that is the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified by 146 countries including the United States. Because this is the English Wikipedia we also tend to look at the United States and there the legal definition is 18 USC 2340, which was written to implement UNCAT. The Bush Administration's attempt to justify use of waterboarding revolved around that statute. Those are the definitions currently in force and we have numerous authoritative statements that waterboarding is torture under those definitions. in particular, the President and his Attorney General have stated that waterboarding is torture. Note that a year ago we had to deal with press reports that the US government had secret memos which said waterboarding was not torture. A consensus emerged on this page then that reports of secret memos were not enough to change our lede in the absence of a public statement by the administration that waterboarding was not torture. That never happened. Since then an election took place into the U.S. and a new administration has publicly stated that waterboarding is torture. That settles the matter in the U.S. as to waterboarding's current legal status. That some law professor somewhere suggests the definition should change has no bearing on what the legal status of waterboarding currently is, which is what our lede addresses. And we are talking about legal status in general, not specific cases. Anyone charged with torture for using waterboaring on a prisoner would face trail in which the prosecution would have to prove all the elements of the crime of torture in that specific instance of waterboarding's use. --agr (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But the first sentence of this Wikipedia article says they are guilty. This is WP:Crystal ball at its worst, IMO. No, that's plain wrong. We do not speculate about the future. And the classification of a technique as torture - as well as the factual (as opposed to legally determined) guilt of the people in question - has nothing to do with possible future legal proceedings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the above statement that we are talking about the legal definition of torture. As I said above, my understanding is that:

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 inflicting 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 subjecting 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.

Again That is all. Remember (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should clearly distinguish up front the non-legal definition from legal definitions. So, I inserted: "It is considered a form of torture in common parlance when used for interrogation, although not universally considered torture according to all existing or proposed legal definitions."

I do not think it is nonsensically complicated to distinguish between legal and non-legal definitions, nor between waterboarding for interrogation versus other purposes. The vast majority of waterboarding incidents in the United States are not for interrogation (and the current Attorney General says that is not legally torture). Moreover, characterizing the consistent and repeated views of the Bush Administration as "fringe" is absurd. This article continues to be an attempt to advance a POV and to support conviction of accused interrogators, IMO.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you get away with that at the hammer article? "It is considered a tool in common parlance when used for driving a nail into an object, although not universally considered a tool according to all existing or proposed legal definitions?" Its nonsensical and complicated. Wikipedia WP:RS utilizes 3rd party sources, if the viewpoint is not WP:Fringe you should be able to get non-involved 3rd parties to support the viewpoint that it is not torture in all cases or definitions. Please find some. Asking a member of the Bush administration if waterboarding is torture or not is equivalent to asking a burgler what is classified as property. RTRimmel (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What's nonsensical is to compare a waterboard to a hammer. The hammer article does not call it a torture device, or imply that carpenters should be put in jail.

The following is 100% true and well-sourced, regarding waterboarding: "It is considered a form of torture in common parlance, although not always considered torture according to all proposed legal definitions in all circumstances.[1][2][3]

[1]Lewis, Michael. “The Jaundiced Eye of the Beholder: The Case For An Objective Definition of Torture,” Journal of Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems, Forthcoming. Lewis writes: "Any stressor or form of physical treatment that a nation uses in a non-punitive manner on its own trainees would presumptively not be considered torture when used on a detainee."

[2]Goldberg, Elizabeth. Beyond Terror: Gender, Narrative, Human Rights, page 213 (Rutgers University Press 2007): “the U.S. government has, since 9/11, repeatedly sought to redefine torture so as to exclude acts once accepted as torture, such as waterboarding.”

[3]McCarthy, Andy. "On Torture, Holder Undoes Holder," National Review (2009-05-19). Quoting Attorney General Eric Holder as saying that waterboarding trainees is not torture "in the legal sense."

