Talk:Liam Holden

Use of the word "torture" in a heading

I don't dispute that waterboarding is torture, but I think it is misleading to use the word as a section heading to summarise the whole incident as the only evidence that waterboarding occurred was the subject's own testimony - we can't rely on this as fact, he could easily have lied. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this really for serious? The whole history of this involves the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC)investigation into the treatment of prisoners in the Troubles and the basis of the Court of Appeal's judgement was in fact that he was tortured. The court accepted his testimony. Of course I am reverting and I will proceed directly to a dispute resolution if you revert again. Multiple sources describe Holden as "tortured". See WP:V 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I am serious. Just because the court "accepted his testimony" doesn't mean it's gospel, it still might not be true. I'm not saying we shouldn't include his testimony, we just shouldn't portray it as irrefutable fact. I wouldn't go making threats about DR or anything like that seeing as you just crashed over the 3RR finish line... but I'm heading to the noticeboard anyway to get a third opinion. If consensus forms to include the term, fair enough. If not, I'd ask you to respect it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What noticeboard please? It would have been more appropiate to ask for a third opinion on the Talk page here. Wikipdia doesn't portray anything as irrefutable fact. The model is that there must be reliable sources which support an assertion. Here the assertion is that he was tortured and as I keep reiterating there are multiple RS which support just that. Moreover that was the judgement of the Appeal Court. This looks like a newbie hit to me. 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "newbie hit"? I left you a message on your talk page to inform you of the discussion. The sources you're referring to all make it clear that "torture" is simply a claim made by the victim, through such methods as using quotation marks in the titles to denote that it's just his claim. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Liam_Holden 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Your original revert was "this is controversial and divisive - best to leave it to the reader to decide whether his treatment constitutes "torture"" i.e. to say you were querying not the validity of his testimony but whether the abuse he received was "torture". But the court did accept it was torture and you start your comments here by saying that you accept that i.e. to say you flip-flop on the issue and shift the goal posts. 193.150.8.156 (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There are no "goalposts", this isn't a battle. I just gave my honest opinion. And it is best to let the reader decide whether his treatment constitutes torture; part of that process is allowing the reader to decide what acts actually occurred. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Changed heading

Per the outcome of a WP:DRN thread, where the IP editor above appeared to actually agree with the change I was implementing, I've changed the heading to the agreed text of "Arrest and interrogation". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I am disappointed to find I need to return here. I asked you not change the heading without canvassing the opinion of the originating editor. The moderator asked us to "drop the stick". You did neither of these things but rather picked the stick up again and gave the stinking carcass another blow. Will you please respect the decision of the WP:DRN and leave well alone. 78.129.156.87 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, at dispute resolution, in this comment, you said you agreed with my proposed change. The discussion was closed here at the dispute resolution noticeboard because you said you thought the heading was better the way I suggested it, and thus there was no further dispute; as such I was respecting the discussion outcome. You're the one who's come back to stir up the dispute again when you claimed you were happy with the proposed change last time. How are we supposed to work this out if you're just going to stymie third party input by claiming one thing in a content discussion, but another on the article talk page? Three things are going to happen now:

1. I'm reverting as you're apparently just doing this for the sake of conflict.
2. I'm requesting a third opinion.
3. If you revert again I'll go to WP:RPP, with the diffs I've provided above, and request the article be semi-protected.

For the final time, what is your position? What heading do you think is more appropriate, and why? If you believe it should include the word "torture", can you please explain why your position has changed since you made that comment at WP:DRN? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My position is that "Arrest and torture" is the appropiate heading. From the point of view of soapboxing "Arrest and interrogation" would be more appropiate but, as always, you misunderstand that issue too. You seem unable to frame a coherent argument. Your third party appears to have declined. It is you who are reverting edits. I will restore your revert and further reverts. Will you please now drop the stick. 184.170.131.9 (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever. I made the change, you're reverting. Check the revision history. You must have a lot of time on your hands to do so much edit stalking. Since you've dramatically U-turned since the discussion at DRN, but still haven't explained why you think the torture heading is more appropriate, I'm heading to WP:3O. The result of input there will decide what the title will be. You can try and misconstrue this any way you want, but ultimately all anyone has to do is click on the diffs I've provided above to see what's going on here. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I closed the DRN thread because both of you agreed to the "Arrest and interrogation" and I fully expected that would become the subhead. When I said "drop the stick" I was quite clearly only referring to conduct issues not the issue of what the subhead should be. I said, "Both editors agree that 'Arrest and interrogation' is the better heading. All that remains are conduct issues and questions and this noticeboard is only for content issues. If you really want some advice or comment upon the conduct issues, then WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U is the proper venue, but it appears to me that both of you have made your point and that it might be better to just drop the stick." (Emphasis added.) I agree with both of you: "Arrest and interrogation" is clearly the better, less provocative subhead and I can see no reason for this edit war to continue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The article, and particularly the arrest and interrogation section, reads quite well. The text is neutral and cited; Ian Cobain's Guardian piece (reference 5) is thorough and careful in its claims. Basalisk is correct, above, that Cobain never claims in his voice that "torture" or even "waterboarding" occurred in this case. He instead provides fact after fact leading the reader to a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence. Without a credible, evidence-based statement in a reliable source that torture occurred, I don't think we can say it did in wikipedia's voice. We can instead take Cobain's approach, providing sourced facts leading the reader to a pretty clear conclusion. I understand and sympathize with the IP's view, which probably aligns with my personal evaluation of what happened forty-odd years ago. Yet, direct accusations of torture are not for us to make . So, the current heading "Arrest and interrogation" seems perfect.Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Commission or Convention?

The article seems to confuse the European Commission on Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights