Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?

Please refer to this section of the Talk:Waterboarding page, for a complete breakdown of sourcing. The ultimate question is whether the article should use the variety of sources to make a sourced statement in the article lead that Waterboarding is historically considered a form of toture. Lawrence Cohen 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That's not what is being proposed. What is being proposed is the statement "Waterboarding is torture."; no "historically considered a form" is involved. htom (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, apples and oranges. Basically, this is an RFC to decide for good if it is accurate per our sourcing rules and available sources to say, "Waterboarding is a form of torture", since half the fighting is about that phrase. Once that wargame gets settled, frankly the rest of this is tiddlywinks. Lawrence Cohen 20:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note, I specifically said accurate per sourcing to say it's torture--the NPOVness or POVness of that phrase will sort itself out based on the findings of this. Let's not put the cart before horse. Lawrence Cohen 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• If the lead had had led with the sentence "Waterboarding is ... description ... , and is historically considered a form of torture." I probably wouldn't have this page on my watchlist. htom (talk) 00:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps we should leave the POV statement "waterboarding is torture" out of the lead, present all the different expert opinions later in the article, and let them speak for themselves. Isn't that an option? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The RFC is on whether or not the sources support the assertation that waterboarding is torture, since that single point is half the argument here. Lawrence Cohen 17:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the appropriate question. The question should be, "Is it NPOV to state 'Waterboarding is torture,' unequivocally and unconditionally, in the lead sentence of the article when several expert legal authorities state that it is not torture in any case; that it is torture only in some cases; or that they cannot themselves be sure?" Asking that question would resolve the entire argument, Mr. Cohen, rather than just half of it. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can solve that. It is used and defended by the current US government, so there will always be an argumentation that it is no torture. The IP editor is quite right, we should present all expert opinions on the subject and that's it. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually its not defended in such a fashion by the US government. The government is curiously mute on the subject. I can't believe people are bringing partisan bickering into a simple yes/no binary question, that I specifically set up that way as baby steps for people new to this page to weigh in on. This is the question I posited on this RFC, since that is the debate. Solve this first, then we can solve the rest. Is it, or isn't it? If people don't want that addressed first, as the main bone of contention, I question their motives in not wanting that heated debate settled permanently. No offense. How long is this going to be argued over? Is it, or isn't it, based on the sourcing and validity of the sourcing. Yes, or no. You can start a second RFC if you're unhappy with this question and people don't want to see it resolved so that everyone can stop bickering here. Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just the US government. One of the expert sources stating that it is torture only in some cases is Andrew McCarthy. He is not working for any level of government. He's an attorney in private practice. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

McCarthy's opinion, as stated ad nauseum, is one legal opinion of many, with no more weight than any other. Please evaluate based on all presented sources. Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, it should be noted that McCarthy specifically stated that he thought waterboarding would be torture if done numerous times, but that just doing it in a few instances wouldn't be torture. So McCarthy did not say that waterboarding isn't torture. He said sometimes you can do waterboarding in a way that it is torture and sometimes you can do it in a way that is not torture. Remember (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way: McCarthy started working for the Justice Department in 1993. This means that he was appointed by Bill Clinton, a Democrat. There is little possibility that he has any personal allegiance to the Bush Administration. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I already knew that. McCarthy's opinion is one opinion. Andrew McCarthy alone cannot trump a hundred other legal experts, US WW2 convictions of war criminals, and historical documents dating back centuries. McCarthy disputing waterboarding isn't even evidence of a valid dispute. All the sources, please. If all we have to go by is McCarthy, and since we are placing zero worth or weight in anyone's personal politics that edits here, this will be a very short RFC if its all McCarthy or saying the pro-It's Torture sources are "commie lovers" or "liberals" or "socialists" or other nonsense. Lawrence Cohen 18:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several inaccuracies in your statement, Mr. Cohen. McCarthy is far from being alone; there are several other noteworthy legal experts who disagree, in one way or another with the unequivocal statement "waterboarding is torture." Those "hundred other legal experts" may have axes of their own to grind, and allegiances of their own to serve. US WWII convictions included many acts in addition to waterboarding, including brutal beatings with the fists and feet of the Japanese defendants; all of these acts collectively, in addition to the waterboarding, were described in the aggregate as "torture." Also, the US POWs who were waterboarded (and brutally beaten) by Japanese soldiers enjoyed all the protections of the Geneva Conventions; any form of degrading treatment (including treatment falling far short of what anyone would describe as torture) could be prosecuted as a war crime. Unlawful combatants like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed do not enjoy such extensive protections. Even the statement by the UN Rapporteur, and the UN Convention Against Torture, speak of both "torture" and "other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," clearly implying that there are forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that are not torture. Is waterboarding one of the latter? Impossible to say with certainty, therefore it does not belong in the lead sentence.209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Several points 1)"Unlawful combatant" is made up by the Bush legal team and is not mentioned as a type of detainee in the GC. 2)Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is protected by the GC's just like every other human on the planet (becaquse the Bush Gov has claimed the whole world is at war to try to justify ER) 3)We've got plenty of other sources if UN's statement is too vague on how the CIA tortures its victims. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is incorrect. "Unlawful combatant" was not "made up by the Bush legal team." The term has existed in US law for at least 55 years, and is equivalent to the term "unprivileged belligerent" in international law. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not protected by the entire Third Geneva Convention; he is only protected by Common Article 3 of the Convention. Your "plenty of other sources" are steadily being whittled away if you'd care to see my comments and the commenst of others. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, please read what is written above. Provide sourced evidence. Your personal opinions about who has what external theoretical political stake as a source, or general personal opinion of what viewpoints sources hold, is meaningless, and not even worth typing into here, since we can never use it. Provide sources. That we can read. Lawrence Cohen 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Re this edit you just did -- who are these other noteworthy legal experts? No ambiguity, name names, and link to these statements for us to review. Thank you. Lawrence Cohen 18:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, we're not asking that WP say unequivocably that it's not torture, and so we don't need sources for it.

We are saying that there is a dispute, and we gave sources for that (e.g. McCarthy, Mary Jo White and the USDOJ). I'm content to let admin decide whether WP is going to take an official stand.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you're trying to decide what is and isn't torture. Why try and define the meaning of such a word when that is done elsewhere: 'the infliction of severe pain or mental suffering, especially as a punishment or as a means of persuading someone to give information.' Chambers Reference Online —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davejester (talk • contribs) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Section break 1

(Outdent) It seems to me that this discussion is entirely about semantics and the weight of baggage that comes with the word "torture". I suggest the lead paragraph sidesteps the issue and says something like "waterboarding is an extreme interrogation technique". The body of the article can discuss the nitty-gritty. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting suggestion, but I can't help wondering if it's more important for an article to be accurate per sourcing, or slightly incorrect to not upset people with certain political ideologies. An accurate encyclopedia, and upsetting people be damned, or appeasement and a less accurate encyclopedia to keep people from waging political war? Lawrence Cohen 20:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nonsense. If the vast majority of extant sources, ignoring recentism, indicate that waterboarding is a form of torture, then that is what the lead should say. The US government does not control the English language. The fact that there has been a recent controversy about the exact legal limits of torture/interrogation in the US does not affect the historical perspective that WP is supposed to use. Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Historically, waterboarding has been considered a torture that is worse than the rack and the sweat box. If a Wikipedia article can not say that waterboarding is a form of torture, then we are going to have to edit every other article to represent the viewpoint that nothing can definately be said to be torture. The only sources that state it isn't a form of torture are those from the last few years who are arguing a legal/political issue in the United States. If only sources from five years or more ago were allowed, there would be no question that it would be considered torture. There has been no new medical or scientific evidence in the last five years that would reject the previous consensus. Stating otherwise is a case of recentism, and would present a recent US political/legal issue as having overturned at least 100 years of consensus amongst scholars and legal authorities. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

As a previously uninvolved party, I disagree. Waterboarding has historically and traditionally been considered torture, and it is mainly through the efforts of the present U.S. administration that people assert it is something else. "Waterboarding is torture" is simple, concise and seems to be backed up by a multitude of sources. That some people disagree about the status should be given a place in the article however. henrik•talk 20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's actually my personal opinion too. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman,
One problem here is that the options are "generally". That wasn't the proposed definition. Shibumi2 had suggested "considered by most sources to be torture" and he was savaged for it. We've probably had "generally" proposed as well.
FWIW, the ones listed as saying that it is torture are either non-lawyers, or not briefed on the techniques approved by the CIA lawyers. Some of the lawyers who say it is torture aren't exactly middle-of-the-road (to put it kindly).
-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(EC) That may be, Randy2063. If waterboarding is a legitimate, non-torture interrogation technique, there should be plenty of reliable sources that say so. Keep in mind that Wikipedia takes a global view, so non-US sources will be especially helpful. Also, we are not a legal body. We write according to the plain meaning of words. If something is hotly debated, the lede of the article should say so and why, and explain the significant, differing views, giving relative weight to each view according to its prevalence. Jehochman

^Talk 20:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem may be that those who know are constrained both by their security oaths and by their understanding of the interrogation process from providing the evidence you desire. If the subject doesn't know what you'll do, this is an advantage. htom (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem on this contention of "hotly debated" or "expert opinion is divided" is that we also have no source that demonstrates this. If the sourcing was a 50/50 split, or hell, even 75/25, I'd agree--but it's basically on the level of WP:FRINGE views with what we have to work with. I contest that it's even that hotly debated, as we have no sources that demonstrate this great debate over whether it's torture. It's a fictional controversy by our sourcing standards. Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have provided a source that meets your criteria showing 29 to 69 percent as I recall. That beats a 25/75 split. (Not to say that I agree with that as a split for WP:FRINGE. In addition, the evidence meets the criteria for NOTABLE MINORITY. So... What reliable sources (not op-ed pieces) can you give that support your statement that it is Fringe in light of the evidence to the contrary? I suspect your Fringe beliefs are original research. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

here. Lawrence Cohen 17:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter for the purposes of a general encyclopedia, covering the global practice of Waterboarding, whether the CIA version is considered torture in private by the current US Government? Does the USDOJ hold sway over historical records, and global viewpoints here? And for the final time, you will stop political disparagement of viewpoints you disagree with. It doesn't matter if a source if Marxist, Neoconservative, Paleoconservative, Libertarian, Born Again, Socialist, New-Age, generally conservative, or anything else. Why do you seek to actively go out of your way to disparage sources that are not potentially conservative, by modern American standards of what conservative is? How does that benefit Wikipedia, which is not beholden to political concerns? Lawrence Cohen 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see you disagreeing with my point about the word "generally". If the article says in the lead that "Waterboarding generally is torture" then are you now going to be okay with that?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what proposal I see, and what others' viewpoints are on it. So long as--since this is what the sources say--the opening sentence says, "Waterboarding is a form of torture," at this time I have no problem with it, since I choose to go by what the sources say, irregardless of my personal opinions. If the lead section casts doubt by elevating the current (2) minority fringe viewpoints to have some undue weight, I will not support it. If there is to be doubt about it's torture status, that needs to be demonstrated with sources. Coming into this article blind, if I saw two lonely sources shouting down all the rest we have, I'd immediately edit the article to fix what would be obvious and inappropriate POV-pushing of an extreme minority viewpoint. Get more sources that say "not torture" and I'll be certainly more inclined to have a doubtful in tone lead section. No sources, no content in the article, period. I'm no fan of political correctness nor appeasement. I'm a fan of accuracy and doing things the right way. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't a "yes", which may be why we've been having this extremely long debate.

The fact that the U.S. government lawyers are considered a "fringe minority viewpoint" is another reason.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would US Government lawyers have more weight on sources on an article that is not about US government lawyers? It's about a physical practice used worldwide for half a millenium: Waterboarding the act is older than the United States itself. Answer this question carefully. I think all your arguments and anything else to be said hinges on it. Lawrence Cohen 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If the US government takes a position, that should certainly be covered in the article and mentioned in the lede. Part of what we need to understand is whether the US government is alone in its thinking or if other people, organizations, and governments agree. This is information about the status of things, not a moral pronouncement on whether the US government is right or wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 21:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's practically impossible to source.

