Talk:Enhanced interrogation techniques

Latest comment: 10 hours ago by VQuakr in topic Requested move 26 September 2024

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Enhanced interrogation techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Illustrations

edit

The New York Times published an article that incorporated several of a Guantanamo inmate's drawings of some of the tortures to which he was subjected.[1] Some one or more of these illustrations would be a valuable addition to the article.

A good example from the article may be found here.

I do not want to go to the trouble of determining that Wikipedia-legality of adding such an illustration and learning the method of doing so, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I might go about this. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. ^ Rosenberg, Carol (4 December 2019). "What the C.I.A.'s Torture Program Looked Like to the Tortured". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 December 2019.

As a euphemism

edit

I am given to understand that the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" is also a euphemism for torture used by the Nazi regime in the 1930s and 1940s. The English language version of this euphemism is treated well here, but should there be a section on the German-language use of the same phrase to describe prior torture? Mccartneyac (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Although the article does mention Nazi-era torture under "Verschärfte Vernehmung", I agree there's potential for greater coverage outside of Andrew Sullivan's column. There is an article on the German wiki de:Verschärfte Vernehmung that could be used as a basis for expansion.-Ich (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 26 September 2024

edit

Enhanced interrogation techniquesUse of torture under George W. Bush – It seems like the last time this was debated, much of the content of the page and the WP:RS consensus was not present. Now, the article itself shows near unanimous agreement that EIT = torture. I don't have a good replacement name, but the current name has about as much support as "Shower Rooms in Nazi Germany". For example: "According to ABC news in 2007, the CIA removed waterboarding from its list of acceptable interrogation techniques in 2006." If these techniques were "enhanced", why are they no longer used? Even the group the put that name out there doesn't believe in the techniques anymore. It was a branding exercise, not a meaningful summary or specifier on the techniques used. Compare to Enhanced driver's license and Enhanced Fujita scale. I just skimmed the article and the only people I could find calling it not-torture in the modern-ish era are: Bush administration officials, and NPR in 2009 (15 years ago). NPR has since published the term in scare quotes[1], leading one to wonder how useful the descriptor is. I notice the page for Armenian genocide is not the "events of 1915" (one of the Turkish euphemisms for the genocide), for example.

Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)). — Relisting. SilverLocust 💬 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: I took the liberty of converting the suggestion to WP:SENTENCECASE, assuming that was just a trivial matter of typography rather than something the nominator would consider important. Regarding the mention of "the last time this was debated", I did not find a formal RM discussion in the Talk page archives, except this from 31 August 2012, which was a single remark followed by a rapid procedural closure based on the submitter being a blocked user and their proposal conflicting with the title of an existing broader-scope article, and this from 18 December 2014, which was a single remark suggesting to broaden the scope of the article and give it a longer title, with one negative reply. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Weak support The current title fails WP:NPOV by using the perpetrator’s framing, however it does appear to be the common name.
Kowal2701 (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment the current wording fails WP:NPOV but the proposal also risks presuming the interpretation and there was never any prosecution over this particular allegation. I could be convinced but I am also wondering if there are other proposals for article titles that would encourage people to read passed the headline and understand the complexities of this issue. Jorahm (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support for change—the current title 'enhanced interrogation techniques' fails to maintain a neutral point of view. The phrase 'Torture under the George W. Bush administration' would serve as a more precise title.
JD John M. Turner (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • support per nom—blindlynx
  • Oppose. This is addressed in policy at WP:NPOVNAME. Is the title neutral? Obviously not. But per policy, it needn't be. We correctly contextualize this propaganda term starting with the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. The current title is more specific and the more likely name to help people looking for this information than the generic title suggested for the move. Obviously 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is a euphemism for torture; this is the article on the torture that went by that euphemism. 00:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)— chro • man • cer