How about if we stop trying to send people to jail, and start using WP:NPOV?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How about we don't try to issue in Newspeak 25 years late? Neither Lewis nor Goldberg deny that waterboarding is torture. Goldberg is explicitly supporting the fact, Lewis is arguing for a (very stupid, but whatever) new, allegedly objective standard for what should be considered torture with respect to certain international treaties. And drop the jail fixation, please. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is going to dispute resolution. It would have been much more efficient to resolve this matter here, but I think that we are getting nowhere here.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly this topic has been to ArbCom and back. Please see the talk header above. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've brought it to a Notice Board here. None of the references that you've deleted was considered by Arbcom, AFAIK.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the latest attempt to inject non-notable "proposed legal definitions" of torture when there is a internationally accepted definition. See WP:WEIGHT.--agr (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edit and point out that there is already a section in the article that deals with the current legal dispute as to the status of waterboarding as torture is the U.S.A. and that moving this to the leading will be constructed as WP:UNDUE--LexCorp (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to summarize everything in an article. The defintion is disputed, otherwise we wouldn't be having a discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Summarize yes. Change the definition no. You are being disingenuous if you think the disputed edit is in line with WP:LEAD--LexCorp (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It's in line with WP:NPOV. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is not as per WP:undue. By the way I modify my previous statement.--LexCorp (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

How? The lead is not stating that it is not considered torture. It is giving undue weight to the majority position by stating it is universal, which is false. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)None of the three references I cited seems to be proposing a change to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, as opposed to a clearer way for individual nations to abide by it. The United Nations Convention Against Torture does not specifically mention waterboarding, does it? You people are insisting on not just implying a legal conclusion in the lead, but on explicitly stating that same legal conclusion ("Waterboarding use is considered a form of torture by legal experts"), while giving zero weight to those who say waterboarding should not always be considered criminal (i.e. torture).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No it is giving undue weight to the position that it is not universally accepted as torture by making two definitions and stating that it is considered a form of torture.

It is considered a form of torture in common parlance, although not always considered torture according to all proposed legal definitions in all circumstances.

This sentence gives equal weight to the position the it is considered (mind you, not that it is, but that it is considered - already a water down bias statement) a form of torture and making a reference to a WP:fringe legal opinion the product of a well documented current controversy of the status of waterboarding definition as torture within the legal establishment in the U.S.A.

A more in line with Wikipedia Policy lead 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, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding use is considered a form of torture by legal experts, politicians, war veterans, medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations.

In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water, waterboarding precipitates an almost immediate gag reflex. 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, if uninterrupted, death. Adverse physical consequences can start manifesting months after the event; psychological effects can last for years.

In 2007 it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was using waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners and that the United States Department of Justice had authorized the procedure, a revelation that sparked a worldwide political scandal. Al-Qaeda suspects upon whom the CIA is known to have used waterboarding are Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Acording to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles. This recent events have prompted a political dispute within the U.S.A. as to the legal status of waterboarding as a form of torture.

In January 2009 United States President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009 the United States Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g., SERE) purposes. According to officials such as Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr., the waterboard can be used for training without becoming a torture device.

my suggested edit in bold.--LexCorp (talk) 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