We don't know that the U.S. government is alone in its position. There are no comparable situations pertaining to other countries. Their agencies could very well have the same policies with the same thinking behind it but without the story having been leaked the way ours has. Since the U.S. has kept our policy secret, it's reasonable to assume other countries would do the same.

Beyond that, keep in mind that the CIA has only done this three times that we know of, and it took 9/11 to bring it about. Most other countries haven't been through the same situation in recent times. As we've seen, some will quietly approve rendition to let our CIA handle it.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy solution, then. If it's not verifiable to source something, it simply isn't a concern for Wikipedia. That just leaves the question here of why you feel US government authorities should have enhanced weight and value as sources on a topic that is older than the US, and predates the US itself by over 300 years. Lawrence Cohen 21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

But you're saying that everybody else says it's always torture. I'm simply pointing out that some authorities are silent.

U.S. government viewpoints seem to be the only authorities who've spoken at this level.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't source to a vacuum. If no such sourcing exists, we can't acknowledge it. As far as 'at this level', it still comes back to the question: why do we value US government interests as sources higher, on the torture question, when this practice is not specific to the US government? I really am curious to see your answer. Is this related to your stated belief that foreign opinion is irrelevant? Lawrence Cohen 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is related, although from your previous comments I think you misunderstood what I meant. For example, I never said we shouldn't use foreign viewpoints on U.S. waterboarding. I only meant it would be inconclusive on whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. I think I'm more lenient than you are on sources anyway.

As an example of what I do mean, I've seen no sources on foreign use of waterboarding in a comparable situation. How many foreign governments have officially declared they disagree with the U.S. legal reasoning?

If you find some, they'd be important although it could be comparable to our congressional oversight situation where they say one thing in public and act differently in private.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking in circles. There is no US position officially on waterboarding--why even bring it up? It's a non-starter that no one cares about, because we can't source something that doesn't exist. Flat out, full stop, unless we have sources that say its not torture, we have to use what we have for sources. 140+ reliable source entries that say its torture, going back to ancient times. 1-2 people in modern times saying it's probably not torture, because the US had to do what it had to do. Our job isn't to defend any viewpoint. You may consider that your job, but if you think that way, you may as well pack up bags now, since that isn't what Wikipedia is. Get sources, that support your position, or we're done here. As it stands as of this moment, there is no consensus or sourcing that we can obey per policy except to say waterboarding is torture. I don't know why you even said before (downpage) comments along the lines of "Wikipedia's official stance", and so on. Do we have to worry about some sort of external repercussions for reporting what outside sources all say? Is the government concerned? Nonsense. We follow our internal guidelines, and outside political games don't carry weight here. This is a global project. Please find sources, Randy. You're not going to sway anyone, period, with airy comments about concern for US POV. Source it, period. That is how articles operate. Prove to us there is a conflict on the torture definition; and prove that there are sources that contest the historically accepted torture classification.

Please respond with links we can check sources at, or assurances you're going to do that, or else anything else on this topic with your stance is a waste of your time as much as ours, unfortunately. Bring sources, or perhaps you may want to move on to another article. I'm not going to back down on sourcing policies, and I doubt others will. Lawrence Cohen 22:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text where I said that. It doesn't have what came before that, but I think it's enough.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Anderson Cooper and Jeffrey Toobin put it best a couple weeks ago when they said something to the effect of, "It seems pretty clear to me and to you, so why does the administration have such a hard time defining it as torture?" Thompsontough (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably because there are lawfare consequences to such a statement. "Torture" is legally defined, and waterboarding may or may not (especially depending on circumstances and methods) be such. I can imagine a number of political and military figures (of both major political parties) being hauled into court by political opponents for what was considered legitimate training if waterboarding was to be legally defined as torture. Unintended consequences and all that. Not to decide is to decide, but not to say is not to say. htom (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

1. Let's all agree that our personal views do not agree on this subject in general
2. The question asked is not as simple as it is posed, ergo, a simple answer is not possible. Sorry Lawrence Cohen.
3. Anything being done repeatedly or for an extended period of time can be considered torture. As an example, is it torture to keep a suspect up for 12 hours? 18 hours? 24? 48? 72? Some people say 48 is too much, but others say 72 is the limit? The Geneva convention states you must give someone 4 hours of sleep every 24 hours (it is not stated that the hours must be consecutive). The point is that "torture" is a legal definition that varies from country to country and definitely from person to person. It isn't something as concrete as the color blue or Sears. Even the torture page reflects this, though I think the lead could use some work.
4. Given that there are differing personal and legal opinions on the subject, it would be disingenuous to concretely state one way or the other as to whether this technique is considered torture. There is nothing shameful about doing so. This is a repository of knowledge and the knowledge on this subject is under dispute and is incomplete. This article should reflect it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Suffocating someone with water (which waterboarding is) clearly constitutes torture, whether that is done for a long or short period, just as placing someone on the Rack (torture) for a brief period constitutes torture. All four branches of the U.S. Military know this and consequently prohibit all U.S. military personnel from conducting this activity, as has already been discussed. Badagnani (talk) 07:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This gets into the "what is waterboarding" thing that I keep trying to get people to address. Some of the methods do not involve suffocation at all; the body's nervous system is tricked into the feeling that there is suffocation going on, but there is no suffocation. (Noting en passant that placing someone on the rack was the third of the five levels of such torture, the first being threatening, the second showing the rack.) htom (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

1. Just because the military says you can't do something to someone you capture, does not make it torture. As a member of the Armed Forces, I know the basics of what I can and cannot do. I can reasonably restrain someone, but cannot force them into a 3ft x 3ft x 3ft cell. I can let someone sleep a half hour, wake them for a half hour, repeat seven more times each hour, then keep them awake for 16 hours and then repeat the whole cycle for an indefinite period. This, under the terms of which the US signed treaties, is NOT torture (not saying I would actually do that without orders to do so, but still, it is something any country is permitted to do to captives in conflict). Amnesty International defines this as "torture". The U.S. military does not. Furthermore, your argument with regards to the military is a red herring and do not directly apply ("group A says their members can't use waterboarding and therefore it is torture" is disingenuous at best).
2. Waterboarding produces the same panic that results from drowning, but does not give the negative side effects (specifically, death) to the person the act is being perpetuated upon. It is a mental trick on the brain which is at the center of our psyche: namely survival (see above for more information). So, I disagree with your conclusions.
3. There are 3 branches of the military (Air Force, Army, Navy [the Marines are a just a Department of the Navy...albeit the men's department...])

I was taught five, you've both forgotten the Coast Guard. Or four, if you want to call us the Navy's "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" department. ;) htom (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Coast Guard fell under the Department of Transportation until it was absorbed into Homeland Security. It only falls under the DoD under wartime conditions...and even then, it still falls under the Navy (using the previous analogy, maybe they would fall under sporting goods? toys? lingerie?). — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, I disagree with your conclusions as absolute, though they are the general opinions of one side of the argument (see the sources below). Your personal opinions on the subject are irrelevant in this context and cannot produce an amicable solution to this dilemma. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The "negative side effects" comment fails to take into consideration the sources (specifically that Henri Alleg has stated that "accidental" waterboarding deaths in Algeria were not uncommon). Badagnani (talk) 07:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of reading every single source that has already been provided. Fine, a few people have died while using these techniques, but was it because they did it wrong? Was it due to other factors? Tasers have the exact same problem: some people have died, but its use isn't intended to be fatal, but when used improperly it can be fatal.

• Comment - Further, Malcolm Nance, a U.S. expert on waterboarding, does not agree with the majority of your quite extraordinary claims above (i.e. that waterboarding is purely a form of psychological non-torture). He states, from his extensive SERE experience, that it is certainly a form of torture, and that it is not a form of "controlled drowning," but is in fact "drowning." Badagnani (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I never said "controlled drowning". Please do not erroneously quoted me using certain words when I didn't do so.
2. I guess it completely depends on your personal definition of the word "drowning." Is it the sensation? Is it all psychological (pain doesn't actually exist and is all in our minds...technically true, but belittles the pain felt by any victim of trauma)? It is the result of someone who is killed by submersion in water? etc.
3. In short, your argument is based on a single side of the issue. This is neither the time nor place for this discussion. If a certain person on the subject is right or wrong is irrelevant in this forum. That there is a debate on its usage and whether or not it constitutes torture is an undeniable fact. Whether one side is right or wrong is not for us to decide. We should present both sides and let the readers make their own conclusions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It's three things: cutting off of the subject's air supply (i.e., suffocation), as well as the introduction of water into the throat, and, consequently, the lungs and stomach. The sensation and the feeling of terror would be other elements. Regarding the quote of "controlled drowning," I was not quoting you but quoting a phrase that has appeared in the media quite a bit over the past weeks. Regarding whether this discussion is necessary, it was indeed necessary to respond to your extraordinary claims (i.e., that waterboarding is purely psychological in nature, and not a form of torture). Such claims, apparently made without first considering the sources we have been actively scrutinizing over the past weeks, can easily mislead others. Badagnani (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Holding your breath "cuts off your air supply" as well, so "suffocation" is a bit extreme in this case is simply a matter of time (1 second is too much? 2 seconds? 30 seconds? 2 minutes?) etc. In short, the procedure is so broadly defined that surmising it as "torture" is akin to saying handcuffs are torture because someone in custody choked to death on them. The two are not necessarily the same. Seeing as how there is not and consensus on the matter. The simplest way to solve the problem is to accept that there is some dispute. If you cannot consider this as an option, then further discussion is pointless. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - That is a most unusual argument: because waterboarding involves the cutting off of the subject's air supply by an external force (i.e. the water poured on the subject's face by the person conducting the waterboarding), it must not be a form of torture, because one could also hold their breath, and that would not be torture? It's difficult to even respond to a "I didn't punch you in the face, your nose collided with my fist" comment such as this. Very, very strange. Badagnani (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1. FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS WIKIPEDIA, PLEASE INDENT YOUR COMMENTS!!! Randomly putting them at the beginning of the line is very difficult to read.
2. Waterboarding involves interrupting the normal flow of air, not "cutting off". I was not equating waterboarding with holding your breath; only that the ambiguity of the terminology is simply not accurate. Since there is no set way waterboarding must be done, it is impossible for you to make such an argument in the first place. Without going into classified details, I have had my face locked in a diving facemask and then had a turned on hose shoved in my face. Water was in my lungs, stomach, sinuses, etc. I would have told them anything to get them to stop. It was very unpleasant and I certainly coughed and sputtered, but I was up and ran 4 miles less than a half hour later. My point is that it isn't as simple as "that's torture", and the definition varies (even on the torture article). You cannot pidgeonhole this into a nice, neat package. It is nebulous and not easily definable. Recognizing this reality only states the obvious: reasonable people can disagree on this subject. Why can't we leave it at that?
3. For the last time, please stop making uncivil comments that constitute a personal attack. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh, I see--you did actually say, just above, that you "have no intention of reading every single source that has already been provided." That's a very interesting comment, in light of the opinions you are presenting at some length here. Badagnani (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, please read WP:talk for indentation of your comments. It makes the discussion much easier to read. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Please read how to indent your comments appropriately...

As for your assertion, I do not need to read every single word of every single opinion of every single article, forum, or note scribbled on a bar napkin to formulate a viable opinion whether or not this waterboarding's status as a means of torture is under debate. I do not implicitly or explicitly defend its use by anyone, but that is not the point here. Please limit your comments to the subject at hand and refrain from personal comments — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read OtterSmith's contribution as a further example. — BQZip01 — ^talk 10:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Leaving polemics and politics aside, let's look at the cold, impartial, clinical definition of torture. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture Is it used to inflict mental anguish and distress? If so, then the definition in the article should stand as torture.

