Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Inclined vs. tilted - a trivial issue

User 12.46.25.232 has replaced "inclined downward" with "tilted downward" (see revision comparison here) claiming the original phrasing is an "oxymoron" (which makes no sense to me). When I look up the word "inclined" I often find that "tilted" is a synonym. "Tilted" as an adjective often has "incline" as a synonym. Neither word indicates direction indicating to me that the additional adjective of "downward" in the original context is needed with both words to clarify the body's position. Any comments as to which word is more accurate or stylistically preferred? When I think of the head being "tilted" I picture it bent at the neck, whereas "inclined" would refer to the position of the entire body. Not worth going to war over this, but since my original reversion back to "inclined" was reverted by the same user, I thought it worth seeking comments. If you think this is too trivial, just don't comment - I'll leave "tilted" in the interim. -- Quartermaster (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is torture intro and creation of FAQ on talk page

It appears that the lead will forever be brought up again and again. Because this seems to be a neverending issue, I was wondering whether we should do a FAQ at the top of this talk page so we can convey the current consensus and what is needed to change consensus. What do other people think? Remember (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post something about a FAQ, as there seem to be a definite need. :-) In the middle of the arbitration case, one was started but it was unfortunately never finished.

What are your opinions on the current proposal at Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ? Once we're happy with the wording, it can be linked from the talk page. henrik•talk 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting the FAQ on the actual talk page itself and not just as a link (as is done on the Obama page Talk:Barack Obama. Any views on this?Remember (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

FAQ is a great idea, well done editors. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I would have no objections to using the same style as is used on the Obama page, it seems quite good. henrik•talk 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. On a side note, gosh, this page got small. Lawrence § t/e 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That's because that huge section listing all the sources regarding whether it was or was not tortured got removed, which leads to my next question. Should we put those sources back up on the talk page indefinitely or at least have a permanent link to those sources in the FAQ box?Remember (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking a subpage, like Talk:Waterboarding/Sources as a repository. Every time anything new gets posted (here or on the article), even if we don't use it in the article long term, we can create a sort of Waterboarding bibliography. No policies say we can't, and it will only be a benefit. Just a straight dump, even ("Here are 500 sources on waterboarding!"). We can always parse them out later and use them as needed. Lawrence § t/e 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Remember (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Please don't continue to split the sources. I think that would make four distinct sources pages. Please use Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't split up sources onto different pages but is the Waterboarding/Definition page the best page for this information. Alternatively we could always do something like List of sources discussing waterboarding as an article (but maybe it is not notable enough). Remember (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - No matter what the justification, splitting sources into four distinct pages is not good. Talk:Waterboarding/Definition contains the numbered list. Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How about we use definition as the final home (since so much is there) and we can use /sources as a workspace to dump found links into, until they can be sorted/parsed into definition? Sort of like this workspace I've been working off heavily this week for another article. Lawrence § t/e 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think Talk:Waterboarding/Sources is a fine idea. To consolidate everything, we can grab all of the sources from Talk:Waterboarding/Definition and move them to the new subpage (and then archive Talk:Waterboarding/Definition). List of sources discussing waterboarding wouldn't pass an MfD, I think, so this list needs to remain in talk space. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I don't have any particular viewpoint towards waterboarding (yet), but this entry seems to carry an obvious bias. "Consensus view" is argumentum ad populum. I'm not understanding why it needs to be declared as torture--if it is really torture then the facts/arguments/history should speak for themselves, and users can come up with their own conclusions whether it is really or not. I find the neutrality highly suspect. Sugaki 05:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, "is a form of torture" is used on many other articles, for example these ones: Bastinado Strappado Music torture Dental torture Dunking and Denailing - that phrase is nothing unique to this article and seems to be fairly uncontroversial there. As for this article, the goal is to reflect the published views among relevant experts, and the vast majority of published opinions by medical, legal and military experts describe it as torture. There is a distinct lack of sources from qualified experts that claim the opposite. Do you have new sources that haven't been incorporated yet, if you do, we'd be happy to consider them. (here are most that have been found by the current set of editors) henrik•talk 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and created the page Talk:Waterboarding/Sources so that we can have one definitive place where we keep all sources on how reliable sources categorize waterboarding as torture or not torture. Since Badagnani said that the definitions page held all of the definitive sources, I cut and pasted them from there. Remember (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Footnote addition

All, I added the following footnote at the begining after the word torture end of the first sentence so that people can easily locate all of the information on this topic if that is what they are looking for right at the beginning of their search. If people object to this addition, then I suggest the information simply be moved to the end of the sentence so that it can serve its function there. Nevertheless, I will concede to consensus if people don't want this. I just thought it would be helpful. Remember (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision - Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.

I'm not too hot about the idea in general, as it gives too much weight to the US debate. But your version has problems beyond my basic dislike: It points back into talk space, which is not acceptable, and it contains the self-referential "Wikipedians have tried...". Just think about how you could source this statement from reliable sources... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no way to source this statement from reliable sources because the part that I refer to on wikipedia is only on wikipedia. It is a table to try to provide a list of every source on the topic. But I will revise. Remember (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "whoosh". If we cannot source it, we cannot include it in the article. The (annoying, impractical, ... I know) correct way is to reference the sources directly.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit confused about what "whoosh" means. I understand the rule that everything must be verifiable, but in this situation I am not stating a fact about waterboarding, I am telling people where to find further information in wikipedia about waterboarding. One does not need a source to say "see definition on wikitionary" and link to that. I am a bit confused regarding your position on this. Remember (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The whoosh part is about the sourcing. If we cannot source something, we cannot include it. I know that we have collected an impressive list of sources. But we cannot just dump them into the talk: space and point the reader there. Apart from problems with WP:OR (how can the reader know that we did a good job there?), it also is akin to breaking the fourth wall. Only the main space is the encyclopedia. Talk is a tool to help us build an encyclopedia by talking about the topics, but it can never be part of the encyclopedia proper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This part has been revised. As to the US weight part, I don't really see how it gives it too much weight since all it does is point people to where they can find the information in the article and does not take one side or the other.Remember (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that it elevates the short-term US debate to the same level as the centuries of unanimous expert opinion. It's a bit like including "but creationists disagree, see creation-evolution debate" to every date older than 10000 years ago. Again, this neutral statement does not take sides, but it elevates the small dissent out of proportion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

How about I just move it to the end of the sentence that way it doesn't specifically footnote torture, but just shows people the support for the first sentence and where to find further information regarding the support. Just so you know I fully support the current consensus I just think that a first time reader would find a first reading of this article to be organized in an odd way. Remember (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest we wait a bit and see what other people think. It's time to go to bed in this part of the world, anyways... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't link to a Talk page from a Wikipedia article. That's a bright line rule. Many sites mirror Wikipedia content, but they do not have access to the Talk namespace. One possibility would be to have a separate article on the controversy in the U.S. Otherwise, we just have to include the sources in the article, as we did before.--agr (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will remove that portion. Remember (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Indexing the archives

If someone has some time on their hands they might want to index the rather substantial archives using User:HBC Archive Indexerbot.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I knew how to do that, I certainly would. Quick off-topic note: I just spent a couple hours reading through the archives, and I have to say, I'm amazed at the doggedness of the crew on top of this article, particularly Badagnani, t, henrik, user:Neon white and --Akhilleus. I don't mean to leave anyone out, those are just the ones that stood out fighting off the hordes of sockpuppets and so forth. I thought y'all could use some props for that--I bet it's gets pretty dark in the trenches sometimes.Russell Abbott (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. ;) - t § t/e