AEB1

Look, do we all agree that the present lead not only implies, but explicitly states that waterboarding is legally considered torture? Can we agree that the present lead does that?Ferrylodge (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't share that view. The lead states "Waterboarding use is considered a form of torture by legal experts, politicians, war veterans, medical experts in the treatment of torture victims, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations." This does not explicitly states that waterboarding is legally considered torture. It may implicitly state it but it is well sourced so the synthesis we may form in our minds does not translate into the article. Maybe you mistakenly wrote explicitly when you meant implicitly--LexCorp (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Forget it, I'll just keep on at the NPOV Noticeboard. No point banging my head against the wall at two venues. Suffice it to say, you are presenting one POV in the lead, and censoring out the other. I am no fan of waterboarding, but I am a fan of NPOV. Characterizing the US Government as fringe is ridiculous. Your campaign against waterboarding is admirable, but that does not entitle you to squelch other views here at Wikipedia.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Given that I encountered this dispute by having the NPOV board in my watch-list, having had no previous knowledge of this article. I would think myself as much a fan as you of the NPOV policy. I invite you to study the controversy and dispute in the Intelligent Design article regarding the lead section so that you may find the similarity in arguments regarding WP:fringe and WP:undue enlightening.--LexCorp (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation, but I have no desire to visit that article whatsoever. I am sure Attorney General Holder would appreciate your analogy.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore I resent you accusation of me trying to censor anything. My suggested edit is a good compromise. Why a petty internal political dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding in the U.S.A. has to be featured in the lead of an article about waterboarding in general is beyond me. Why the definition of waterboarding hinges in any way upon said dispute is beyond me. Any WP:NPOV issues are addressed by having within the article a specific section regarding the U.S.A. In fact any unbiased editor would (I think) agree that it is your proposed edit that gives undue weight to a minority view in a current politically motivated dispute in the U.S.A. (as per WP:GEVAL) and not only that but it also fundamentally changes the definition of waterboarding by not stating specifically that waterboarding is torture (thus certainly WP:POV).--LexCorp (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we get back to LexCorp's propose edit? I agree with his intent, but I would replace the text he proposes to add with "To justify its use of waterboarding, the George W. Bush administration issued secret legal opinions that argued for a narrow definition of torture under U.S. law, including the Bybee memo, which it later withdrew." I'd include the Goldberg cite as a reference, along with [35] for the "narrow definition."--agr (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A while back, I floated the idea to start the lede with "Waterboarding is a torture technique that consists of ..." - I'd still support that as an alternative to the more direct statement we have now. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like both suggestions. Agr's is certainly more encyclopedic than my blotched patch job suggestion and Stephan Schulz's does not fundamentally change the definition of waterboarding.--LexCorp (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I like 'torture technique', it is accurate and might eliminate some of the pov pushing we are seeing. "Waterboarding is a torture technique consisting of X. When applied to an unwilling person, waterboarding is a form of torture." RTRimmel (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it's a form of torture when applied to an unwilling person is pretty obvious and probably doesn't need to be spelled out like that. Otherwise, I can definitely get behind calling it a torture technique. --GoodDamon 16:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a better opening sentence than "waterboarding is a form of torture". That's like defining "George W. Bush is an American." It annoyingly states category as if category were definition.--Loodog (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also annoying because it manages to convey POV where there might not be any. Suppose you defined Global Warming as "Global Warming is real." Equally obnoxious.--Loodog (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't agree with the rationalle used by Loodog I would be satisfied with "waterboarding is a torture techinique" rather than "waterboarding is torture" as a compromise position.Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

People have asserted at the NPOV Noticeboard that I went there "forum shopping" and therefore people are apparently refusing to discuss the matter there, and are instead bringing the matter back here. I find this absurd. People bring matters from an article talk page to Notice boards all the time, and no one says it's forum shopping. But since you people insist on hurling these accusations of forum shopping at the NPOV Noticeboard, and since you insist on conducting the conversation further here, I have no choice (I guess) to respond here.

Whether you call waterboarding a form of torture, or instead call it a torture technique is irrelevant, since it means the same thing.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok please address the following:

1. The distinction of Waterboarding and the current dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A.

2. The relevance of the current dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A. in relation to the definition of waterbording as torture. Consider WP:undue

3. Why stating that waterboarding is torture must automatically be perceived by all editors as taking positions in the current dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A. Given that Wikipedia is universal and an hypothetical editor from a country where torture is not a crime will not perceive any criminal implications with the current definition.

4. Why it is POV to relegate the discussion of the current dispute as to the legal status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A. into its own section.

5. Why it is POV to summarize that section in the lead as per WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE.

6. What relevance does have WP:BLP to this article?. How will the content of a Wikipedia article influence the fate of hypothetical or real people accused of torture in the U.S.A.? Is Wikipedia in general and this article in particular authority in U.S.A judiciary matters? Is it the aim of Wikipedia to be authority in U.S.A judiciary matters?

7. Are Wikipedia articles courts of law where information must be presented by a prosecutor and a defense?. And what Wikipedia policy relates to this. I plead complete ignorance of such policy. There is a WP:NPOV policy and WP:Undue is a fundamental part.

8. Is Wikipedia a encyclopedia or a current events gazette? Should age long established definitions be subject to change due to temporal current controversies or should articles fully reflect those controversies within the article?

These are but a few of the arguments and clarifications put to you and other editors with POV problem. It seems to me that you have ignored most of them. So just in case I am dense could you please address each one and provide when possible supporting Wikipedia policies to your views.--LexCorp (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The CIA did waterboarding, and there is currently a public debate about whether there will be prosecutions. The CIA has consistently denied any unlawful behavior, as has the Bush administration. The present lede mentions that the CIA has waterboarded, but omits the CIA’s denial of unlawful activity. All I’m saying is that both sides should be presented.