AllenHansen (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your solution is a violation of WP:SYN. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it? AllenHansen (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If waterboarding isn't torture, I don't know what is. I'd also like to point out that the US government previously prosecuted cases during the post WWII period and during the Vietnam War relating to charges of waterboarding. And the use of waterboarding in Cambodia during the same time was particularly cruel. Is waterboarding painful? Yes. Is it fatal? That's debatable? Is it torturous? Most definitely. --Sharkface217 04:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

List of what the sources say

Can we create a list of sources and summarize what they say? Perhaps we can see the balance of evidence and come up with a statement that reflects what the reliable sources as a group say. If there are several different positions, as I think will be the case, we can give proportional attention to each position and identify who is saying what. This will help create a comprehensive and useful article. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please make any comments at the bottom. The best way to refute a source is to present another source that says something different. Jehochman ^Talk 19:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This is misguided because it assumes that we can decide based upon sources whether it is or is not torture. All we can decide is that some people say so... while others disagree. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• It might help commenters to read about WP:V, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT to understand whether WP should avoid the extensively sourced word torture.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Since no one has suggested that this article avoid the extensively sourced word "torture" reviewing those policies in regard to that brand new issue would be pointless. Unless you are the one now suggesting it. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding generally is torture (156)

• 115 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., 115 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
• Comment This letter is a form of astroturfing and should be treated collectively as one source, not 115 separate sources. See our own Wikipedia article on "Techniques": "It has become easier to structure an astroturfing campaign in the electronic era because the cost and effort to send an e-mail (especially a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom e-mail) is so low." Here we have a pre-written, sign-your-name-at-the-bottom letter to the USAG. It's astroturfing, and I've adjusted the total number of sources listed at the top of this section accordingly. Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• All of these sources signed this letter of their own choice as far as anyone knows, and the letter is public. Therefore it is safe to treat the letter as a representation of their views. Whether the letter constitutes astroturfing is irrelevant. However, it is also clear that this is not astroturfing. Astroturfing is about seek[ing] to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior (see first sentence of Astroturfing); it does not apply to just any pre-written letter. There is no intent to deceive the readers of the letter into believing this was grassroots activity. This is simply a signed letter. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Through their published writings available on the Internet, their professional associations and their chosen research projects, Richard Abel, Bruce Ackerman, Madelaine Adelman, José E. Alvarez, Paul Amar, Fran Ansley and Michael Avery have all demonstrated a distinctly left-of-center perspective. For example, three of them have made an effort to convey the notion that abuses of police powers are the rule, rather than the exception. These are seven of the eight law professors signing the letter to Gonzalez whose last names start with the letter "A." The eighth, Catherine Adcock Admay of Duke University, doesn't have enough information about her available online to make a determination. If these law professors are a representative sample, these 115 law professors are at least as politically motivated as a John Yoo or a Michael Mukasey. So the answer is, "Yes, they 'have axes of their own to grind, and allegiances of their own to serve.' " Neutral Good (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that this makes that much difference, but I counted 115 signatories to the letter, so I changed "100" above to "115". —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• John McCain. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. [1]

reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."

Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: indenting/striking Graham, he didn't say waterboarding is torture in this source. Neutral Good (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Department of State. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Immersion is considered a form of waterboarding when it causes the victim to experience the sensations of drowning. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Considered by who? Partisans trying to score a cheap political point against the Bush Administration? Immersion is not waterboarding. Indenting/striking the State Department, it didn't say waterboarding is torture in this source. Neutral Good (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Judge Evan J. Wallach published in the Washington Post: "The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed." Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But he didn't say, "Waterboarding is torture." See my comments below regarding Wallach's article. Neutral Good (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

More references that immersion can be a waterboarding technique (these two references suggest that it is in fact the modern CIA method):

"Descriptions of water boarding as it is apparently currently applied differ very little from the techniques applied by the Japanese. One investigator describes water-boarding as a technique “...in which a prisoner is stripped, shackled and submerged in water until he begins to lose consciousness...” Another source says “...a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.”

"U.S. interrogators have used the technique of "waterboarding" to break the will of detainees. They are strapped to a board and immersed repeatedly in water, just short of drowning. As anyone knows who has ever come close to drowning or suffocating, the oxygen-starved brain sends panic-signals that overwhelm everything else."

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

On two counts in plain English.

(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore it permits some acts suffered incidental to lawful sanctions.

Indenting/striking US Law 18/2340, it didn't say waterboarding is torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004

• For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore

Indenting/striking UNCAT, it didn't say waterboarding is torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff

• Jimmy Carter. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007

Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If members of the Bush Administration are to be discredited due to their alleged political bias, then Jimmy Carter, a Democrat and one of the administration's most strident critics long before the waterboarding debate began, should also be discredited due to political bias. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't discredit and eliminate people as sources that aren't sources. The Bush administration has no public stance on this question. Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: indenting/striking Carter, he didn't say waterboarding is torture in this source. Do not delete it, in case other sourcing turns up. Lawrence Cohen 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mississippi Supreme Court. [2]In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8

  The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.

• Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge, former JAG, [3] states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture." Also commented on Tokyo War Crimes Trials: "The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding."

Comment: Wallach's first comment does not reference waterboarding specifically, but only mentions "certain types of water-based interrogation." This isn't specific enough. In his second comment, the trials of Japanese soldiers who waterboarded US POWs during World War II had also brutally beaten those soldiers with their hands and feet. All of these actions in the aggregate were described as "torture." Again, this isn't specific enough to the subject of waterboarding to support your unequivocal "Waterboarding is torture" claim. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You are fighting a strawman argument - Wallach never said that US POWs weren't beaten, what he said was "The principal proof upon which their torture convictions were based was conduct that we would now call waterboarding." I recommend you read the cited article that he wrote which was published in the Washington Post. You may still personally disagree with his assessment, and are of course free to provide citations to other reliable sources that also disagree with his assessment. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wallach never actually states "waterboarding is torture." He mentions several previous instances in which other persons described some water-based interrogation technique as torture. But he doesn't state that in his own opinion, waterboarding is torture. Furthermore, he states very clearly that there are several different types of waterboarding. "That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed. The media usually characterize the practice as "simulated drowning." That's incorrect. To be effective, waterboarding is usually real drowning that simulates death.' Notice that he said "usually." He didn't say "always." Finally, Wallach is a judge in the International Court of Trade. This is not a court that hears criminal cases. The utility of this source is badly compromised. Neutral Good (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wallach never actually states "waterboarding is torture." You're right - he never uses those three specific words together; instead he writes an article titled "Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime", which is 1090 words long, and uses the word torture eight times - approximately once per paragraph. His point of view is clear to any English speaker.

"Finally, Wallach is a judge in the International Court of Trade." He is also a former Judge Advocate General in the Nevada National Guard. He used to present annual lectures for Military Police talking about their legal obligations regarding prisoners. His article has been published by a reliable source. What exactly is the dispute here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He never says, "Waterboarding is torture." That exactly is the dispute here. The transcript of the Glenn Beck Program where Congressman (and attorney) Ted Poe says unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture also uses the word "torture" about eight times. But neither Ted Poe nor Glenn Beck said, "Waterboarding is torture." Thanks Chris. Neutral Good (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Wallach in The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law: "Historical analysis demonstrates U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions.". As a sidenote: he also writes for the International Law of War Association which has a few other articles on the military tribunals and prosecution of Japanese interrogators after WWII. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) and is an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.", "as a torture instrument, waterboarding is a terrifying, painful and humiliating tool" and "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".
• CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
• Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
• Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
• Joseph Galloway (famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam) "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes." "Four decades ago, as a reporter in Vietnam, I saw what it was like. When you hog-tie a human being, tilt him head down, stuff a rag in his mouth and over his nostrils and pour water onto the rag slowly and steadily to the point where his lungs start to fill with water, that is torture."
• Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."
• NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

Comment: Notice that Kiriakou said, "Waterboarding may be torture." He did not say, "Waterboarding is torture." He belongs in the same column with Thomas Hartmann and Michael Mukasey, not in this column. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."
• Harry Reid, US Senate Majority leader: "Waterboarding is torture. It started in the 1492 inquisition. It's a hideous process. It's something that America should not be associated with." Source.

Comment: If members of the Bush Administration are to be discredited due to their alleged political bias, then Harry Reid, a Democrat and one of the administration's most strident critics long before the waterboarding debate began, should also be discredited due to political bias. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• "A History of Torture" (Scott 1940) states that waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual."
• Washington Post, "Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002" "The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War," and Lindsey Graham "now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal."
• US court: In 1983 Texas sheriff James Parker and three of his deputies were convicted for conspiring to force confessions. The complaint said they "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning." The sheriff was sentenced to ten years in prison, and the deputies to four years.
• Chase J. Nielson, who was captured in the Doolittle raid, testified at the trial of his captors, "I was given several types of torture... I was given what they call the water cure." and it felt "more or less like I was drowning, just gasping between life and death." Note: although Nielson called the torture "water cure" the technique was actually waterboarding; the water cure involves being forced to drink large quantities of water, not simulated drowning.

Comment: If "the technique was actually waterboarding" rather than the "water cure," I look forward to seeing your WP:RS. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

An amusing objection given that Nielson explicitly said it felt like drowning, but I will oblige with a reliable source: Judge Evan Wallach in the Washington Post called it waterboarding Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Nielson on the exact technique: "Well, I was put on my back on the floor with my arms and legs stretched out, one guard holding each limb. The towel was wrapped around my face and put across my face and water poured on. They poured water on this towel until I was almost unconscious from strangulation, then they would let up until I’d get my breath, then they’d start over again." That is clearly waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• The torture debate in America (Greenberg, Cambridge University Press) "Instances of homicide, rape, so-called 'waterboarding,' and various other means of torture have been corroborated and reported by various national media sources."

• British Law The Double Tenth trials of Japanese interrogators in British Singapore included prosecutions for waterboarding.

• U.S. Air Force waterboarding by North Koreans "Air Officer Tells of Torture By Foe, New York Times, 6 August, 1953 in which USAF Lt. Col. William Harrison describes being "...tortured with the ‘water treatment’ by Communist North Koreans.” As Harrison described it: 'They used the water treatment. They would bend my head back, put a towel over my face and pour water over the towel.'"

• The Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1614: An Anthology of Sources "The forms of torture in the Spanish Inquisition - and there is no evidence they ever changed - were the toca, wherein large quantities of water were pouted down the defendant's nose and mouth to simulate drowning"

• Interesting article on Newsvine. Read here. Newsvine itself is not a reliable source, but this article is fascinating, with numerous historical citations detailing the history of waterboarding as torture. There are at least 3-4 sources here that can be gleaned for use here, to expand this list. Someone feel up to this? I don't have time unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen 20:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• William Loren Katz, author of over 40 books on US history, on waterboarding as torture. Lawrence Cohen 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, burning at the stake, electric shock treatment to the genitals, cutting out parts of the body, e.g. tongue, entrails or genitals, severe beatings, suspending by the legs with arms tied behind back, applying thumbscrews, inserting a needle under the fingernails, drilling through an unanesthetized tooth, making a person crouch for hours in the ‘Z’ position, waterboarding (submersion in water or dousing to produce the sensation of drowning), and denying food, water or sleep for days or weeks on end." Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Richard Armitage, former US deputy secretary of state, was waterboarded during SERE training. Said: "Of course water-boarding is torture, I can't believe we're even debating it. We shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff."[4]

• Henri Alleg, water-boarded by the French military during the Algerian War, wrote: "I had the impression of drowning, and a terrible agony, that of death itself, took possession of me. My body struggled uselessly to save me from suffocation. The fingers of my hands shook uncontrollably. 'That's it! He's going to talk!' said a voice."[5]

• Matt Frei, said "The debate should not be about whether water-boarding is torture or not. It is."[6]

• Cristián Correa, Senior Associate, International Center for Transitional Justice: "The whole debate about if waterboarding is torture or not seems artificial to me, because it is very clear that drowning detainees during interrogation is a way of intentionally inflicting severe physical suffering for obtaining from him information or a confession."[7]

• Richard E. Mezo, was subjected to waterboarding during his U.S. Air Force training in 1963.[8]

• Marty Lederman,"To say that this is not severe physical suffering -- is not torture -- is absurd. And to invoke the defense that what the Spanish Inquisition did was worse, that we use a more benign, non-torture form of waterboarding -- after all, we don't stomp on the victim's chest! -- is obscene. And yet here we have a United States official invoking that justification today, in sworn testimony to Congress, without betraying the slightest hint of self-awareness of how grotesque it is . . . and no one so much as blinked, so inured are we to this discourse by now."[9][10]

• Jack Balkin Waterboarding is torture. And torture is a war crime. If the White House has admitted to waterboarding, it has admitted to both.[11]

• Vann Nath, one of seven known survivors of the Khmer Rouge's Tuol Sleng prison in Cambodia, and a witness to waterboarding, which was extensively used there.[12]

• Hillary Clinton (her 2008 presidential campaign's position as stated by Lee Feinstein, national security director for her 2008 presidential campaign).[13]

• Louise Arbour The controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States qualifies as torture.[14]

• Prof. Bent Sørensen, IRCT Senior Medical Consultant and former member of the UN Committee Against Torture, confirms that waterboarding is indeed a form of torture.[15]

• Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.[16]

1. "Sample 1 quotation from source" - "Example Article 1 title". test.com. Retrieved 2007-12-28.