New article discussing etymology

See [1]. It claims that the single word form ("waterboarding," as opposed to "water boarding") was coined by Alan Dershowitz. Badagnani (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Great article, with lots of sources, could be the basis of an etymology section. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think an etymology section is needed as the origin of the word seems to be known, recent, undisputed, and claimed by the author. An etymology section is useful if there are several theories as to a word origin. The first sentence of this article might read: Waterboarding is a euphemism for water torture the authorship of which is claimed by Alan Dershowitz I personally think most of this article should be in the Water torture article, with an explanation of the term waterboarding embeded in it. Perhaps a section of the water torture article could be titled 'euphemisms for watertorture'.Geo8rge (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I think a short etymology section would be most useful.Remember (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is a euphemism for water torture the authorship of which is claimed by Alan Dershowitz. What more is needed than one sentence. Since Dershowitz claims he coined the term I suggest it should be the first sentence. BTW, what was this called before the Global War on Terror?Geo8rge (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's obviously quite a bit more about the history of the term, and the move between older terms, the term with a space, and the term as a single word, in the article, as you can read. Have you read it straight through? Badagnani (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section on the etymology of the term based on these articles. The references still need to be cleaned up so if someone could do that, it would be helpful. Let me know what people think. Remember (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

New article on Hitchens undergoing waterboarding

Vanity Fair has a new article by Christopher Hitchens where he undergoes waterboarding and comments on it. article here. Might have some useful stuff in there. Remember (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Something that stands out immediately is that Hitchens had to sign a waiver which read in part:

“Water boarding” is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body.

That meets the definition of torture in the Bybee memo, doesn't it? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But he also writes:

Maybe I am being premature in phrasing it thus. Among the veterans there are at least two views on all this, which means in practice that there are two opinions on whether or not “waterboarding” constitutes torture. I have had some extremely serious conversations on the topic, with two groups of highly decent and serious men, and I think that both cases have to be stated at their strongest.

The team who agreed to give me a hard time in the woods of North Carolina belong to a highly honorable group. This group regards itself as out on the front line in defense of a society that is too spoiled and too ungrateful to appreciate those solid, underpaid volunteers who guard us while we sleep. These heroes stay on the ramparts at all hours and in all weather, and if they make a mistake they may be arraigned in order to scratch some domestic political itch. Faced with appalling enemies who make horror videos of torture and beheadings, they feel that they are the ones who confront denunciation in our press, and possible prosecution. As they have just tried to demonstrate to me, a man who has been waterboarded may well emerge from the experience a bit shaky, but he is in a mood to surrender the relevant information and is unmarked and undamaged and indeed ready for another bout in quite a short time. When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl? On this analysis, any call to indict the United States for torture is therefore a lame and diseased attempt to arrive at a moral equivalence between those who defend civilization and those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out, and ultimately to bring it down. I myself do not trust anybody who does not clearly understand this viewpoint.

(bolding added) htom (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• What he is trying to say is that "those who defend civilization" by definition are incapable of torture -it's what makes them the "good guys"- whereas "those who exploit its freedoms to hollow it out" by definition engage in torture. The real question of course is would the US find it acceptable if US soldiers were "entertained" in this manner?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And he also writes (Remember (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)):

Steeling myself to remember what it had been like last time, and to learn from the previous panic attack, I fought down the first, and some of the second, wave of nausea and terror but soon found that I was an abject prisoner of my gag reflex. The interrogators would hardly have had time to ask me any questions, and I knew that I would quite readily have agreed to supply any answer. I still feel ashamed when I think about it. Also, in case it’s of interest, I have since woken up trying to push the bedcovers off my face, and if I do anything that makes me short of breath I find myself clawing at the air with a horrible sensation of smothering and claustrophobia. No doubt this will pass. As if detecting my misery and shame, one of my interrogators comfortingly said, “Any time is a long time when you’re breathing water.” I could have hugged him for saying so, and just then I was hit with a ghastly sense of the sadomasochistic dimension that underlies the relationship between the torturer and the tortured. I apply the Abraham Lincoln test for moral casuistry: “If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.” Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture.

Please do not misrepresent the source. In the foreplay comment, Hitchens is summarizing one of two viewpoints held by his friends. He also writes in his own voice in the article. Please clearly distinguish between summaries of others' viewpoints as presented by Hitchens, and Hitchens' own opinions, in all future comments, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please do not mis-characterize the extended quote by claiming that it misrepresents the author's opinion. The quotation clearly shows that he is, in the quotation, presenting one side of a multi-sided complex issue, and that he wants that side (mostly ignored in the Wikipedia article) clearly understood. Note, too, that the initial reference was only interested in using the article to continue the one-sided presentation which Hitchens rejects. htom (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am confused. Is there something you want added to this article based on the Hitchens piece? Remember (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Me? Change the article? Been there, ..., ArbCom Case. No thanks. htom (talk) 17:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you actually have to change the article, I'm saying I don't know what you want added or the point you are trying to make with the previous excerpt. You can certainly voice your opinion on the talk page without fear of any action. So what changes would you make if you could? Remember (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an established consensus that "waterboarding is torture" and any statement other than that, or questioning that tautology, must be rejected. I am merely pointing out that this is another example where an article was being used to add to the "is torture" side, while the article's coverage of the dispute was ignored. You may wish to have discussion here before making changes that challenge the tautology. htom (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I incorrect in stating that had Hitchens actually stated that, following his session, he believed waterboarding to not be a form of torture, we would, due to our preexisting bias, work to exclude mention of this article in our article? This is a ridiculous presumption, and I urge you to cleanse your mind of such an idea. Hitchens, in the quote you carefully selected, yet for which you failed to provide context, was summarizing one point of view held by friends with which he had had discussed the subject. We don't know who they are. However, Hitchens did undergo the process and stated that he believes it to be a form of torture. If you'd like to add sources by notable individuals who state that it is not a form of torture, find such sources; we cannot add them if they do not exist. We do have, in the article, the opinions of several U.S. individuals who have publicly stated their belief that waterboarding is not a form of torture. Why do you claim that such opinions are excluded from our article, when, in fact, they are in the article? Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they used to be rigorously excluded, and I have not followed every change; why would I bother? The consensus was clearly established, and there's still no mention of the dispute in the lead. I was pointing out that (at least in my eyes, as usual) an article that mentions the dispute was being used as evidence for the "is torture" side of the argument. Some (not all) of the more than a hundred sources that were counted at one time as being "is torture" also had discussion of the dispute, but those establishing the consensus couldn't see that, then. Lack of context? Did you not read the paragraph that I quoted, or did you not comprehend that it was context that I included for the bolded sentence? You do seem to be able to paraphrase it, but not recognize that it's there! htom (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this page off my watch list, at least temporarily; the topic and memories rile my temper too much. My apologies to anyone offended by my posts in this section. htom (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Trendelenburg position

I've removed reference to "Trendelenburg position" from the intro. It is out of context: Trendelenburg position is not a general name for the human position in which the head is declined downward - it is a term that only makes sense in the context of medical treatment. GregorB (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article - to do list

After looking at the article, I think it's on its way to becoming a GA and then perhaps FA. What do others think? Does anything else need to be done for it to reach GA status? Remember (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no definite answer but you may wish to read the archive of its previous failed attempt at getting listed status. I looked at some of the article last night and was impressed by what I read but I haven't looked at the whole thing and I don't feel the inclination right now, perhaps later. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested this not long ago but it hasn't happened yet. Why not start a things to do list? Also, people here could have a look at some articles currently going through FA review. If anyone has an opinion on the best photo for the lead of Solar energy their input would be much appreciated at the mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

With your suggestion in mind I changed the header and have put the to do list below. Remember (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

TO DO TO BRING ARTICLE TO GA STATUS

Any suggested improvements would be welcome. Remember (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Make sure all citations are in the correct format
• ???