The first sentence of this Wikipedia article cites a source about language in American politics, asserting that waterboarding is torture. I inserted that source because the first sentence had no source at all. Waterboarding was not believed to be torture in all cases by the CIA, the Bush administration, and a minority of scholars. The vast majority of the sources cited in the lede refer to U.S. practice, and the notability of this topic primarily arises from the controversy in the U.S.

2. The definition of torture in U.N. conventions is not entirely unambiguous, and does not explicitly mention waterboarding, right? Therefore, the definition needs to be interpreted and supplemented by individual nations. As far as I know, there is no universal legal definition of waterboarding as torture, either in the U.S. or internationally. You agree that torture is not illegal in all countries, right? Then why do you insist that waterboarding is always torture in all countries?

3. Everyone knows that the notability of this subject is primarily due to the U.S. controversy. The lead says so. Plus, the only cite for the first sentence is to a book about language in U.S. politics. So, people will automatically interpret the lead sentence as being applicable to the U.S. The lead sentence does not say "in some countries"; it is referring to all countries.

4. The lead should summarize what’s in the article, and “relegated” sections are not immune from this requirement.

5. It is not POV to summarize in the lead as per WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE that some do not consider waterboarding to always be torture.

6. If Wikipedia has an article on Drug use by Michael Jackson, it should not begin by saying that Jackson’s (unnamed) doctors illegally prescribed drugs to him. Maybe they did, but no one has yet been convicted. Likewise, this article should not begin by saying that people who waterboard are criminals. That is effectively how this article currently begins. It may turn out to be a correct statement, but the cite I inserted by William Safire at the end of the first sentnece is only one POV.

7. “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone….”[36]

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising."[37]

8. William Safire’s dictionary of American politics is not a long-established definition. I inserted Safire’s definition, but then when I tried to insert other views I was prohibited.

Ferrylodge (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The CIA did waterboarding, and there is currently a public debate about whether there will be prosecutions. The CIA has consistently denied any unlawful behavior, as has the Bush administration. The present lede mentions that the CIA has waterboarded, but omits the CIA’s denial of unlawful activity. All I’m saying is that both sides should be presented.

Good god I think we got it. I complete agree with you. By all means insert the denial of the CIA in the lead. That is good NPOV editing. I hope that solves the problem.

The first sentence of this Wikipedia article cites a source about language in American politics, asserting that waterboarding is torture. I inserted that source because the first sentence had no source at all. Waterboarding was not believed to be torture in all cases by the CIA, the Bush administration, and a minority of scholars. The vast majority of the sources cited in the lede refer to U.S. practice, and the notability of this topic primarily arises from the controversy in the U.S.

Alas this is the "Waterboarging" article not the "Waterboarding within the U.S.A" article thus your concerns are addressed by including a specific section for U.S.A. issues.

2. The definition of torture in U.N. conventions is not entirely unambiguous, and does not explicitly mention waterboarding, right? Therefore, the definition needs to be interpreted and supplemented by individual nations. As far as I know, there is no universal legal definition of waterboarding as torture, either in the U.S. or internationally. You agree that torture is not illegal in all countries, right? Then why do you insist that waterboarding is always torture in all countries?

Forget legal definitions. Legal definitions are not authority when it comes to Wikipedia. Multiple sources state waterboarding to be torture. As stated before legal definitions are important as to the position of any particular county's legal system as to the legality or illegality of waterboarding in its own or as torture. If you feel this is of relevance to the article then open a section titled as Countries whose legal system do not acknowledge waterboarding as torture and then list any country that fits the description. What you are doing is changing the meaning of waterboarding just because it is not legally considered a form of torture in some particular legal system.

3. Everyone knows that the notability of this subject is primarily due to the U.S. controversy. The lead says so. Plus, the only cite for the first sentence is to a book about language in U.S. politics. So, people will automatically interpret the lead sentence as being applicable to the U.S. The lead sentence does not say "in some countries"; it is referring to all countries.

I disagree (see Spanish Inquisition). Furthermore current political dispute should not be the primary editorial drive of an encyclopedia article. You may suffer from US centrism. I am Spanish and I make no such assumption. Wikipedia is an international project and does not cater to particular U.S.A sensibilities.

4. The lead should summarize what’s in the article, and “relegated” sections are not immune from this requirement.

agree when done as per WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE as my suggestion edit bears example.