References

Waterboarding is not torture (4)

• Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ted Poe, conservative commentator Glenn Beck, and conservative pundit Jim Meyers have all stated unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea to start adding general commentators and pundits to the lists? If you do, I'm sure both sides can find many thousands of citations. What do you think the advantages and disadvantages of this are? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Point of order: please list reliable sources, not pundits. Jehochman ^Talk 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that pundits are not reliable sources? Not that I particularly like them as sources but I do not think that the policy says that they are unreliable.--Blue Tie (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Waterboarding may or may not be torture (8+)

Note about this section: I think some or all of these sources would probably agree that it's "generally" a form of torture. Our problem here is that some don't want "generally" to be part of the main definition. -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.
• Attorney General Michael Mukasey (same sources as above) -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Daniel Levin and Steven G. Bradbury -- (USDOJ lawyers, one of whom was actually waterboarded) -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• "designed and cleared with agency lawyers" - "Hill Briefed on Waterboarding in 2002". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-12-28.

Note that these are the only people who are in a position to both know the law, and to have reviewed the exact procedure. I've come across other sources that say the USDOJ approved it, but this is what I have for the moment.

FWIW, that same source shows that a few members of Congress had reviewed this as well.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm unstriking that text, as the comments don't apply. The U.S. legal position means that it's in compliance with UNCAT. -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This item is original research. The article says that waterboarding was "cleared with agency lawyers". Authorizing a technique is not the same as giving an opinion on the record about whether the technique is torture. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to bicker with that. I'd say the phrase "cleared with agency lawyers" cannot be interpreted any other way. They can't clear anything if it's actually torture.

That said, a lot of the "Waterboarding generally is torture" camp two sections up is much more clearly OR than this.

Now that you mention it, after a quick look it appears to me that it might be as much as 75% original research. If we really were to simply tally raw sources, we'd have to pull some stuff out first.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Former U.S. Attorney for SDNY, former Mayor of NYC, and possibly next president of the United States Rudolph Giuliani said that he isn't sure whether WB is torture. His wording indicates his belief that it would be torture in some cases but not in others. [17] Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [18] superficially defines waterboarding as torture. However, the devil is in the details. It defines waterboarding as "continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning" and, as we've seen, there are waterboarding techniques that don't involve immersion. The only way to read the SEP in an objective manner is to say that this reliable source isn't sure. Regards, Bob 70.9.228.223 (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not torture is legal in the United States is irrelevant to it's status as being considered torture by the world. This is also in the wrong section, since it makes no assertation that waterboarding is not torture. In fact, the only torture-related language is: "The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War," that Lindsey Graham "now believes the techniques constituted torture and were illegal." I'll add this to the appropriate section above and strike here to avoid confusion. Lawrence Cohen 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing what I'd said. It's never been my position that torture is legal.

I have not suggested that Wikipedia needs to say that it's absolutely not torture.

The "world" hasn't really given a legal opinion. They may say that they're opposed to it but we haven't heard about rulings against comparable use on unlawful combatants by their intelligence agencies.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Listen, since we keep saying it: We don't need and never will need a "legal" opinion. End of story. "General encyclopedia", and your opinion on sourcing requirements as stated here is completely at odds with what our actual sourcing policies are. Lawrence Cohen 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's because the term unlawful combatant has no legal status anywhere else in the world? The U.S. administration picked a side in a civil war, and then declared that any prisoners they captured in that war weren't protected by the Geneva convention, even though they were fighting as part of an organised milita force within the borders of their own country. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uniform? Chain of command? Follow the other rules? ... There are few of the rules that they have not broken. htom (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia then why is everybody else listing legal sources?

Clearly, if Wikipedia were to say it's always torture without exception, and then it lists a bunch of partisan lawyers as references, it's making a statement on the law.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that say waterboarding is not torture are partisan? Partisan against whom? The US government has no stance on whether it is torture. Lawrence Cohen 22:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, put the "partisan" identification aside for the moment. It's not important to my point.

I'll say it again without that: Clearly, if Wikipedia were to say it's always torture without exception, and then it lists a bunch of lawyers as references, it's making a statement on the law.

I don't think you can deny that. The reader is going to think the article says it has legal standing.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Where will the Wikipedia article have legal standing? This entire line of reasoning is comical. It presumes only exceptionally dull-witted people in the United States are reading, because all these sources are American in this section. Are you concerned that there are legal ramifications in the United States if this article says waterboarding is torture? If so: Wikipedia doesn't give a shit. Really. Thats not how it works. Lawrence Cohen 00:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say the article would have legal standing. I'm only saying that readers might hope for some degree of quality here. For example, the article on the Moon explicitly says "average" when talking about its average distance from the Earth. As long as we're going through all this trouble, we ought to be just as explicit here.

I thought you're the one who does not want this article to say "waterboarding is generally considered to be torture." Why is that important to you if not to add some point on the legal aspects?

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My only point is that we can't say a thing about legality in general terms, because that is unique to each nation. We don't cater to an audience of any one country here. This is why all this nonsense from one side about legal interpretations of torture vis a vis waterboarding is a complete waste of time. If we have a ton of reliable sources that say that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth, and six people in reliable sources that insist that Everest may or may not be the tallest mountain, are we seriously going to say that the Everest's historical status is disputed? Preposterous. Would this even be questioned, that waterboarding is torture, based on the available sourcing, if it wasn't an epic piece of the current American election cycle? Wikipedia is not a political tool, and its role is not for information control. Its sole and only role is to report sourced facts per its internal policies. If that aggravates a selection of people in the real world, because they don't like the material reported, well? So what? We don't remove images of Mohammed. Same thing. Lawrence Cohen 01:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Torture is illegal in most countries, including the U.S., and that includes torture if conducted by the CIA.

So, if waterboarding is always torture, then you are saying something about its legality.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia is in some form of legal risk from saying something like this? Lawrence Cohen 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if those six people were credible scientists with skills and experience in measuring mountain heights and they said that they have done some new measurements or that some physical phenomenon had taken place to raise some other mountain, we might indeed report that its status is disputed. However, you are discussing something that is a testable, measurable matter. Whether Waterboarding is torture is not really "testable" in that same sense, particularly if what is meant by "waterboarding" is not well defined. And the notion of Waterboarding as torture MIGHT be disputed if it is not well defined, even if it were not an election issue. But this is really not the core issue. The core issue is not "Is Waterboarding Torture?" The issue is: "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is Torture?" Every time we get away from that we get away from editing the article constructively. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We have to consider what kind of precision readers should get when they read this article.

The article cites lawyers as sources when it says at the top that it's always torture. That leads the reader to think we're talking about a matter of law.

That's not a problem if we use "generally".

-- Randy2063 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Torture or not Torture -- it is Disputed

I am not arguing that the article should say that waterboarding is not torture. I am arguing that the article should not conclude that it is torture. It should say that the sense of its being torture is disputed.

Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:

1. [19] BBC] outlined, basically the same arguments that have been used on the talk page and ended its news story with the title: :"Debate goes on". It asserts that the debate is not over. I allege that debate and dispute are co-equivalent terms for our purposes here and so we have a reliable source that describes the dispute -- specifically with the intent of not deciding whether waterboarding is torture but to examine whether there is a dispute.

2. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed).

3. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture." This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.

4. A 'Tortured' Debate The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee." The important thing here is not whether it is or is not torture but that the Wall Street Journal directly DISPUTES with those who say it is.

5. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here. This outlines a new unsettled dispute: Legal decisions in the US Courts which have not yet visited this issue.

6. Republican candidates dispute waterboarding Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES? This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.

7. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture: Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't." This does not mean that we should accept his word that it is not torture, but we can certainly acknowledge that he disputes it.

8. Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture. That's just two I found. There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more. Again, this is dispute.

9. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain." Again, the issue here is not that someone is claiming it is not torture, but that they are DIRECTLY DISPUTING with those who say it is torture.

10. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time." Again, a direct disputation to those who claim it is torture.

Other Issues below:

11. Perhaps it is not always torture... maybe it depends on some circumstances. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important. If that is true, can we assert that Waterboarding is torture or must it be less certain?

12. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. " I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point: The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed. Point: Again, Maybe waterboarding is not always actually torture. If there are instances where it is not, or where substantial people would not seriously consider it torture (and there really might be such instances) then we should not conclude that it is always certainly torture.

The argument against training experiences being considered torture is that the "victims" have previously volunteered for the training, knew that such things would be demonstrated on either themselves or other class members, and consented to such. A person who requests to be branded can't then complain that they were tortured by that branding (well, they can, but really!) htom (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Its not important to my main point. I do have a source that was forced into waterboarding though at the hands of an enemy who probably would say it was torture but, remarkably, said it was painless. Just terrifying. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This issue cannot be determined by wikipedia

This RfC is badly constructed. We cannot say if it is torture or not. We can only say what other people think of it. This is per WP:NPOV. Presently it is claimed by some to be torture and that is disputed by others. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Further note: A great deal of the problem with this article would GO AWAY and the edit warring would stop if wikipedia standards were adhered to. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, the Wikipedia article the rack can't actually say that the rack is an instrument of torture. Doesn't that seem a little odd? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We still have yet to see a single source that says something like, "The status of waterboarding as torture is disputed." Lawrence Cohen 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You have one. Well more than one, but at least one. And, it clearly is disputed -- thus we have some saying it is torture and others saying it is not. You are fishing for a way around the problem but it does not go away so easily. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: To my eye, the difference is that no one disputes whether the rack is torture. Per wikipedia standards then, we can state it as a fact. However, if it were seriously disputed (as waterboarding is) then we could not. This is per wikipedia policy. So, using the same policy and the same approach, I come to two different conclusions about the two articles. If that seems odd then you must blame some of it on wikipedia polices.. which have been developed by consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We should disregard pundits and look at what the reliable sources say. If there is a preponderance of one view over another, that is what our article should say. If there are minority views, those should get proportionate representation in the article. Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you bring up pundits? Irrelevant. The notion of preponderance is one that I agree with. However, I also agree with the wikipedia policy that says that if something is seriously disputed it is not a "fact" in wikipedia. Yet this article says it as though it were a fact. BBC:Water-boarding as torture - or not That is another source that says it is disputed.