Safire mentions "Chinese water board" (1991)

I believe the term "Chinese water board," mentioned by William Safire here, should be added to the etymology/history section, as it seems part of the history of the current (single-word) term. Badagnani (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding is a form of torture...

Come on! How much more POV can you get? That is an opinion and not a fact.--Murphoid (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There have been epic discussions and an ArbCom case. Read the FAQ that will lead you to Talk:Waterboarding/Sources, where hundreds of reliable sources attest the fact that waterboarding is torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashcroft testimony

We should incorporate this information to the article and add it to the source list. During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said:

REP. MAXINE WATERS: Do you think that if these techniques were used on American soldiers that they would be totally unacceptable and even criminal? […]

ASHCROFT: My job, as Attorney General, was to try and elicit from the experts and the best people in the Department definitions that comported with the statues enacted by the Congress and the Constitution of the United States. And those statutes have consistently been interpreted so as to say, by the definitions that, waterboarding, as described in the CIA’s request, is not torture.

From [2]. Remember (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Very interesting, but i'm not sure as to the source (i don't think its wrong but it is a clearly politically biased site) is there an american equivolent of Hansard we could use? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Board

This edit, made without prior discussion, is incorrect, as I think we've determined that a board is not always used; a gurney or other device that is not made of wood may be used, and in some cases (as in the outdoor version seen in the Vietnam War photo) no board is used. Please discuss this edit, which seems to have involved adding a footnote that is cobbled from the editor's memory rather than from an actual source, before implementing it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I made that edit, and I made it because there is no reference to the fact that waterboarding does not actually put the victim at risk of drowning. For types of torture that involve the risk of drowning, perhaps an article like water torture should be used. Specifically, waterboarding is used in situations where it's not acceptable to put the target at risk of drowning, hence the use of a board or flat object to incline the subject to prevent water from filling their lungs. If you want to fret endlessly about whether or not the "board" is made of wood or not, maybe you are missing the whole point of the article. A board for this purpose can be made of many substances including but not limited to wood, gurneys, metal, plastic, etc. But to remove or contest the edit simply because not all waterboarding is done with a wooden board is... um... idiotic and missing the point. Dragonnas (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Dragonnas: I'm afraid your fact is less than a fact. I would refer you to the testimony of pro-Iraq invasion enthusiast Christopher Hitchens, which recently received global publicity. His first response when interviewed after two stints of waterboarding, each lasting seconds, was that "it doesn't simulate drowning; it is actual drowning." The links are at the bottom of the article, but here they are again: Vanity Fair video of waterboarding, July 2008 and "Believe Me, It’s Torture" Vanity Fair, August 2008 Watch the video & see for yourself. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

UK believes it is torture

The Human Rights Annual Report 2007 released Sunday by the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee states that "the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future."[3][4]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also on the BBC website.[5]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous

Why is there so much consideration to what the US Government thinks? The vast majority of right-thinking people the world over consider waterboarding to be torture.

The US uses this form of torture, and then denies it is torture, so now encyclopedias have to pretend that it isn't torture either? I guess the next step is for the US to start shooting prisoners in the back of the head and deny it is execution, so encyclopedias the world over have to redefine "execution" in all of their articles.

If the Government of Sierra Leone says that Aids is not an epidemic, does Wikipedia then have to change its Aids article?

It's just ridiculous to give so much weight to the Government of just one of the world's 220 + nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

People from the John Birch Society believe it is torture

"Waterboarding" Is Torture to Everybody Else in the World. There's more in the "Related Content" bar. GregorB (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not what you would call a left wing group, how much of paleo-conservative thought do this group represent? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, not a left wing group by any stretch of imagination, and that's why it may be interesting. Right wing criticizes WB as torture too, unlike what some have argued here. JBS people generally don't like Bush and neocons, which makes them close to paleo-conservatives - but it's hard to say to what extent. GregorB (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV challenge

Classification as torture Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[5][8][30] politicians, war veterans,[9][10] intelligence officials,[31] military judges,[12] and human rights organizations.[13][14] David Miliband, the United Kingdom Foreign Secretary described it as torture on 2008-07-19, and stated "the UK unreservedly condemns the use of torture."[32] Arguments have been put forward that it might not be torture in all cases, or that they are uncertain.[33][34][35][36] The U.S. State Department has recognized that other techniques that involve submersion of the head of the subject during interrogation would qualify as torture.[37]

The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture: Thirty-fifth Session of November 2006, stated that state parties should rescind any interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, that constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.[38]

Is there no debate that waterboarding is torture? If there is no debate, why are those engaged in it not indicted and still involved? Why have cases brought in court failed? If there exists a debate, why is it not fairly represented above? I challenge this section as a wp:npov violation. Is there consensus that this section is without NPOV balance? Raggz (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this quite a bit. There have indeed been only a handful of notable individuals who have expressed an opinion that waterboarding is not a form of torture, most of these being Republican politicians or talk show hosts from the United States. Please see Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the actual sources. Badagnani (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the FAQ at the top of this page. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The US federal judiciary has not held waterboarding to be torture. The UN Security Council has jurisdiction for this question, and has not held waterboarding to be torture. There is no other judicial tribunal with jurisdiction. Why are the cases that were brought and failed not there? Raggz (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

President Theodore Roosevelt said it was torture and had a Major sentanced to 10 years hard labour for the crime, as Stephan says below the Bush Administration has used state secrets privilege to block any court cases on this matter. As for the UN the The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture says waterboarding is torture, the UN Security council could bring a resolution calling for Sanctions or whatever against the US, but the US would just use its Veto (like it does to protect Isreal) so no-one bothers. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

International treaties, which prohibit the suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner with water, are the "supreme law of the land," and it's fairly clear that the nation that insists on using it (the U.S.) will make whatever legal "end runs" necessary to keep doing it, and to avoid prosecution by claiming the U.S. practices a "less cruel" version, only on bad people, etc. However, the U.S. hasn't claimed it's not torture (in fact, only a few politicians and media figures have). Again, please read the FAQ and archives. Badagnani (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, AFAIK all existing legal opinions have all held waterboarding to be illegal. There are no recent legal decisions on this because it mostly happens in extralegal (or claimed extralegal) situations - for a well-known similar example see the Khalid El-Masri case, which was ultimately rejected not because there was any doubt about his illegal kidnapping and abuse, but due to the state secrets privilege. Moreover, this is not primarily a legal, but a semantic question. Court decisions are interesting evidence for a claim, but the absence is rarely evidence against something - there is no such decision about the composition of the moon, and still, it's not green cheese. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

International treaties are not the supreme law of the land. in the US it goes US Constitution, US laws, then US treaties. I think that what is in question is whether the legal definition of torture in the US includes water boarding. I don't see a problem with the article, except it does not give the claims made by those thinking it not torture. those claims are that it is not physically harmful, at least when done certain ways. Rds865 (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"I think that what is in question is whether the legal definition of torture in the US includes water boarding." It is torture under US law and many legal cases have resulted in convictions against american military and cops. The current US Admin is claiming the US Constitution does not apply in Gitmo because its part of Cuba, therefore it is ok to use torture there.