5. It is not POV to summarize in the lead as per WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE that some do not consider waterboarding to always be torture.

agree when done as per WP:LEAD, WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE as my suggestion edit bears example and specifically by not changing the definition of wasterboarding due to minority views.

6. If Wikipedia has an article on Drug use by Michael Jackson, it should not begin by saying that Jackson’s (unnamed) doctors illegally prescribed drugs to him. Maybe they did, but no one has yet been convicted. Likewise, this article should not begin by saying that people who waterboard are criminals. That is effectively how this article currently begins. It may turn out to be a correct statement, but the cite I inserted by William Safire at the end of the first sentnece is only one POV.

The lead lead does not state that. Your bias views make that conclusion.--LexCorp (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

7. “Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone….”[38]

You are the one advocating court room parlace. Not me. Glad you agree.--LexCorp (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising."[39]

Also agree. The lead doesn't do that nor does the article.

8. William Safire’s dictionary of American politics is not a long-established definition. I inserted Safire’s definition, but then when I tried to insert other views I was prohibited.

The reason was not doubt WP:undue

--LexCorp (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

Ferrylodge, at this point it sounds like you're not going to be happy unless the article lede doesn't refer to the practice as factually torture, presumably based on your idea that calling it torture (factual definition) is tantamount to Wikipedia declaring it illegal (legal definition). But I believe consensus is firmly against you on this. So I'd like to see a straw poll on using the term "torture technique" as a compromise that leaves room for alternate uses of that technique (say, SERE training, for instance).

• Support - I think it's a good compromise. --GoodDamon 17:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - The lede should mention that the Bush administration and CIA have denied that the waterboarding technique used by its interrogators was torture, which would be illegal under U.S. law. Okay? Is that so difficult to say? Not only is this information carefully omitted from the lede, but also the first sentence of the article denies it.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the first sentence of the article says that "[w]aterboarding is a form of torture," no more, no less. Certainly, a reader could extrapolate from that the idea that since torture is illegal, anyone who waterboards prisoners is guilty of breaking the law. They are welcome to make that extrapolation. Or not. It's up to them. NOT US. We state, without weaseling around, exactly what the mainstream view of waterboarding is, according to reliable sources. Significant alternate views should be in the article too, but they should be treated as the minority and even fringe views that they are. They should not be weighed so heavily that they appear in the lede. --GoodDamon 18:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with your apparent willingness to have the lead of this article discuss the CIA at some length, without bothering to mention that the CIA has consistently denied that they have tortured anyone. You are picking and choosing only the facts favorable to your POV for the lead. The CIA may be lying or wrong or whatever, but their POV is clearly notable enough for the lead along with the other stuff you've put in the lead about the CIA.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I never said I wanted the CIA stuff in the lede. In fact, I would rather the lede be kept smaller and kept strictly to an overview of what waterboarding is. But that's not what this straw poll is about. --GoodDamon 23:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If the CIA's denial is in the lead or anywhere else in the present article, that denial would contradict the first sentence of this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WHAT?. Certainly not. It will just express the views of the CIA as you said just 2 comments above. So again it is your thesis that if the CIA expresses doubt as to the status of waterboarding as torture in the U.S.A then we should disregard any other view and just modify the definition according to the CIA. That is nuts and it shows you do not have any intention of reaching consensus unless the article defines waterboarding as not torture.--LexCorp (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You know very well that that is not my thesis.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I may be loosing my mind here but it looks as if you just said that it the above comment. Anyway will you please state categorically that you will be happy with an edit in the third paragraph that reports the views of the CIA so as to balance with the info in said paragraph and that you will also in that case accept the suggestion put forward by this straw poll?--LexCorp (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The proposal above says that consensus is against the idea that "calling it torture (factual definition) is tantamount to Wikipedia declaring it illegal (legal definition)." In that case, no one should have any problem at all adding a word or two to the first sentence clarifying that it is not a legal definition.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a point but it seems pointless as it is clear this is a circular discussion we are having here.--LexCorp (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it will remain circular until someone gives a plausible reason why we cannot add a word or two to the first sentence clarifying that it is not a legal definition.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, in any circumstances, clarify what something is not. The opening does not even remotely suggest that this article is about a legal term so we do not need to clarify that it isnt. --neon white talk 01:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support - It allows for the wiggle room to accommodate atypical uses (i.e. not every use of a torture technique must be (legal) torture) without watering down the definition too much, and without white-washing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support - It's a good compromise.Simonm223 (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• obsolete read below - Support - It's not perfect but a good compromise. And as a bonus I agree with Ferrylodge in that the CIA denial of criminal activity should be present in the third paragraph as long as the definition of waterboarding does not change fundamentally by not mentioning explicitly or as proposed here by way of "torture technique" that it is torture.---LexCorp (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ferrylodge has stated he will not settle for a compromise and his unwillingness to consider WP:UNDUE as a reason to oppose his suggested edit means that the "torture technique" edit will be useless as to the aim of finding a more broad consensus version of the lead. Thus I agree with neon white in that there is not reason to compromise the integrity of the article when no gain is made neither in consensus nor in stability of the lead.--LexCorp (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support A reasonable compromise. We should also mention in the third paragraph the Bush Administrations attempts to narrow the def of torture as I suggested above. I believe the CIA is relying on those opinions providing a legal shield for their past actions and is not contradicting the President and Attorney Gerenal's statements as to waterboarding's current status.--agr (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The lead sentence does not describe or define waterboarding. It labels it as a form of torture without otherwise describing or defining it -- and is a great example of weasel wording. htom (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Query: I think the lede sentence we are proposing will read "Waterboarding is a torture technique 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, causing the captive to believe he or she is dying.[1] By forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensation of drowning." How does that not define or describe? What would you suggest changing?--agr (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply I would replace those sentences with "It is believed that 'Waterboarding', as alleged to have been done during the Bush administration, is a process done to a prisoner wherein they are restrained with their head lower than their shoulders, and their face is then made wet with water, to simulate the experience of drowning. The mind understands that this is a simulation, but the brain does not, producing only the feelings of suffocation and eminent death. Properly done, there is little risk of actual physical damage to the subject, although the feelings are extremely intense. There are other processes also called or confused for this type of waterboarding which are much more dangerous to the subject that involve actual suffocation and forced water inhalation. It is important to note that the actual practices involved are classified and not publicly stated; what is known or believed has been stated by those who are speculating, perhaps with motives other than the strictest possible accuracy in encyclopedia articles." But that's not going to happen, and I add this only because I was asked. htom (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hooboy... Where to begin? Words like "believed," "alleged," and "process" as used here are weasel words meant to soften and undermine the definition, aside from being incorrect (the Bush administration already admitted it waterboarded people, there's nothing "alleged" about it) and contrary to the sources (no one calls it a "process," they all call it "torture"). The rest is just plain wrong. "The mind understands that this is a simulation, but the brain does not, producing only the feelings of suffocation and eminent death." What does that even mean? None of the sources confer a magical understanding on the victims of waterboarding that everything is hunky-dory. There is no evidence the victims were carefully briefed on what was going to happen to them, so that's a big chunk of original research, there. --GoodDamon 06:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's traditional to begin by assuming good faith. htom (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

This is complete chickenshit. It's not supported by any reliable source, even in Lalaland. Please take this as an official reminder that the article is under ArbCom restrictions and disruptive behavior is not acceptable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as official namecalling and go away, again. Who was it that said "In science, any compromise between a correct statement and a wrong statement is a wrong statement."? Good that Wikipedia isn't science. htom (talk) 14:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked htom what he would suggest for a lede and he responded. Clearly people have strong opinions but this discussion has been quite civil. Please, can we keep it that way?--agr (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, it's not necessary to use the word "torture" in an "is" statement in the lead. This is not a compromise, it's just a continuation of the problem. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Compromising with political POV pushers only compromises the integrity of wikipedia. In this case calling it a technique is incorrect as the article's subject is much more than simply a technique. --neon white talk 01:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, it looks like there is insufficient consensus for my proposed addition of the word "technique," and even less consensus for taking waterboarding's status as torture out of the lede. Ferrylodge and others, I would like to request the page be unlocked, but only if you agree that consensus is against you and there's no point in continuing this discussion further. Otherwise, we'll just be opening ourselves up to an edit war. Agreed? If so, I'd like to move on to discussing the third and fourth paragraphs. --GoodDamon 06:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep original wording - it is entirely accurate and properly sourced. Badagnani (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there's no consensus for any changes, I've requested unprotection of the page. I'm pretty sure everyone here would rather talk about something else now. :) --GoodDamon 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have found this wikipedia essay (WP:RECENTISM) that basically nails down the underlying problem being discussed in this long section. I recommend all editor who are interested in NPOV, content and consensus issues to read it.--LexCorp (talk) 11:12, 19 July 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)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/index.html Obviously, a large percentage (29% according to this poll) of the United States population believes that waterboarding is not torture. This obviously is NOT a "fringe minority opinion", and as such should be at least recognized in the article. The current definition in the beginning of the article is akin to writing that "Abortion is the murder of unborn babies" in the Abortion article. Waterboarding is an issue where there are multiple mainstream points of view, and Wikipedia requires that the article be written in NPOV, without taking sides. 173.68.190.221 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing popular opinion (29% of polled americans think its not torture) with what we use to write this encyclopedia which is Reliable Sources. The RS's say its torture, ALL the doctors say its torture, ALL the american armed forces JAGS say its torture, ALL human rights experts say its torture and the European court of human rights says its torture. Remember 50%+ of americans believe in UFO's and Ghosts but we don't use that view to write this encyclopedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The poll itself is a reliable source. NPOV must represent viewpoints to reflect the proportions of people who believe a certain viewpoint. Even if 100% of "experts" said it is torture, you still couldn't say that in the article, because it blatantly contradicts a widely held definition. This is purely an issue of semantics--how "torture" is defined, so the only data that should be applied are polls on usage and the only experts that should be used should be linguists. Courts are not experts (they are regional anyway--that's a LEGAL issue), doctors, and everyone else are not linguists and don't determine the definitions of things. Even if you're talking about legal definitions (I don't think there are many legal systems that formally define it), you would have to specify "in this country, such and such legal authority determined it is illegal there." Otherwise, if we were living in the era of Dred Scott, we'd have to use the court as an "expert" to determine the "fact" that African Americans are property. And we should avoid stating that this is "fact," when definitions are purely human made and arbitrary. There is no inherit "right" or "wrong" definition to assign to the symbols "t o r t u r e."