People keep getting lost in the argument "Is it torture?" "Is it not torture?". Those questions should be IRRELEVANT to editors of this article. It is not for us to decide. We only report. Why is this so hard to grasp UNLESS one has a need to push a pov? Just the facts ma'am. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument that it isn't torture has only been made in the last five years. For hundreds of years it has been considered torture. Isn't it a case of recentism to feature this argument so prominently? Also, how do you account for the global warming article presenting global warming as fact, when there are people who dispute it? Do you think this is also a violation of Wikipedia rules? If so, are you sure that your interpretation of the rules is correct? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming article is a pov push and suffers from WP:OWN problems. The other issues you raise are non-responsive to the issue, and simply perpetuate the errors, so I will not address them. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the global warming article is incorrect POV pushing, and the fact that waterboarding has been considered torture for hundreds of years is irrelevant to this discussion. Well done. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's stand by our convictions, then--if you believe this to be true, apply the same principles to global warming's article, and let us know how that reconciles with policy. Go do the same thing at Collapse of the World Trade Center, and JFK assassination as well. Lawrence Cohen 05:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I apply them to all articles I work on. I am on this article now. Please stop with the Red Herring debate process. Wikipedia has a set of policies. Individual article pages, and consensus on those talk pages do not trump that policy -- per the policy. Stop making this about me. Stop making it about other articles. Instead, just edit this article with neutrality. Its very very easy to do. Just let go of your non-neutral pov and follow the NPOV policy. Really. Its easy. try it. But if you don't want to do that, then stop with the pretenses and just say "I do not want to follow that policy". Then we can go right to mediation. But lets stop this useless discussion if you have no intent on doing this from an npov perspective.--Blue Tie (talk)

I should add, that Global Warming and some of the other pages are also favored by policies associated with Science, where this page does not enjoy the benefit of such policies. You are, to a degree, comparing apples to oranges. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage someone to bring this to the official Dispute Resolution process and would support your decision to do so. I fear there may be a complete breakdown in NPOV understanding here, based on people's personal political views. Please post a link once you've initiated the process. Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My personal political views are irrelevant to NPOV. I share the views of the editors whose comment was solicited and who responded at the bottom of the page. I would prefer not to go to dispute resolution, unless you and others agree that the policies as worded do not apply here. Then I think there is a dispute that is not fixable alone. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unindent I also worry that a dispute resolution will not work. The reason I do not think it will work is because everyone is distracted by things that do not matter. Other pages. Is it torture. Is it not torture. These are all distractions from the issue. But that is where all the discussion goes. Look at how many times I have repeated the issue over and over again, and barely gotten any response. Then look at how many forests of dead electron trees were killed arguing about non-essential issues. The editors here seem unable to focus on the issues that would resolve the problem. This would kill dispute resolution. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, please do not disrupt the process. Let everyone have a chance to present their sources and then we will see the result. Jehochman ^Talk 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, please do not disrupt wikipedia with Red Herrings. The sources have been presented already, in sufficient detail. There is nothing new here. The issues have not changed. But the main issue remains ignored by such shenanigans. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not "waterboarding is torture", neither the lead nor the article describe the various different techniques that are all called by that name. It may be difficult to find accurate descriptions, and harder to find sources for those, I admit, because little is written about them and their use. Substituting "is torture" for those descriptions is useless, or POV, or both. htom (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for a source

Can anyone produce sources that state the status of waterboarding as torture is disputed? Not whether it's use is accepted; nothing about it's "legal" status, which is 101% meaningless for what Wikipedia labels it. Are there any sources that say it's status as an act of torture is disputed? Without that as a starting point, given the weight of sources, I think this argument is over before it began. Lawrence Cohen 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you not been paying attention to the news and some of the items I have posted? --Blue Tie (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that there are sources here who say that it is torture and others who say it is not torture, shows it is disputed. That is the nature of dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

One more new source saying it is disputed: [20]--Blue Tie (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

People, stay reasonable and stop pushing politics. We have a group of people that dispute the Holocaust, nevertheless nobody seriously wants to argue there is a dispute among experts surrounding the Holocaust. Some experts claims Intelligent Design is disputed within the scientific community, nevertheless nobody accepts their logic that among scientists there is any serious debate regarding the scientific merits of ID. There are people that claim the earth is flat, nevertheless for some reason we do not adopt the logical fallacy that the earth being round is disputed. Also we do not accept the fairy tale that AIDS is not caused by HIV merely because some extremists say otherwise. We can go on but for those unfamiliar with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT the reason we do not accept it as dispute is because the vast majority agrees on what the view of the world is, despite the fact some lone wolf might disagree.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dog does not hunt. The dispute here is not a minority lunatic fringe. It includes notable figures and is not over a scientific issue. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a real dispute here. To simply wave your arms and say "No, no dispute" is entirely contrary to wikipedia standards for Verifiability, Neutrality and Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bovine faeces, 2 people disagreeing is a dispute, 1 person disagreeing with a 100+ consensus simply is never a dispute among 101 persons. It is one person refusing to accept what 100+ think is true, such a situation can be described as ignoring consensus, being obstinate, but never as a serious controversy!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have profoundly mis-characterized the dispute here. The people who disagree objectively fit the established definition of a notable minority. And the ratio is not 1 to 100. It is verifiably more like 1 to 2. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give a reference for that? henrik•talk 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably [here].--Blue Tie (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. henrik•talk 10:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough when I look higher up on this page and count the presented sources I am unable to arrive at your 1:2, it is more like 1:100.1Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

this poll linked from the above supports Blue Tie's assertion. However, I'm not sure a recent poll among the American public (especially considering recent efforts to muddy the waters) should be given more weight than the numerous references collected above which pretty much unequivocally supports the assertion that waterboarding is torture. henrik•talk 11:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact people invoke the opinion of US citizens to suggest that among legal experts there is a debate or even that the vox populi in any way determines the existence of a dispute only proves that those opposing it is torture in the lead have no rational argument left.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

THe fact that editors will discount a poll of the largest English Speaking community to nearly zero, in a question of "Whether there is a dispute" is evidence of POV pushing. The poll meets the conditions of Reliability, Verifiability and Neutrality. And ... Within the margin of error, the poll demonstrates a 1:2 ratio of disagreement/agreement. THAT is a dispute with a significant minority disputing -- not a tiny one. Furthermore, the dispute meets the conditions that Jimbo Wales puts forth that it is a NOTABLE minority who are disputing. All other comments of "vast minority" and "overwhelming majority" and "1 to 1000" are all Original Research. I have been asked to provide this piece of information and that piece of information to support my position. Repeatedly, the evidence I present is ignored or discounted on nothing but pov pushing. Never has the information been reviewed by an examination of policy.

And so far, all I have focused on is simply in accordance with wikipedia policy. I have not yet focused on the other problem: There is not just one type of waterboarding. Some versions of it would make most reasonable adults say "That's what people are calling torture? What are they, little girls?" And then there are other versions that are worse than crushing thumbs and that will fold and collapse strong grown men faster than just about anything else. This article does not distinguish between the different versions. THAT is another problem that I have not even addressed yet.

I ask everyone who is seeking to have the article say "Waterboarding IS torture" to consider whether this is their personal view. If it is, then I would suggest that they have a bias that is not permitting them to see clarity on this matter. I happen to think that waterboarding, the way it is sometimes described is clearly torture. I am not so sure about other times, I would have to see it and see how it was done to be sure. And, regardless of whether it is torture, it might be illegal. But my Personal Opinion does not matter one bit. What matters for writing an article are wikipedia policies -- WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. People of different perspectives will NEVER be able to agree if they are unwilling to follow those policies.

I ask people to focus on those policies in order to reach consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First explain to us on what grounds public opinion is relevant to the question: 1 Is the earth round, 2 does HIV cause AIDS, 3 is ID pseudoscience, 4 is alien abduction real, 5 is waterboarding torture, 6 abstinence only an adequate way of preventing pregnancy and STD, et cetera. You will notice that public opinion, however notable, never is an argument to alter what experts think. That is why invoking public opinion is considered a logical fallacy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not and do not need to. None of this relates to the key issue. It is entirely Red Herring. Stick to the subject of THIS article and I will reply. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Torture

Definition from Webster online dictionary

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

While this definition shows that torture could be seen as torture, if it is then the same classification would have to be extended to all interrogation techniques or even police questionings. This is simply because even the smallest of stress inducing questioning sessions could cause "mental anguish." BTW People saying that waterboarding is torture is torturing me. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at consensus

I'm new to this dispute (although I am familiar with the controversy over waterboarding). I just thought I'd attempt to summarise the state of affairs as best I can, in the hope of reaching some kind of neutral consensus here.

To me, and many other people, it seems obvious that waterboarding is a form of torture. However, some people (what I would call a significant minority) disagree, and their views should not be overlooked. However obvious it may seem to me, I cannot claim that it is universally accepted that waterboarding is torture, or that that is an uncontentious statement.

Hence, this article probably can't openly say 'Waterboarding is torture' (however much I wish it did). What it can say is that it is considered torture by considerable majorities of lawyers, judges, human rights groups, laypeople, and victims of waterboarding themselves. Most experts in relevant areas consider it torture; meanwhile, the people who don't think it constitutes torture tend to be (though aren't all) pundits and political commentators with no relevant education in the area.

That's how I recommend this article address the subject: that waterboarding is widely, though not universally, considered to be torture, particularly by lawyers and other experts. It's also worth mentioning that the dispute over it is almost entirely limited to the U.S.; I'm not aware of any major groups outside of the U.S. who don't consider waterboarding to be torture, and insofar as other countries have judged it, most seem to class it as a form of torture or at the very least cruel and inhuman treatment.

Any comments? Terraxos (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You and I see things roughly the same. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How does that reconcile with Global warming's precedent, which states that global warming is happening as a fact, when far, far more people dispute that global warming is happening, compared to the small minority that dispute waterboarding is torture? Lawrence Cohen 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Global Warming is an egregious example of pov pushing ownership - not a precedent, but rather a cancer in the system. The bad that happens on other pages should not rule here. Instead, wikipedia policy, should apply. How is it that this question comes up twice in less than a few minutes? Backchannel communications? or are you copying the statement (that was already answered) from above?--Blue Tie (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The question came up because I saw the page and decided to ask. On what basis are you saying the global warming article is a "cancer"? Lawrence Cohen 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of having edited there for six months and having observed the terrible way things happen on that page. It is not NPOV. Mind you, I do not disagree with much of it, but it is not NPOV. I can give you specific examples but it would be IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We are talking about this page. Leave that one for that page. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at Intelligent Design to see how they respond to a perceived dispute. That article clearly states the facts: there is no dispute but a very vocal group of people tries to tell us there is a controversy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that page handles things well. It reads biased... at least in tone. And perhaps in other ways as well. It does not appear to be a good example and in any case, what is done elsewhere (particularly in scientific areas) does not apply here.--Blue Tie (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We should be careful not to give a fringe view (however vocal) undue weight. henrik•talk 09:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But the issue is not just a matter of undue weight. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely an issue of undue weight. The overwhelming majority of sources cited here say that waterboarding is torture, and a tiny minority say that it is not. This, combined with the fact that waterboarding is self-evidently torture according to the plain English definition of torture, is enough to convince me -- and apparently also the vast majority of posters here -- that the word belongs in the intro sentence. However, I also agree with the other commenters here that the opinions of the small but very vocal minority of people who dispute this are politically significant, and this needs to be mentioned in the article, according to the standard NPOV conventions. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, you are incorrect.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, do you believe that NPOV requires on any subject that any "expert" dissent from the accepted standard of something, requires that Wikipedia no longer say something definitively? What do you feel is the accepted threshold for this sort of thing according to NPOV? Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, but I can accept that there are some cases where that is not so, and these are going to be more often in the scientific field. For example, in the early 1990's there was a doctor and researcher who was saying that AIDS was only related to HIV and that HIV did not actually cause AIDS. He was virtually alone (as a scientist) in this view.

Using that as an example, I would argue that the article should reflect this teensy tiny doubt by not saying "HIV causes AIDS" but rather "HIV is considered the cause of AIDS". I believe wikipedia should never express opinions as facts. Never. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that HIV does not cause AIDS? -- The Anome (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what I seriously believe is irrelevant. Second, that was an EXAMPLE to help answer a question. Let's not get distracted. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, when you say "objectively speaking", I think you mean what other people would say as "in my opinion". The discussion so far suggests strongly that: waterboarding is torture, (a) in the plain construction of the term according to its dictionary definition; (b) in the opinion of a majority of cited sources given here; (c) according to the consensus of the majority of editors of the article, and this RfC. On the other side of the argument, there's a tiny minority of cited sources, and, for the vast majority of comments on the other side of the argument, there's you, and Neutral Good -- and, as far as I can see from this edit history, Neutral Good is a special-purpose account created for the purpose of arguing on this topic, with no previous Wikipedia activity. Yet you claim to have exclusive access to objective truth. Unless you can show that you have some sort of privileged access to Absolute Objectivity, it's hard to see how you expect to prevail in this argument. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to think that I mean what other people would say as "in my opinion". I am not arguing about whether waterboarding is torture. If you keep focusing on whether waterboarding is torture you will miss my point. I am arguing that there is a dispute. Objectively there is a dispute. To say otherwise requires a lack of objectivity and a refusal to pay attention to sources provided and even every-day headlines. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a dispute, in much the same way that there is a dispute that HIV causes AIDS. My point -- and that of many other posters here -- is that, much like the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, it is also a tiny minority view, and thus we should give it the exact same degree of prominence as the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS is given in the AIDS article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it were the same way as HIV causing AIDS. For several reasons. First, I would be surprised to see a poll showing 1:2 differences. I would expect more like 1:10 or 1:20 (there are always weird people in polls). Second, the AIDS issue is scientific. That has a whole different set of considerations. So, you have grabbed something as an example about my thinking and misapplied it. I am sorry I answered the question at all because this is another Red Herring. But I was trying to communicate and be clear. My mistake. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So, a school of law is unscientific, and economics? Clearly you misunderstand what science means.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did I discuss a school of law or economics? Clearly you set up a strawman to beat. Yet my position is not in the strawman. And you are engaging in Red Herring. I will not reply again if this is the way you proceed. It is pointless to go into things that are unrelated to the issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one suggesting that legal matters are non-scientific.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I have not done that. But to put your mind at ease let me be clear: Law is not a field of study in the Natural Sciences.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, there is no dispute among the experts!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is. Ignoring it and putting exclamation points after your statements does not make them go away!--Blue Tie (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You still have to explain why public opinion is even relevant in determining the legalities involved.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. That has been discussed. Anyway its a Red Herring. Irrelevant to the issue. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not discussed. You refer to public opinion to prove there is a dispute and I am interested to hear why public opinion is even relevant. You refuse to explain why this is not a logical fallacy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not paying attention. The issue is not "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?". That is your focus. The issue is: "Is it disputed that waterboarding is torture?". Public opinion gets a say on what the public thinks. This is not a matter of science. It is a matter of opinion and policy. How does this evade you unless you are continuing to mistake the issue? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. It is not "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?" but whether "Is it disputed that waterboarding is torture?" To me the alleged dispute concerns the question "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?" Second, since when is a legal matter, i.e. is such and such torture, open to debate by the public? Again, how is public opinion relevant to the question of 1 did the Holocaust happen, 2 did OJ murder his wife, 3 is torture of PO's a war crime?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. The issue is NOT whether Waterboarding is torture. And torture is not just determined legally, but if it is determined legally then waterboarding is not always torture per U.S. Law. You can't have it both ways. But really... this is not about whether Waterboarding is torture. Its about whether the issue is disputed. That is the only issue. You keep ignoring that. We are not here to blog or give an opinion. We are here to write an article. The article must be written according to wikipedia policy. That is all.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Blue Tie re Fringe, and why the not-torture view is a minority by policy

We need no external source that says the alleged American Conservative view is a fringe viewpoint; read WP:FRINGE:

• "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."
• "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas."

Next, read WP:WEIGHT:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Regrettably, the viewpoint that Waterboarding isn't torture, based on all available sourcing, is a minority viewpoint. We would be derelict in our duties to promote this obscure viewpoint, and I would hope anyone would be wise enough to revert efforts to POV push such a fringe viewpoint down to the level it is entitled to, based on sourcing--passing reference. As always, put up the sourcing to contradict this, and I'll be happy to update my viewpoint. I've bolded the most important part. If this upsets some political sensibilities: too damn bad. NPOV is non-negotiable, ever, and bending, yielding, or giving room on NPOV is non-negotiable, it's required to be all or nothing all the time. Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is regrettable. Thats a weird idea. I agree that it is a minority view. I can source that. Can you source that it is a Non-notable minority? I can provide references and comments by Jimbo that say it is Notable. Can you find references that it is a Fringe theory other than original research? Can you provide references that show that the debate is between obscure persons? I can provide references that show otherwise. I agree that NPOV is non-negotiable. But I believe you are negotiating it away. Here are my assertions:

1. It is disputed. I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that say that it is disputed.
2. It is disputed by a minority of 1:2. I have provided reliable verifiable sources that give this general ratio. You have agreed that a ratio of that size makes it reasonably large.
3. It is disputed by notable figures. I have provided cites and quoted Jimbo.

My approach is entirely within the confines of policy, especially NPOV. If you are seeking to dismiss, you should address each of those points and you should provide references as I have done. Please note.. I have NEVER said that the "Not Torture" view was not a minority. See the points above... those are my points. For the moment, anything else is irrelevant (I reserve the issue related to types of waterboarding for later). --Blue Tie (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is disputed by a minority of 1:2. Not according to the sources presented above. There we have a very tiny and extremely small minority, which is known as WP:FRINGE.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

According to sources I have already presented 4 times. There is no need for me to do it a fifth time. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit more:

WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. WP:ASF is Policy. WP:NPOV is policy. WP:VER is policy. So, where can we find the verifiable source that declares "The idea that Waterboarding is not torture is disputed is an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Where is it? Because it must be a fringe idea that there is a dispute before fringe guidelines can even begin to trump NPOV policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite regrettable, and if you want a clue why my stances here feel bipolar sometimes (like you asked on my talk page once): I personally feel that if the need or situation demands it waterboarding is acceptable and not torture. However, I'm willing to suck it up and yield because you're simply not getting our rules. You and I both need to stop and let others respond now. I advise that you and I both do not edit these pages for the rest of the weekend until Monday, to let others in. Do you agree? Lawrence Cohen 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, sometimes you confuse me. I think that sometimes it might not be torture but usually is, even if people find it "acceptable". I think it is likely to be illegal, even if it is not torture, but that is my personal view. I think the torture kind should be illegal if it is not .. and if there is ever a public emergency need to break the law, then it still needs to be handled in a court and I hope that the situation will support leniency toward the lawbreaker.

As far as your proposal, I have not seen you edit very much. I have edited far more. I do not agree that my position should not be vigorously advanced by my responses here, but I may not have the time anyway. So it may happen largely by default, but if I get a chance I may return. However, I will try to be circumspect. I will confess... I am annoyed at the confusion or conflation o of the issues. The whole matter to me devolves to this one point: It is disputed. --17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's let others weigh in. I have conviction in my stances, and believe they will stand without having to micro-challenge all of them. Do you have that faith in your own positions? As for whether or not you've seen me edit isn't really relevant, is it? But if you want to know, do featured article nomination, Good Articles, DYKs, and about 4-5 other featured articles I have my eye on lining up count? See you next week sometime. Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not able to stop others from weighing in even if I wanted to. Though I have faith in my position I do not see any evidence that anyone here wants to edit the article from the perspective of the policies. It appears to me that editors feel it is utterly important that we either prove or disprove that waterboarding is torture. This is a path to bad editing and edit wars in the article. As far as the statement about your editing... I was referring to THESE talk pages on Waterboarding.. and the notion that we should stop adding our comments here. I have no doubts about your editing skills in other areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you check the talk page history, I've been discussing this issue for months. You were newer. ;) Lawrence Cohen 02:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without researching it, I believe you. Yes I am newer. Some folks think that means I am some sort of pov warrior. Maybe they are right, but they would misinterpret the pov I edit for. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Supportable and unsupportable statements

I think we can all agree on these six facts:

F1. The topic of the article is Waterboarding, not Waterboarding in the United States.

F2. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is a form of torture is held by a majority of the public and a very strong majority of experts in law, medicine, and torture.

F3. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is not torture is held by a minority of the public and a smaller minority of prominent politicians.

F4. We have found no qualified experts on torture or the law who claim that waterboarding is not torture, period. The closest we have is Andrew McCarthy's statement that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others.

F5. There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States. (revised, see F5a)

F5a. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

F6. There was no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000. (revised, see F6a)

F6a. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

(If you accept these facts, please indicate your agreement. If you dispute them, please indicate which one(s) and present verifiable evidence of the contrary.)

Therefore:

• "Waterboarding is not torture" is a recent, U.S.-centric, minority viewpoint.
• "It is disputed that waterboarding is torture," without additional qualification, is not a supportable statement. In order to be presented in a supportable manner, any dispute must be presented as local to the United States and the present day.

Now, see Wikipedia:WEIGHT:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Also according to Wikipedia:WEIGHT:

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Therefore, there are two clear consequences of policy:

A. The viewpoint that "waterboarding is not torture" does not belong in Wikipedia because it is held by a vastly limited minority. It is held by no qualified experts or authorities on the record, it is local to a single country, and it is a recent viewpoint at odds with the historically established understanding of waterboarding.

B. The viewpoint that "waterboarding may or may not be torture" is held by one expert. Since the article must present this minority view "in proportion to [its] representation among experts on the subject," any mention of this viewpoint must be (a) balanced against the strong majority of expert opinions, (b) clearly confined to the United States, and (c) clearly confined to recent times.

The implementation of these two things is straightforward.

A. It is acceptable for the lead to start out "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of...".

B. It can be mentioned, briefly, in the body of the article that there is a dispute in the United States. For example, "Although waterboarding has been historically considered torture, and is considered torture today by a wide range of authorities (including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations), the matter has recently been the topic of dispute in the United States."

—Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the points you consider to be unanimous:

Point 1, I agree

Point 2, I do not agree with the second part.

Point 3, I consider the second part to be original research.

Point 4, I believe that there have been legal experts who have said it is not torture.

Point 5, I believe that is original research. Have you taken a poll of all people world wide and all governments world wide?

Point 6, I believe that is original research.

I do not think you have hit upon a list that are all agreed upon. --00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As to F2 and F3: the evidence is on this page. If you want to convince anyone otherwise, it is up to you to show that there is no majority of opinion among experts (F2) or politicians (F3). —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As to F4: for us to take seriously your claim that you "believe there have been legal experts who have said it is not torture", you need to present evidence. A search for sources has been open for many weeks (months?) now, and has turned up nothing. If you have a source we haven't seen yet, by all means go ahead and post it. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources in support of propositions F5 and F6 at the top of this section. Not sources that say, "Waterboarding is torture." I'd like to see reliable sources that say, "Every human being in the entire world agrees that waterboarding is torture." We have seen very little evidence of opinion, expert or otherwise, outside of the United States or prior to 2000. And for much of the little bit that we have, there are equivocations and qualifications. Since you are presenting these as statements of fact, the burden of proof is on you.

You also claim, "The viewpoint that 'waterboarding may or may not be torture' is held by one expert." Variations of that viewpoint are held by Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Judge Advocate General Thomas Hartmann, former US prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, and former US prosecutor Mary Jo White. All four are attorneys and therefore experts. All four of them are noteworthy experts. McCarthy and White were appointed by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and left service in the Justice Department shortly after Bush became president; therefore they have no personal allegiance to the Bush Administration.

In his frequently discussed memo, John Yoo stated that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA did not violate the prohibition against torture in international law (Including UNCAT). At that time (2002), the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques happened to include waterboarding. Therefore, although Yoo didn't specifically mention waterboarding, it is unreasonable to assume that he was not discussing it. He was the deputy assistant attorney general at that time. That makes five prominent legal experts. In fact, all five of them are more prominent than the law professors who signed the letter to Gonzalez.

Ted Poe, in addition to being a congressman, is also a licensed attorney. That makes him a legal expert. He has stated unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture. Kindly stop pretending that Andrew McCarthy is the only legal expert who undercuts your arguments. I count six. Neutral Good (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"I would like to see your sources in support of propositions F5 and F6 at the top of this section...reliable sources that say, "Every human being in the entire world agrees that waterboarding is torture." Another straw man argument. Neither F5 nor F6 claimed that "every human being in the entire world agrees that waterboarding is torture."

"We have seen very little evidence of opinion, expert or otherwise, outside of the United States or prior to 2000." This is not true and you know it; at least six of the references in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition are prior to 2000, not just individual references but major court findings like the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. But if this is honestly the only point of contention, I'm sure people can dig up many many more references prior to 2000. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mukasey, Hartmann, McCarthy, and White: McCarthy is the only one of these four, as far as I know, to have stated that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others (I'm referring to [his article in the NRO]). Mukasey and Hartmann have specifically refused to answer the question, which is not the same thing. (If you have other sources, please give them.) White merely argued in support of Hartmann, without giving any opinion of her own on whether waterboarding is torture. So:

• This doesn't bear on F4, since F4 says Andrew McCarthy is the closest thing we have to a legal expert who says that waterboarding is not torture (he says it is not torture if done only once or twice). That's still the case. Are you willing to accept F4, then?
• I admit that my statement at B is a bit ambiguous. More clearly stated:

• B. The viewpoint that "waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others" is held by one expert.