"except it does not give the claims made by those thinking it not torture." Yes it does including Andrew C. McCarthy.

"those claims are that it is not physically harmful, at least when done certain ways." There are no RS's that say it can be done safely, just that some times the victim gets lucky and has no long term injuries. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Whatever sources you feel would be good to include, please share them here. The article does certainly represent the views of individuals who have publicly stated their belief that waterboarding is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"If done certain ways", neither are electroshocks, beating, sleep deprivation, mock executions, or Bonnie Tyler. As for the supreme law, the US constitution disagrees. From Article Six of the United States Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; (emphasis mine). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

President Theodore Roosevelt said it was torture and had a Major sentanced to 10 years hard labour for the crime... Was the proceedure then regularly administered to the US Army, as it is now? (This is the Geneva Conventions test). Was it medically supervised? If so, you have a point. (There were convictions in Vietnam as well).

a"s Stephan says below the Bush Administration has used state secrets privilege to block any court cases on this matter." Since this is not true, why say it? There have been many court cases on this topic. Raggz (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the UN the The United Nations' Report of the Committee Against Torture says waterboarding is torture, the UN Security council could bring a resolution calling for Sanctions or whatever against the US, but the US would just use its Veto (like it does to protect Isreal) so no-one bothers. (Hypnosadist) 23:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)'' The Committee Against Torture has no authority whatever to make any finding of fact in regard to torture (want a cite?). The UNSC has this sole authority under the UN Charter. Did the US use it's veto? No. The General Assembly didn't support this claim and did not forward it on. I'm pretty sure that the High Commissioner didn't even bring it to the GA. The Committee Against Torture just ruled that only ordained clergy may discuss religion and human rights - that you may not. Do you support that as well? Raggz (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Committee Against Torture has no authority whatever to make any finding of fact in regard to torture (want a cite?)." YES. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Did the US use it's veto? No." Because it has the veto it very rarely has to use it, the one exception is Isreal were the Muslim nations are quite happy to waste UN time writing and passing resolutions so America has to use its Veto and the muslim countries placate the "arab street"/proles for a few days, keeping the most important thing their power. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Committee Against Torture just ruled that only ordained clergy may discuss religion and human rights - that you may not." So the F--- what? this has NOTHING to do with this article, stop wasteing my time. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, AFAIK all existing legal opinions have all held waterboarding to be illegal. There are no recent legal decisions on this because it mostly happens in extralegal (or claimed extralegal) situations - for a well-known similar example see the Khalid El-Masri case, which was ultimately rejected not because there was any doubt about his illegal kidnapping and abuse, but due to the state secrets privilege. Moreover, this is not primarily a legal, but a semantic question. Court decisions are interesting evidence for a claim, but the absence is rarely evidence against something - there is no such decision about the composition of the moon, and still, it's not green cheese. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC) You may be convinced, but you still need to comply with [[wp:npov}. Back to this topic, does anyone claim that the Lead meets NPOV standards? What legal tribunal has held US waterboarding illegal? If not a tribunal with jurisdiction, it is a SYN policy violation to suggest that the US practice is illegal. Is there one reliable legal decision applicable to the US - or not? If there is, why not include it? Raggz (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm...our lede does not claim that waterboarding -the US version or any other - is illegal. We discuss the question in Waterboarding#Legality. We do state that waterboarding is torture, and have a large number of reliable sources for that. Of course the conclusion that it is indeed illegal is as incontrovertible as geometry to any enlightened community of minds, and the fact that a major democratic government not only avoids prosecuting it, but actively defends it application, is a insult to the world (with apologies to Spencer Tracy). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

"Back to this topic, does anyone claim that the Lead meets NPOV standards?" Yes Me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"US waterboarding" ????? Ahah the Invisible Pink Unicorn is out of the bag. Its the mythical Nice waterboarding in the house. No it is OR to say that the USA has a special nice way to waterboard without RS's to support that POV. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Delete the text that violates NPOV?

Eventually we need to delete the text that violates WP:NPOV, and at some point I will do this if we cannot find consensus on how and when to do this. The OR/SYN violations need to go as well.

Who says that there are no sections that violate NPOV? There has been enough content discussion, I want to debate policy compliabnce here. Raggz (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Eventually we need to delete the text that violates WP:NPOV" Show me. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

"Waterboarding is torture. It causes severe physical suffering in the form of reflexive choking, gagging, and the feeling of suffocation. It may cause severe pain in some cases. If uninterrupted, waterboarding will cause death by suffocation. It is also foreseeable that waterboarding, by producing an experience of drowning, will cause severe mental pain and suffering. The technique is a form of mock execution by suffocation with water. The process incapacitates the victim from drawing breath, and causes panic, distress, and terror of imminent death. Many victims of waterboarding suffer prolonged mental harm for years and even decades afterward."

The Lead makes claims not supported by this source (such as brain damage). This is clearly original research. Please read wp:or. Please read wp:npov as well. Feel free to revert only if you have a relaible source. Raggz (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't use just one source for this article; on the contrary, there are dozens if not more than 100. Nothing has been added that is not attested by these sources, most being medical in nature, from reputable organizations. Again, please read the FAQ. Have you? Badagnani (talk) 05:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no citation for brain damage following the claim within the Lead. (Waterboarding certainly could lead to brain damage or death, if not medically supervised.) This lack of a citation means that wp:or has been violated. You likely can just add the correct cite. Fix it, please don't revert an OR violation. Raggz (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that if you believe it can be sourced, you look for a source (or maybe add a cn tag)? Deleting something you think can be sourced is pointy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That is one option, I also can delete material that has no source - but you cannot revert it unless you add one. You want me to do your editing? Then try saying please, or I don't know how, and I will then help. You don't just assign editing to me. I'm fine with it if you add supported text, I'm just editing here, no worries, everyone just relax.