We actually are required to represent views on UFOs and ghosts in proportion to their belief in the general populationl. Remember, consensus on Wikipedia (years ago) has definitively rejected the notion that we use "scientific POV." That policy has been proposed and rejected long ago. It is NPOV (not SPOV or EPOV [expert]), meaning we don't give special preference to any views over others as long as they're within the context that we're writing. In a section specifically covering science, you can stick to scientific views, but not otherwise. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 15:02, 29 June 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)

We should also take away "Canada is a country" while we're at it. Which also would be a violation according to Loodog. Xmzx (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No one disagrees on the definition of "country," so that analogy doesn't work. -Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Not a single person disagrees what a country entitles? I'm pretty sure there are some lunatics out there who'd disagree. Should we change ALL definitions because a select few wack jobs think so? Xmzx (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Argument from personal experience

Waterboarding is not torture. It does not inflict any pain. My expertise on this simple subject is based on the fact that I have experienced the process. I am not at all unique in this since it is commonly a part of U.S. Special Forces training and has even been performed on news reporters, memorialized on video tape. I would characterize my experience with waterboarding as frightening. As one who suffers from mild acrophobia, I would rank waterboarding more frightening than a root canal and less frightening than a roller coaster ride. I can understand how some might find it terrifying particularly in a hostile interrogation context. However, it involves no physical pain and the psychological trauma from my first experience with a school-yard bully left a greater residual effect. I am going to go out on limb here and suggest that none of you have ever been waterboarded. I would also suspect that your third party sources have also never experienced it. So, with all due respect, those with no tangible experience with a subject have no basis to opine and should certainly not attempt to authoritatively define it to others. --98.64.245.237 (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a) your personal experience is atypical (warned, for a short time, under benign control), b) you are not a reliable source for our purposes, and c) you claim that our "third party sources have also never experienced it" is both wrong and irrelevant. Hitchens and Muller, both staunch defenders of the "No torture" position at the time, had it done to them, and both changed their mind. See Waterboarding#Controversy over classification as torture in the United States. But moreover, I bet most of the commentators have also never been electroshocked, or put on the rack, or have thumbscrews applied, and yet no-body claims they are unable to classify those techniques as torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, talk is cheap. Anyone can claim to have been waterboarded and had a good or bad experience with no substantiating proof. We cannot take the word of anonymous editors as being verifiable evidence that we can incorporate into an article. Remember (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)