If you prefer to identify both these categories, I have no problem with that.

• B. The viewpoint that "waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others" is held by one expert, and two other legal experts have refused to state an opinion in response to direct questioning on the issue.

This doesn't affect the argument or the conclusion, though: it can be mentioned, briefly, in the body of the article that there is some recent dispute about the issue in the United States. No problem with that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding evidence for F5 and F6: Let me be clear about what we're trying to achieve here. It doesn't matter whether I convince you that there is no historical dispute. What matters is what can be stated in the article. If I want to put into the article the sentence "There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States, nor was there any such dispute prior to 2000," then yes, you are correct: I would have to back that up with verifiable evidence. But that is not my intention. The argument is that the implication of a worldwide dispute, or historical dispute, would have to be backed up by RS if placed in the article. Since we do not have RS, the article cannot give such an implication.

To make this crystal clear, consider the following revised statements:

F5a. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

F6a. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

Are you willing to accept these? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, my.

F1. The topic of the article is Waterboarding, not Waterboarding in the United States.

agree (although what this waterboarding consists of is not defined)

F2. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is a form of torture is held by a majority of the public and a very strong majority of experts in law, medicine, and torture.

c/is held/is now held/ and c/experts/publicly published experts/

F3. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is not torture is held by a minority of the public and a smaller minority of prominent politicians.

agree

F4. We have found no qualified experts on torture or the law who claim that waterboarding is not torture, period. The closest we have is Andrew McCarthy's statement that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others.

Most of those cited I would not classify as "qualified experts on torture".

F5. There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

I have no idea if this statement is either true or verifiable.

F6. There was no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

I would agree with this, but only because before then it (whatever "it" is!) was not publicly discussed at all. It was considered to be an example of very harsh treatment in some military training in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was not considered to be torture then by either those subjected to it or subjecting others to it. I've got no source for this statement and doubt than anyone can find one; it's not something that was talked about outside of that group of people, and I don't know of any publications.

See F5a and F6a above. Better? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try revising them.

F5. There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States. (revised, see F5a)

F5a. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.(see F5b)

F5b. We have found citations that there is a present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture in the United States, but no evidence saying what form(s) of waterboarding are being disputed.

F6. There was no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000. (revised, see F6a)

F6a. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000. (see F6b)

F6b. We have found no citations for a significant dispute or discussion of waterboarding prior to 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I still do not necessarily agree with F5. Where is the source that has researched this matter?

I agree with F5a, but this cannot be used to support F5 without a violation of WP:OR.

I agree with F5b entirely.

I still do not necessarily agree with F6. Where is the source that has researched this matter?

I agree with F6a, but this cannot be used to support F6 without a violation of WP:OR

I agree with F6b, but this cannot be used to support F6 without a violation of WP:OR

So still a problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Progress. It appears to me that we are in agreement about the following (revised) six points:

P1. The topic of the article is Waterboarding, not Waterboarding in the United States.

P2. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is a form of torture is held by a majority of the public and a strong majority of the sources we have found who are experts in law, medicine, and torture.

P3. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is not torture is held by a minority of the public and a smaller minority of prominent politicians.

P4. We have found no qualified experts on torture or the law who claim that waterboarding is not torture, period. Andrew McCarthy has stated that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others. Other legal authorities have refused to state an opinion.

P5. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

P6. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

Perhaps we can use this as a starting point, then. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with P1.

I would agree with P2 if the word strong were removed

I would agree with P3 if the word smaller were removed. The word "Notable" per wikipedia policies should be added to at least the politicians part.

I would not agree with P4. I would also add that we cannot edit on what we do not find. Only on what we find. It would be a useless agreement.

I would agree with P5, but consider it irrelevant since we cannot edit on what we do not find only on what we find. It is a useless agreement. In addition, I would note that not finding disagreement outside of the US does not mean that there was none. Dissent is not something found world-wide. Governments restrict it and more have done so historically than not.

I would agree with P6 but it has the same problems as P5.

In summary the only substantive agreements I would see are P1, P2 and P3 (the latter two with minor edits). No agreement on P4. And P5 / P6 are useless. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also other areas where we may be in agreement:

We have found a variety of ways to conduct waterboarding

We have found citations that say it is effective.

We have found citations that question its effectiveness.

We have not found statute relating to waterboarding and so we cannot comment on that, but we have found case law that relates to waterboarding.

There are also cases underway now, that may further define the laws in some countries.

We might be able to agree on how long it has been observably conducted. I would not presently agree to "Spanish Inquisition". Even though some people have said that, it is possibly the repeat of an "urban legend" type of thing. I would value a study of that history that shows it to have been that long. I do not consider a reporter who flippantly reports it as an aside in an article -- without showing the evidence in some way -- as a reliable source for a tidbit of information. But since that rumor has been stated several times, it may be true and may be verifiable. We might be able to get agreement on that. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Misfocused attention

There is constant argument on the waterboarding page about whether or not we include the words "waterboarding is torture" in the lead. While I understand the contentiousness of this issue, it seems that everyone is overlooking the fact that later on in the article there is a section that specifically addresses this issue. We should be focusing on making that section better so that it fully describes all of the issues surrounding this subject. Wikipedia can easily deal with the nuances and intricacies of this debate since it is not limited in size and can be revised as further information becomes available. Thus, I would suggest that those who wish to flesh out the complexities of this issue do so in the article in the section space specifically dealing with this issue. As for the lead, I think the best solution (as I have suggested before) is a link to the section so that people who want information on the classification of waterboarding as torture can easily find it (i.e., "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture)"). While this may violate the standard style of wikipedia, I believe in this case it would address everyone's issues and therefore be a justified deviation from the stylebook. But truthfully, whatever the lead states will be fully fleshed out later in the article and so anyone who wants a full understanding of this issue should be able to easily grasp it. As one other alternative, we could simply have one throw away sentence in the lead that states something like "Recently, some conservative commentators and politicians have debated whether the specific use of waterboarding by the United States against certain suspected terrorist suspects should qualify as torture." That sentence, I believe, accurately states that current minority opinion while not giving it undue weight. Remember (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with Remember on this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should flesh out the section that describes all the issues.

I do not agree with violating wikipedia style

And I think the lead must also accord with wikipedia polices. Presently it does not.

I also think that the rest of the article needs fixed as well.

--Blue Tie (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A style change would not be necessary if we simply said "waterboarding is generally torture." (That's close to the term Jehochman used when creating this discussion page.)

This prepares the reader to understand that some might say there are exceptions.

The point about "conservative commentators" isn't accurate. It is CIA lawyers who had looked close at definitions and treaties and then drew a line as to where rough treatment ends and where torture begins. The commentators are simply explaining what their rationale might be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, we have no idea what CIA lawyers have stated about this practice because they have no statements on the record. Thus, the only people that we have sources for that say waterboarding may not be torture is conservative commentators and politicians. If you have other sources of people who state otherwise, please provide below and put the sources into the list of sources we have on this debate. Remember (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to add another two from the USDOJ: Daniel Levin and Steven G. Bradbury.

We already knew from various sources that they approved it. The McCarthy ref (and common sense) says this cannot happen without a finding that it doesn't violate UNCAT.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good find. Money quote - "A footnote to the 2004 interrogation opinion signed by Mr. Levin, insisted on by the White House and the C.I.A., said that despite the shift in legal reasoning, interrogation techniques authorized under previous Justice Department opinions remained legal. Those techniques included waterboarding."[21]. This information should be included in the article. Remember (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

--Badagnani (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, it is correct that the handful of "not torture" folks are all conservative politicians or commentators from the United States. These folks are often quite influential, even if what they say is wrong, even outlandishly so, as in this case (i.e. changing the meaning of an English word, in Newspeak-like fashion, reinforced with political jingoism). This would likely explain the recently cited poll poll in which a minority of Americans also apparently agrees with these commentators. Badagnani (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll confess to being an American, but the idea that I'm a conservative is ... interesting. "Tea tossing liberal" one of my friends calls me. The Newspeak is in declaring that putting a woman's panties on the head of a detainee is torture. htom (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Badagnani had more in mind treatments such as the rapes and homicide that also occurred as part of the regime in Abu Ghraib; I presume you would regard these as torture? -- The Anome (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he can extend his own statements (in my opinion rape and homicide are more in the nature of a criminal act than a torturous one; there could be circumstances where they were torture, though. I have not paid enough attention to the alleged acts at Abu Ghraib to really have an opinion, but have noticed that there were a bunch of folk convicted.) I don't think that putting panties on someone's head is torture, but it has been called that in the press. htom (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here except you is talking about panties. I can't understand your distinction between "torture" and "criminal acts" -- all physical torture is, by definition, a criminal act, since it constitutes assault. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Somethings might be torture but legal. It would depend on the laws. Some things might be illegal and yet not torture. It would depend upon the laws. Not all torture is, by definition, a criminal act unless the laws say so. Every country is different. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I talk about panties because there are verifiable sources where it is claimed that putting them on someone's head is torture. I think that our society has become so sloppy in the use of language that it's entirely possible that many people think that a good definition of torture is "I would not like someone to do that to me", and they would justify that definition with the claim that since assault is in the mind of the victim, it would indeed be torture. In this process of defining down torture (some have called it "torture light" or "torture tease"), our society destroys the meaning of "torture". There no sharp line between torture and harsh treatment, and the all-or-not approach taken by the majority of editors here is disappointing to me. Not torturous, though. htom (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object to this wording

Moved to Talk:Waterboarding#New_Lawrence_Cohen_proposed_compromise_lead. Lawrence Cohen 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear why you are proposing this. I don't see any problem with the current lead, and I don't see how this one differs. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the value of silence?

Lawrence Cohen had said a few days ago, "The Bush administration has no public stance on this question."
While it turns out that we do have sources reporting a U.S. position, this still highlights a point: How many governments do we have that say it's always torture? It seems to me that it is other governments and their intelligence agencies who have taken no public stance on this issue.
Could it be that they're silent because they want to keep waterboarding on the shelf as a legal alternative to real torture?
Please hold off the inevitable reply that this lack of a public stance means that we can't use it. I am not using it as a source to say that other governments might also say it's not torture. Rather, I am saying that there is a huge gap in what we know, and we cannot use that gap to say that everyone calls it torture when so many are silent.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that what you are doing is arguing for a perspective in editing rather than arguing for content. I agree that this is appropriate for a talk page. Only reliable cites can be used in content, but rationale is helpful for people to understand your perspective. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't necessary for the government of every nation on Earth to state an official position on whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. You are reading some motivation into this that may not exist; rather, it is more probable that the governments of most countries concern themselves mainly with national affairs, and the topic of waterboarding simply isn't a relevant concern in their national politics.

In a democracy the government can change quite rapidly. The official position of a government one year, may not be the same as the next. There is no unified U.S. position, so Cohen's wording of "the Bush administration" is more accurate. The position (if any) needs to be kept in perspective; that of a single administration at a particular point in time.

Incidental, but maybe interesting question: should Wikipedia state that the activities of the Chinese or Uzbek authorities regarding political dissidents and pro-democracy activists are torture? There are verifiable incidents of electric shocks, burning, and even boiling alive, but they are all conducted under the auspices of a national government enforcing the law. What is the value of silence here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of what you've said sounds a lot like when I said that "foreign opinion doesn't matter" because they're not operating under the same conditions.

I agree that it's not necessary for every government to state it's torture but the point really is that few (if any) have done so.

Whereas you're technically correct that democracies can change their positions on things, there too, most do not. Clinton and Gore had both sanctioned extraordinary rendition. Hillary Clinton gave interviews where she hasn't even ruled out actual torture, which is absolutely illegal. Obama made similar statements on not withing to limit how far he'd go in "an emergency situation". The next administration might try to pretend it's different, but they won't actually be different if the times call for it.

But it's not about where people stand. It's that the "everybody agrees waterboarding is torture" meme simply isn't true. They're not agreeing if they're silent.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "foreign opinion doesn't matter", but "an encyclopedia should take a global and historical perspective, not the perspective of a certain political group in a certain country in a particular year". Nobody has claimed that "everybody agrees waterboarding is torture". You're fighting a strawman argument. What they have said is that there's a huge body of evidence that waterboarding was considered torture by many, if not most, reliable sources who commented on the issue before 2001. You have presented absolutely no evidence that it either wasn't considered torture, or that there was any debate regarding the issue, before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To the closing Admin

I want to make an argument in behalf of policy -- especially NPOV -- which cannot speak for itself and needs to have defenders.