It is disruptive editing to knowingly revert text deleted for being without a reliable source just because you want to. Don't do this. There is no problem reverting IF you add a reliable source. You should be careful though to qualify that these issues are not probable if medically supervised, so you need that cite as well. You now all know that there is no reliable source, so don't be a disruptive editor. Raggz (talk) 07:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

...and your source for the effects being improbable under medical supervision is where? [6] has neurological damage and possible death. I'll add it if I have some more time. However, the fact that oxygen deprivation can lead to brain damage is so entirely uncontroversial and well-known that a reference is rather redundant anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever "physician" was supervising such information-gathering sessions (training sessions excepted), I don't believe they would meet the definition, as since Ancient Greece physicians have been trained to do no harm, taking an oath to this effect. If a medical technician were present, they were probably medics, whose job was to say, "Better stop for now; it looks like he's had enough and could expire. Better wait ten minutes before resuming." Badagnani (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually they were members of the America Psychological Assoc Badagnani. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There's currently a lively dispute within the APA's ranks whether their members should be prohibited from participating in such sessions in the future. Badagnani (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no debate. The APA has come out against it very clearly:

• APA calls on U.S. government to ban waterboarding and other abusive interrogation techniques
• The Ethics Committee seeks illustrative examples as it writes a casebook and commentary on ethics and interrogations.
• New language more clearly expresses APA's no-torture, no-exceptions policy.
  --Fremte (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the dates! It takes 100's of Doctors 5 years to decide aiding torture violates medical ethics? Pathetic! ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, no one ever expected a western democracy to revert to medieval methods in the first place. Though, again to be fair, it is the only western democracy that has judicial executions, and it has uniquely under-developed social programs and curiously religious politics for a western country. I won't pretend to understand America - I have visited but avoided being tortured (okay bad joke) - that country's behaviour puzzles many. It appears that professional associations are generally reactive and not pro-active, that is, they respond to issues that arise, they don't set out to set policies. They often parrot the government line because as I understand it, the USA gov't through it's Dept of War (or Defence or whatever) funds alot of psych research. It is also hard to get people to understand and support something when their salaries depend on not understanding it. --Fremte (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"To be fair, no one ever expected a western democracy to revert to medieval methods in the first place" No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes i know, what do you expect from an organisation who's members over medicate children to make few extra dollars? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 03:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Source for brain damage [7] there are many more. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever "physician" was supervising such information-gathering sessions (training sessions excepted), I don't believe they would meet the definition, as since Ancient Greece physicians have been trained to do no harm, taking an oath to this effect. If a medical technician were present, they were probably medics, whose job was to say, "Better stop for now; it looks like he's had enough and could expire. Better wait ten minutes before resuming." Badagnani (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC) The point is that we have a larger topic than US waterboarding, and I have no doubt that waterboarding has killed people and given them brain damage. I have no issue putting this in uncited. It just needs to be clear that we are talking about medically unsupervised waterboarding and not US waterboarding. I have no problem asserting the facts, so just offer a reliable source for death or brain damage in regard to US practice.

Btw, the do no harm requires that no physician teach medicine to a woman.) Raggz (talk) 08:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - What is the actual passage from the Oath that states this? I don't believe that portion is currently practiced, as "do no harm" emphatically still is. Badagnani (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"I have no problem asserting the facts, so just offer a reliable source for death or brain damage in regard to US practice." See above you have been given two different ones ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Btw, the do no harm requires that no physician teach medicine to a woman.)" OK so that allows the USA to torture HOW? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:or policy violations and deletion

There are a number of OR policy violations in regard to the US waterboarding. Do we all agree that we need reliable sources to support claims, and that without these this text must be deleted? Raggz (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Please could you list these violations specifically? I just had a quick look through the article: everything seemed to have inline citations. I certainly don't agree that any text should be deleted without it being first raised here, allowing people to find citations if it is felt that more are needed. almost-instinct 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The proposition that the suffocation with water of a bound, inclined prisoner, as practiced by agents of the United States of America, is "noble," "not so bad," "less bad," "kinder," "gentler," etc., than such suffocation as practiced by agents of the 190+ other nations in the world seems to be fairly speculative, as if the editor proposing that this purported "special" U.S. version be privileged by minimizing the possible damage this form of torture might cause *hopes* or *wishes* that Americans wouldn't do something so horrible. Such a speculation seems more appropriate for a blog or other personal website, or perhaps some form of patriotic website. If, however, a notable individual has stated their belief in such a "special" U.S. version, if it is properly sourced, we could consider adding such a quote to the article. We do have the statements of several individuals (all U.S. Republican Party politicians or media commentators) who have expressed a similar opinion. Badagnani (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Repost incase Raggz didn't see. "US waterboarding" ????? Ahah the Invisible Pink Unicorn is out of the bag. Its the mythical Nice waterboarding in the house. No it is OR to say that the USA has a special nice way to waterboard without RS's to support that POV. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NB: my post did not say "there's no OR". Any more archness and I'm out of here. Please quote the passages that are problematic, suggest a fix, we can agree on it or amend it or whatever and it can be re-inserted. Let's get on with this. almost-instinct 09:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Pearl HarbOR

The reference to the name Pearl Harbour should be spelled -or; since it is a proper name (even if the page is edited by those who would "generically" spell the word harbour.) The same is true, of course, for the World Trade Center; the main site of the 9/11 attack should never be spelled "World Trade Centre". 208.47.164.211 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese water torture

This is something else.

After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” at the time appears to be wrong; it's from a Politico op ed, which is not the most reliable of sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

So, what about this Andrew Sullivan guy?

Is he worth referencing? Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Andrew Sullivan (2008-12-03). "The NYT And The T-Word". Atlantic magazine. Retrieved 2008-12-03. mirror
• "If It Was Torture in Mississippi, Then It's Definitely Torture, Right?". November 12, 2007. Retrieved 2008-12-03. mirror

Over Citation

There is a sentence in the section on the animatronic waterboarding installation that is way over cited. We don't need eight citations to verify a piece of information. Two or three will due. The only reason to use more is if it actually takes that many citations to verify the info (e.g. each citation only provides partial verification and only together do the citations verify the text). Otherwise, this is overkill. Someone who's invested in this article should pick out the best two or three and discard the rest. ask123 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If the citations are only verifying parts, then it sounds like WP:SYNTH. htom (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Synthesis is something like "A is true because B and C are true.(citeB)(citeC)". It is perfectly okay to to use citations for individual parts of a statement like "A is true,(citeA) B is true,(citeB) C is true.(citeC)" 129.215.37.133 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

new information that needs to be added

Cheney confirms approving interrogation techniques in general and specifically approves of waterboarding suspects. Probably should be integrated somewhere. Remember (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From - [8]

KARL: Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

CHENEY: I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.
...
KARL: And on KSM, one of those tactics, of course, widely reported was waterboarding. And that seems to be a tactic we no longer use. Even that you think was appropriate?

CHENEY: I do.

POV

Waterboarding is a form of torture? Come on! This is clearly taking a stance on an issue. Waterboarding saves lives. 98.226.26.89 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not that I believe the premise, but what does one have to do with the other? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the comment cuts right to the heart of the matter. Those who advocate the use of waterboarding in certain cases do so based on expediency (e.g. the ticking time-bomb terrorist) not on any serious argument that waterboarding isn't torture. Even John Yoo admits his non-torture arguments are based solely on a narrow reading of the definition of torture in U.S. law, not on the word's normal meaning. --agr (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean John Yoo, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, yeah. Thanks for the correction. I've edited my comment. No need for a link to the wrong person.--agr (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Article has way too much US focus

There is too much of a US perspective to this article, I might tag it with a "worldwide view" banner. — Realist² 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain which recent, notable waterboarders this article has been neglecting? almost-instinct 01:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New photos available

The photographer at waterboardingdotorg has made all his/her numerous photos of waterboarding available with CC licenses. See [9]. Which ones should we utilize? Badagnani (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this one would get my vote almost-instinct 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I uploaded one to Commons that just shows a waterboard and added it to the article. Images with paintings in the background are more problematical for Commons.--agr (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on origin of waterboarding

Since many forms of torture go back to antiquity, and occur in many continents, I'm very skeptical that waterboarding only goes back to the Medieval period in Europe. Waterboarding is very closely related to dunking, which is presently not well-documented in Wikipedia as to its origins. I suggest we continue to look for earlier dates of origin for this form of torture.Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

19 century prisons

I've added a second on waterboarding in 19th century prisons, with a citation of any incident in Sing Sing prison from the NYT archives.Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just added

This water torture, used in prisons in the U.S. in the 19th century, which we've actually looked at before, doesn't seem to be waterboarding because it doesn't fit the definition. It's simply another form of torture using water. The prisoner is seated in a chair, in a booth-like structure, rather than on their back. Please comment on this after reading the new text. Badagnani (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention in the NYT 1852 texts I cited under the 19th Century Prisons section of the use of a chair or a booth, but a board was indeed mentioned. From the text, the prisoner could have either been in a horizontal or a vertical position. Please provide the URL for the archive in which the topic of 19th Century water torture was mentioned before so I can make a more complete and informed response. I couldn't seem to find the previous discussion in the archive. Thanks! Ajschorschiii (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The Article's First Sentence is Clearly Biased.

The first sentence defines waterboarding as torture, but the article then goes on to discuss the arguments for and against defining waterboarding as torture. While the article cites numerous sources in support of the opinion that waterboarding is torture, the article fails to provide factual evidence that an objective definition of waterboarding is consistent with torture. Therefore some parts of this article, including the first sentence, read more like a one-sided op-ed rather than an objective article that considers all sides.

If objectively and fairness are to be maintained, the article's first sentence should not define waterboarding as "a form of torture" but as "a form of interrogation that many believe to be a form of torture". —Preceding unsigned comment added by FinancialPress (talk • contribs) 22:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not "many", it's "all relevant". The opposite position is, at most, an extreme fringe view among experts, and even among pundits You might want to look at the archives. "Interrogation" is plain wrong. What happens if I waterboard someone just out of sadism? Or as punishment? As for "factual evidence", can you explain what you mean by that? To me, the intentional slow suffocation of a helpless conscious person is self-evidently torture. It does not get more factual than that... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Your point exhibits broken logic and simply makes no sense. Is playing music torture? No? What if I stuck you in a room and played "achy breaky heart" day and night for a month? That something can be used as torture does not allow you define it as such in an encyclopedia!

Declare what the action is, what it entails, and leave the political vitriol at home please.

Further, there is nothing "self evident"; there exist no ideas nor even facts that simply speak for themselves in a vacuum. Please supply the direct *reasons* you have researched and hence found it to be torture, and try to keep the tone as neutral as possible using non-agenda works if possible.Tgm1024 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any new sources that we have not collected that have concluded that waterboarding is not a form of torture? If you do, please add them here. If you don't, then you will have a difficult time overturning the previous consensus (which is how the text reads now). Remember (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Having a consensus among the small population within this page does not mitigate the burden of proof upon the issuer of statements similar to "X is self evidently Y".

And even if it *did*, it would still not belong here. Do you agree that this is a very hotly contested topic in the world? Then report *that*.

You may say it is

controversial

that whether or not it is considered torture is under enormous debate because (of x, y, z)

that it involves actions which many believe to be torture because of (x,y,z)

that it involves actions which many believe to not be torture because of (x,y,z)

But you CANNOT take a look at a hugely contested debate, and arrogantly decide among yourselves that one side is factual and the other is not. Logic like that exhibited here is turning Wikipedia into a series of position papers. People, PLEASE think in neutral encyclopedic terms.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me like someone hasn't looked at the archives. When you do, you'll see that there are a huge number of sources that say that waterboarding is torture, and virtually no one who's willing to go on record to say that waterboarding isn't torture. If you want to change the lead sentence, you need to find some reliable sources that support your viewpoint. Until then, there isn't much to discuss. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no agenda here other than to hopefully save wikipedia from this kind of non-neutrality. The point is beyond my beliefs, and beyond *ANYONE's*. The point is entirely that this is steeped in controversy, and you are taking it upon yourselves to declare it as fact without the massive { { controversy } } banner on the page itself. If you wish to figure out why wikipedia is used but more often than not not taken seriously you only need to look to the basis of this kind of argument. Pick up a paper version of any article in an encyclopedia britancia, and see the wonderful difference in neutral tone.

As pointed out in WP:POV, something I wish more people would read, note this quote:

Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions.

That I cannot reach you with this is only more evidence that I must bow out now.Tgm1024 (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What gives with the recent edit to the first sentence without even engaging this discussion? Now it's saddled with weasel-wordy "widely considered a form of torture" and, more importantly, suggests credibility to the fringe theory that waterboarding is not torture. I'd change it back myself, but the article is protected. Can we get someone on this? More specifically, can action be taken for making such a drastic unilateral edit to a probated article? --98.245.120.186 (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. this has been extensively discussed on this talk page. I've reverted the change. --agr (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is valid debate as to whether waterboarding falls within the definition of "torture." The view that it is not torture is not a "fringe theory" (even if it may be politically unpopular in the United States). Do a Google search for "waterboarding is not torture" and you will find a plethora of arguments by educated people for why waterboarding is not torture. The fact that the majority of intellectual elites believe it to be torture does not make it so. (In fact, if the entire world were polled, I would imagine that most people would not consider it to be torture. Most of the people I know--mostly middle class professionals--do not consider it to be torture.) While these viewpoints themselves do not answer the question, what the diversity of viewpoints does indicate is that it simply is not self-evident that waterboarding falls within the definition of torture in the way that thumb-screwing does. The "considered to be torture" language is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.83.2 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

We give preference to expert sources ("intellectual elites"). We value anecdotal evidence ("Most of the people I know--mostly middle class professionals--do not consider it to be torture.") not at all. I did the google search you suggested, and pages from worldnet daily and newsmax popped up in the first few results, after which I stopped reading. I see no reason to change the lead, and would need some expert sources that contended waterboarding wasn't torture to change my mind. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I would suspect that a majority of the entire world does not even know what waterboarding is. But if you expand the definition ("Is the intentional slow suffocation of a helpless conscious prisoner torture"), I would guess that the vast majority would agree. It's certainly portrayed as torture (in line with whipping and electroshocks) in the 1975 WIP flick Barbed Wire Dolls.... But my opinion or yours is not relevant - the opinion of reliable expert sources is, and it is as close to unanimous as makes no difference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The lede has been discussed at length on this talk page and a broad consensus supported the current wording. What has happened since is the U.S. presidential election, where BOTH candidates took strong stands that waterboarding is torture. The U.S. Attorney General designate just testified to that effect (his predecessor had refused to answer the question). --agr (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious--who are the experts we're considering? Legal experts? Ethicists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.83.2 (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

See Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture.--agr (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So if we're looking to "politicians" and "legal experts," do the opinions of Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, Lieberman, Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Mukasey, John Bellinger (C. Rice's legal advisor), Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann (Gitmo legal advisor, http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/11/graham-waterboarding-iran/), Andrew McCarthy (cited in the entry), Michael Hayden (CIA director), Steven Bradbury (head of Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2008/02/steven-bradbury.html) and Rep. Ted Poe (cited in the entry) not count? Journalist Hitchens is cited authoritatively in the entry; do the opinions of conservative commentators Jim Meyers (cited in the entry), Joseph Farah (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59481), and Deroy Murdock (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjNkYmU2NWVlOWE4MTU5MjhiOGNmMWUwMjdjZjU2ZjA=) not count? All of those sources expressed the opinion that waterboarding is not torture or that it may not be torture, or refused to agree that it is torture. It seems rather conclusory to clump all these views together and dismiss them as a "fringe theory." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.83.2 (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the commentators, those you mention are all individuals of a single regime--one which, as we've seen over the past eight years, values loyalty above all else and which does not permit dissent within its ranks--in a single nation at a particular time. It's to be expected that they would be of a single mind on this issue. The thing is, most of these have not stated "waterboarding is not a form of torture," they have only hedged on its legality. That's quite a different thing. And their hedging doesn't change the very clear definition of what this practice is, nor negate the consistent prosecution of the U.S.'s own personnel, by the U.S., for engaging in this activity, even just 40 years ago. It seems to me that you *wish* waterboarding were not torture, but that it should only be used by U.S. personnel; if the Khmer Rouge, or Syria, or North Korea does it (to its own people let alone the U.S.'s own personnel) it's a horrible torture (as depicted in the paintings and photos we have in our article). If you actually provide quotes from the above individuals stating that "waterboarding is not a form of torture," those would likely be suitable for the article, in a section entitled something like "Bush regime opinion on waterboarding." I'm not sure if you're implying that none of the above individuals are mentioned in the article, because many of them are. If you'd like this regime's fringe opinion to influence the actual definition of this very well understood practice (the suffocation, using water, of a bound, inclined prisoner), that's been proposed before, and rejected. Badagnani (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's the place of a neutral site like Wikipedia to decide whose opinions are valid or not because they belong to a certain "regime." And everyone who thinks waterboarding is torture is free from bias? In any case, three prominent politicians I cited were not part of that "regime". Giuliani: "I’m not sure it is either, it depends on how it is done... It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it." Lieberman: "It is not like putting burning coals on people's bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological." Even for those who refused to publicly agree that it was torture when asked and "hedged" (such as Romney), that clearly expresses doubt for the view that waterboarding is torture. Also, Poe was not part of the Bush "regime," nor was Mukasey at the time he was questioned by the Senate (and it should be noted that Mukasey was lauded by both parties for his independence at the time of his nomination, it seems unfair to dismiss his views out of hand simply because he was nominated by Bush). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.83.2 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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 00:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

President Obama Waterboard Ban

In the other actions, Obama:

_Created a task force to recommend policies on handling terror suspects who are detained in the future. Specifically, the group would look at where those detainees should be housed since Guantanamo is closing.

_Required all U.S. personnel to follow the U.S. Army Field Manual while interrogating detainees. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, a technique that creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed a form of torture by critics. However, a Capitol Hill aide says that the administration also is planning a study of more aggressive interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual — which would create a significant loophole to Obama's action Thursday —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spectrum380 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing us with some sources that back up your claim?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Required all U.S. personnel to follow the U.S. Army Field Manual while interrogating detainees. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, a technique that creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed a form of torture by critics. However, a Capitol Hill aide says that the administration also is planning a study of more aggressive interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual — which would create a significant loophole to Obama's action Thursday."

It's banned. For now.--Loodog (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This Article is Biased

This article is completely biased, and in clear violation of the NPOV policy of wikipedia. Its clear that the agenda of the article is not to discuss the nature and history of waterboarding, as much as it is to impress upon the reader that waterboarding is "torture", which is really a meaningless semantical argument. The article also exaggerates the brutality of the practice, which can certainly be traumatic and even injurious, but does not compare with other more recognizable forms of "torture". 71.192.191.207 (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interesting opinion. Badagnani (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, any judge would be impressed with a defence like whether I tortured/murdered/robbed (insert preference) somebody is "really a meaningless semantical argument."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC) The point is that the nature of waterboarding is more important than whether it fits a particular definition of torture. The article should seek to inform the reader about waterboarding, not put the practice on trial.71.192.191.207 (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)71.192.191.207 (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet you make the same obvious loggical fallacy. "The point is that the nature of torture/murder/robbeery is more important than whether it fits a particular definition of torture/murder/robbeery."Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is (or was the last time I read it) definitely biased but it is owned by people who do not care for that sort of honesty nor for the standards that wikipedia has put forward to ensure neutrality. There is no point in editing here.--Blue Tie (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So you would have the encyclopedic article on waterboarding not start by saying what waterboarding is? --72.165.229.187 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To say that "waterboarding is a form of torture" is not a fact, but an inherently biased and qualitative statement. Look at the primary definition of torture in the dictionary: "Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion, An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain" (source: the free dictionary.com, 1/28/09). Is the sensation of drowning severe physical pain, like getting burned? No, its more of a psychological attrition, like holding someone's head under water. Ugly yes, but torture no, because fear is the operating principle, moreso than pain. The author tries to make it seem like waterboarding is severe physical pain and brutality with statements like, "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". However, when one looks at the source that the author has cited for that statement, it says nothing of the sort, whatsoever. The author has simply pulled the statement out of thin air. Certainly if waterboarding is done improperly it could have these effects, but not normally.

Bottom line, is that for an article to focus on a disputed classification of a practice is neither informative or neutral, but biased. Even if we apply a looser definition of torture that would include water-boarding, it should not be the primary focus of the article, anymore than the focus of an article about tomatoes should be that they are fruits and not vegetables.71.192.191.207 (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Torture may involve pain or suffering. Please go back, read the definition again, then come back and comment. Badagnani (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the prevailing understanding of authorities on human rights, interrogation, health, medical ethics, etc, as linked in the article, that waterboarding is torture. It's already established that "waterboarding is not torture" is a fringe belief and fringe beliefs aren't elevated to the level of general understanding of fact.--98.245.120.186 (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is certainly biased. I mean you state that waterboarding is torture at the beginning, then have a little section later on saying that there are people who doubt this. Doesn't make it sound that reliable. And also, that section also is about five paragraphs long, and only one of those paragraphs is actually about the controversy, the rest are about you stating again that it is torture. In an encyclopaedic sense, this is one of the worst articles I've read on wikipedia.

Data error

"On January 22, 2008 President Barack Obama made this practice illegal [131]"

2009, surely

Purch your chache. I moved it down in the section and fixed the year already ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect facts cited in the "After the Spanish-American War of 1898" section

This section of the article claims that "Major Edwin Glenn was court martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labor for waterboarding a suspected insurgent" and references 57. Cheney endorses simulated drowning. Retrieved on 2008-02-23 as its citation. The article on Glenn and the 10 year hard labor information actually comes from citation 59. Kramer, Paul, The Water Cure, The New Yorker, Feb 25, 2008. Available online and incorrectly reports the information in the article. The New Yorker piece cited explains that Glenn (the US officer court-martialed for the water cure) was "sentenced to a one-month suspension and a fifty-dollar fine" while Ealdama (the Filipino victim of US torture) was "serving a sentence of ten years’ hard labor." Blakestern (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, please fix the incorrect text in the article. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have permission. I don't have an edit tab on this page.Blakestern (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Title...

When typing on this page, I noticed that my dictionary on Firefox was telling me that "Waterboarding" is not an actual dictionary defined word. It also tells me that Firefox isn't a word, and it is an add-on to that, but that is beside the point. I tried it in Merriam Webster, Oxford English, and many others, and it is not in any of them. It is in wiktionary, but I don't think that really counts, as using that as proof would be like using the Bible as proof of God.

This doesn't matter all that much, but I found it an interesting point. Alan16 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Extra eyes

After the heated debate whether waterboarding is torture by apologists of the torture regime, some are now trying to do the same trick at enhanced interrogation techniques. Is it possible for some of the regulars here to keep an eye out and preserving torture, and not a form of interrogation, as the accepted main stream view of these practices? TIA.62.131.108.99 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"Apologists of the torture regime"? Thanks for the heads up, they may need help. htom (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"accepted main stream view of these practices". Because if something is accepted by most, we should just ignore the questioners. That is the way to improve the world, ignore everyone who disagrees with you. Alan16 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The view that waterboarding may not be a form of torture is not "ignored" in the article, it is discussed. Badagnani (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"it is discussed" I'm sorry, but I think that is just a ridulous statement. Alan16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.242 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How so? It is discussed rather extensively, with many prominent individuals and their views listed. Badagnani (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Discussed rather extensively"? There are two bloody paragraphs in a 100+ paragraph article. You follow these two paragraphs by quoting more people who say it is torture. That is not discussion. Look, if you think it's torture, and just want to ignore my opinion, fine. But you don't need to blatantly lie. It is not discussed. The only way you could discuss it less, would be to attach a sign to it saying "Waterboarding is torture, and f**k all you who disagree." Alan16 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We could also discuss if the moon is made out of cheese although you would probably call me a liar if I insist it's just a myth.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to draw an analogy, make sure it makes sense. The moon is not made of cheese. There is scientific evidence to prove this. Whether water boarding is torture or not comes down to personal opinions, not science. The thing which is the most aggravating is that you say it is discussed when it clearly isn't. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for left wing partisan hackary. Alan16 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In disputes like this, we go with what the reliable sources say on the subject. What do they say? --John (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Look. I'm not saying change it, so that it says waterboarding is not a torture. I don't agree with that, and I don't expect you'd do that. However, I'm saying that it is claimed that whether it is torture or not is discussed. It is not discussed. There are two paragraphs. Two! In an article of over one-hundred. These two paragraphs are also followed by more sources saying it is torture - in the discussion segment. That is not discussion. That is you saying: "These under-educated morons don't think it's torture. Yet these amazing, over-educated, god-like people, think it is." That is not discussion. Alan16 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's a pretty good representation of the quality and weight of the sources, though. On the one hand, you have human rights organizations, legal professors, practicing lawyers, the current attorney general of the U.S., officials of other governments, officials of the UN, and so forth. On the other hand you have a bunch of non-committal statements by people associated with the Bush administration and full-bore denials by cable TV news pundits. Who should we give more weight to? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• (ec)It is a fairly good if somewhat hyperbolic description of the situation, though. It just misses the educated but dissembling people. Anyways, by far the largest part of the article deals with the history and legality of the issue, not its classification. The two paragraphs give plenty of weight to that fairly minor and limited debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about categories

It seems that The Physical torture techniques category is part of the Torture category, so that is redundant and not needed here per WP:CAT? I know this was sort of covered before, but I see that it is still here. Also, what is up with the category Waterboarding? It has one entry? Is that an appropriate or needed category? Thanks, --Tom 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• ’’’Support.’’’ 72.134.29.72 (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Notice

WP:AE#Waterboarding and Neutral Good ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Why is Jim Meyers labeled as "conservative" while in the next sentence Christopher Hitchens is not labeled as "Liberal"? Either apply these labels consistently or just remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stowbilly (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please place new comments on the bottom of the page. Likely because Meyers labels himself as such, while Hitchens has held positions that have ranged from Trotskyite to conservative (such as his strongly pro-war positions of the past few years). Neither he nor those writing about him call him either conservative or liberal, because his set of views have changed so frequently, and are such a mixture of both. Badagnani (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who would call Hitchens a liberal must not have heard or read any of his stuff from the last 20 years or so.152.228.167.150 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC).

To add to artricle

The ICRC, in its report leaked in March 2009, refers to waterboarding as "suffocation by water."[10]. Badagnani (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Waterboarding BDSM play

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

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

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

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

Which Bybee memo?

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

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

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

Bybee memo

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, those "neutral descriptions" were anything but.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of the ICRC-report

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

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

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

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

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

Request for additional external link

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

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

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

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

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

Compare ways to start an article:

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

OR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but your personal opinion is somewhat irrelevant. There are a large number of reliable experts - lawyers and judges, both civilian and military, physicians, psychologists, and human rights experts, who have with clear unanimity, and sometimes at great personal cost, described it as torture. See e.g. [11] and [12], and literally thousands of other sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In defence of the man two above, there are also many people who decree that waterboarding is not torture. I would say that it probably is, but you can't say that A is B, and then only quote the sources which agree with this, and not the ones which don't. For example [13] and [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59481]. I think there is a valid argument to change the opening sentence to something like: "Waterboarding is considered by many to be a form of torture [sources], yet there are those who argue the opposite. [sources]" Quote sources all you want, and I'll keep quoting back. A quick search in google brings up hundreds and thousands of articles defending waterboarding, and insisting it is not torture.

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

So the White House stating that it is not torture is not a reliable source? [14] And a Republican Senator is just another moron? [15]. And a lawyer? [16] "Even finding non-committal statements outside the blogosphere is extremely hard" this is not true. Just search on google and you can find many people who disagree with classifying waterboarding as torture. Look, I think it is, but I also think Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which needs to show all points of view, whether they agree with you or not. Alan16 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

[17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Look, I've said I agree that it is torture, but can we just ignore these people because you consider them right wing, and unreliable? As I've said, I'm playing the Devil's Advocate, but I think if you are stating facts, you should be as close to possible to 100% agreement on them, and there is no such agreement here. Far from it. Alan16 (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Vanity Fair is certainly less credible than some of those cited above. It is quite lacking as the first-quoted source. The proper, neutral terminology to be used in the opening definition is coerced interrogation. It is then proper to go on and explain in the very same paragraph that many experts and/or government officials have concluded that is considered a form of torture, which is already the case in this article. Here is a great source (the quite liberal NY Times) [24] that never once mentions the T-word, but refers to waterboarding and similar techniques as coerced interrogation, specifically calling waterboarding one of the harshest of these. The 2005 Harvard study which supported the use of such highly coercive techniques will also be used to bolster my argument about rewording this if necessary. Stop reinventing history. Bsharkey (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uber Source

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

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

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

1.1 Reported demonstrations

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

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

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

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

Where is the truth statement?

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

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

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

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

Removal of text

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama's section

Obama as photographed in 2006.

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

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

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

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

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

Contradiction of "no lasting damage"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed change in order of Sections

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

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

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

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

Fork?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

also, Badagnani, your careless revert undid unrelated and constructive edits: [25] and [26].  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Additional Information

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

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

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

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

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

% of time spent

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

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

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

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

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

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

and as a matter of verifiable fact:

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

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

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

Mammalian Dive Reflex

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

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

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

Source giving much more historical information

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

Waterboarding in the 21st Century

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

aeb1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst says its torture

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

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

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

Spellcheck

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

Waterboarding in the 21st century strikes back

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

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

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