I believe that if you read carefully, you will find that there are a great many people and sources who declare water boarding to be torture. I fully accept that this is true: Many, perhaps most think so.

I would encourage you also to recognize that there is a notable (per Jimbo Wales rules) and significant (polls show a 1:2 ratio) minority who disagree. And in some cases they have explained reasons for this. In some cases they have not.

Bottom line is that the statement: "Waterboarding is Torture" is disputed. Not just by minor players but also by notable people including the Vice President of the US, at least two Congressmen, (maybe more but I have not searched), legal scholars including a respected judge, people who have undergone waterboarding, and recognized pundits. (Also by people on wikipedia -- that should be obvious).

In this regard I quote wikipedia policy: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

Based upon this policy I assert that this is not a matter that can be declared firmly one way or the other. There is no "fact" that "Waterboarding is Torture". That statement is a value or an opinion, but not a fact. The dispute must be recognized. Even if all of the other editors on this page do not agree, it should be pointed out that per WP:CON "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies."

I assert that the consensus can only be: "It is disputed." "It is not a fact." And per WP:NPOV wikipedia cannot lend its voice to an opinion as though it were a fact. Thus, the lead cannot unequivocally announce a fact: "Waterboarding is a form of torture". It must say something else like "Waterboarding is (factual description)."

I further add that this divides the baby evenly without having to weigh in on one side or the other and it does so in the framework of firmly established policy. No new ground is broken here. But wikipedia's policy on NPOV is kept in highest esteem. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments on note to the closing admin

Concur — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I also concur. Whatever else may be said, the public poll and politicians, legal experts cited by Blue Tie at least indicate that the proposition is disputed. Despite my opinion that it constitutes torture, I find it hard to set aside a 1:2 split in public opinion. Even considering that the poll only considered the U.S. population, that still represents a third of the fourth-largest country by population in the world. And as much as I may want to dismiss Cheney, his view is notable by virtue of his office. It doesn't negate the substantive conclusions of contrary experts, but to suggest that it can be dismissed out of hand would be disingenuous. Pri2008 (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, if invoking public opinion is enough to determine legal matters we can of course abolish the courts and other legal experts.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a question of legality but the definition of said act. Quantifying it as an illegal act (torture) belies the fact that a sizeable percentage of the population in the U.S. thinks otherwise. Accordingly its status as an act of torture is disputed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is odd. Since when is the definition of torture not a question of law? Or, what constities an illegal act? To me these are matters of law and not of public opinion. Unless you think we should start lynching again I would keep legal matters limited to legal experts.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have not cited any laws that say Waterboarding is torture. You could, for example, cite the passage of definition of torture that describes waterboarding as torture. Failing that, what you will do instead is WP:SYN as follows:

A. Waterboarding does X

B. X is defined as Torture

C. Therefore Waterboarding is Torture.

That process is not permitted per wikipedia policies on Neutrality.

In fact, the status of waterboarding as torture has not been decided, legally (at least in the U.S.) according to a verifiable, reliable source.

So, the question does not hinge on law as you seem to believe.--Blue Tie (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You fail to notice that it is a 140+ experts that say waterboarding falls within the definition of torture. Clearly you keep ignoring the elephant in the room. Also, you will find that when an individual poisons his wife with potassium and then cuts of her head with a snowboard under your logic he did not commit a murder. Unless you can find a law defining poisoning somebody and cutting of the head with a snowboard as homicide no judge, professor at law, lawyer, or any other legal experts can determine that since this is decided by public opinion and not expert opinion! Obviously, establishing whether certain actions are within the scope of a certain law (FISA, War Crimes Act, UNCAT, GC) always is a legal matter and never decided by invoking public opinion. The moment people accept that public opinion never trumps expert opinion this circular reasoning can be settled. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Also, please consider the following:

Being VP of the US does not negate a multitude of experts stating waterboarding is torture,

Second, the fact that in the event of waterboarding is torture the entire Bush administration is in heaps of trouble surely suggests some sort of COI in Cheney's opinion.

RespectfullyNomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the above comments by Nescio change the results of the analysis. The concept that "Waterboarding is Torture is Disputed" remains. COI is a wikipedia editor issue, but we cannot dismiss individuals who advocate a position because we suppose that they might have a Conflict of Interest. No such standard existed before on wikipedia and it should not start now. Furthermore, VP of the US means the minority is notable as Jimbo Wales has said (since we can name important proponents of the position). There are also other notable figures who can be named, the VP is not the only one. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did anyone object to mentioning the minority view of clearly notable individuals. However, why we suddenly should ignore WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT has not been explained. As to COI, clearly an individual that has a strong incentive against adopting the view waterboarding is torture has a COI and surely his comments should be viewed with scepticism.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. That you do not like what you imagine to be the motives of a source does not mean that you can dismiss it, particularly if that source is used for a position you do not like. As for Fringe and Weight, Fringe is not a policy but a guideline and is inferior to NPOV (which includes Weight). I do not see any effort to give undue weight to any position. Certainly I have no desire to do that. But WP:ASF is the basic formulation for NPOV, the most fundamental policy. Weight should play a role here, but once you have a dispute one side or the other is likely to have some degree of numerical superiority. A 1:2 margin however, is not enough to dismiss the minority to the point that the dispute goes away. And once a dispute is established the notion is no longer a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What point? That the vox populi and not expert opninion should be used as reference?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No. That is not the point. I have restated it many times. Why do you ignore what I have said? --Blue Tie (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That those who claim that the VP -- and the entire Bush administration -- should be in political and legal trouble, and have a strong incentive to maintain that trouble, might have a COI in their opinion that "waterboarding is torture" is being ignored. htom (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The US VP has never disputed waterboarding is torture, should the Bush administration take a public stand on waterboarding, then it should be noted in the article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it does not meet the standards for inclusion in the article -- it violates OR, but on the other hand, I think for purposes of discussion it is clear. Cheney admits we waterboard and also says that we do not torture. He says that things are not torture if they do not shock the conscience. He admits that this would be in the eye of the beholder but to him it is a "No brainer". As I said...This whole thing is not sufficient for inclusion in the article but I think it validates for discussion purposes, the point I was making. Cheney is one who disputes it.--Blue Tie (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That story, if verifiable, could be added to the article about Dick Cheney, and referenced from this one. This is more about him and his politics than about the subject of waterboarding. This article should answer "what is it?" The political arguments and positions could be attached to each politician and party. For instance, if you go to gun control you will not see a laundry list of what every politician believes. However, if you go to the pages of certain politicians, you can discover their position on that and other issues. Jehochman ^Talk 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Change of definition

It appears, from this Google Books search, that up to 2006 most books describe "water-boarding" (usually spelled with a hyphen) as actually strapping a prisoner to a board and immersing, submerging, or dunking the head under water. It has been claimed earlier that this is not a variation of waterboarding, but source after source gives this definition. WP is based on sources, so this alternate definition (as contained in the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy") does seem legitimate, as it was based on the available government sources as presented up to 2006. Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the definition, I definitely think a review of the definition is in order and using Badagnani's approach makes sense. Also, if the term should be hyphenated we should change the article. We need to avoid conflating with water cure though. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason why the definition was different before 2007. I am beginning to think that the half-dozen variations (all done while strapping the subject to a board, giving it the name "water-boarding") were all described as "water-boarding" before the current controversy. But I don't know if this was being done due strictly to the writers being mistaken or having poor sources, or simply because these variations were never standardized. Badagnani (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason may be that much, if not all, of the research and writing is classified by the respective governments, and those who know can't talk, or write. Or at least they shouldn't. htom (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading of the various testimonies convinces me that (intentionally or not) waterboarding (flooding) can become watercure. Look at the number of reports of waterboarding that include descriptions of striking the stomach to expel swallowed water, which is a "feature" of watercure, and not of waterboarding (immersion). Other forms of waterboarding do not seem to have this effect on the victim, and may be the cause (I'm thinking, here, not citing) of some of the disagreement. htom (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point! Shou;d the articles possibly be merged given their close association? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering if they should be combined, but I have not convinced myself that they should be. Here is my thinking:

1. There seems to be a distinct difference in the intent of the process. One is to cause excess ingestion of water which may "accidentally" result in inhalation of water. The other is to cause the sensation of drowning which may "accidentally" result in the ingestion of water. (Not as likely if the person is in a head down position).

2. I am starting to notice that we have a great deal of "Original Research" in assuming what is and what is not Waterboarding. Many of the instances used for describing waterboarding do not declare the process that they are discussing to be waterboarding. This is particularly true as we look into increasingly older sources. This leads me to think that waterboarding may be a recent label. And if it is exclusively associated with certain processes, it may not be the label but also the process that is recent.

3. We may not have a great definition for what waterboarding is. Yet this is a topic of great focus. To merge the two articles without a clear definition of what waterboarding is, may be a dis-service to readers who are interested in looking up what they read about or hear about in the news.

I recently (yesterday) also had a sort of nirvana about this subject. And this is now working its way through. I will discuss it on the regular talk page soon. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Threshhold Question

I'm new to the debate, but from what I can tell, this basically boils down to a question of whether the opinions of those saying it might not be /isn't torture raise the debate to the level of a true dispute. In other words, do they meet the threshhold for putting the "waterboarding is torture" claim out of the realm of fact and into the realm of opinion? Obviously not all opposing will meet this threshhold, such as fringe positions.

Yet it appears to me that some of the opinions cited seem to stem from a defintion of torture itself that contradicts what Wikipedia and international law have apparently accepted, namely the inclusion of mental anguish. At least one of the sources cited above claiming a dispute use a limited definition of only physical torture. Does this invalidate these opinions, and remove them from counter-examples If so, do we need to check whether the other sources stem from corrrect definitions?

Especially if this limited definition is operating widely in the US, this seems to me a point that must be settled before a consensus can be reached as to whether the threshhold for dispute is met. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another Attempt at Consensus

The original request called for legitimate sources presenting evidence of a valid dispute. It appears to me as if this section contains several sources that qualify. I therefore think that a changed wording to "Waterboarding is an extreme interrogation technique generally considered to be torture." is justified based on the non-fringe opinions evincing a genuine dispute. Opinions? -Lciaccio (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. as per above. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. The original article on waterboarding contains a substantial discussion of the current debate on whether waterboarding is torture. Classification as Torture. Given the discussion of the debate in the Wikipedia article itself and the legitimate sources linked to by nom and presented by other commentators, I think modified wording away from "waterboarding is torture" is appropriate. The language proposed by nom modifies "waterboarding is torture" into a less conclusory statement, but retains a strong statement that waterboarding is "generally considered to be torture." Shamulou (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Shamulou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Agreed. For the reasons I cite above in Comments on note to the closing admin. In addition, #1 and #4 cite both the BBC and the Wall Street Journal. Both are credible sources that indicate the issue is at least considered to be disputed in at least two countries. Pri2008 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Pri2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. I agree, these were the sources I found most compelling, despite misgivings about the credibility of some of the other sources cited. I firmly believe waterboarding is torture, but at least these two opposing views are informed and non-fringe, making this an opinion, not fact.. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not so bad. But I would prefer a summary description of the practice instead of "extreme interrogation technique" (I used to favor something like that but have been persuaded its not such a good idea for the present). I would also like to see the phrase "generally considered torture" to be a separate sentence stating "It is often considered torture". Partyly, I am not so sure that I agree with "generally" since a fair number of people apparently do not consider it torture. About 2/3 consider it torture. To me that is "often", but not quite "generally". Using the word "often" also implies some sort of temporal aspect to the issue, which many people seem to raise: "how its done and when its done" matters to them when deciding if it is torture. (By the way, thanks for the suggested lead). --Blue Tie (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Acceptable. The current language really does need to be changed, if for no other reason than the fact that the existence of the "Classification" sections makes the statement "waterboarding is torture" seem conclusory, regardless of the facts. So long as the word "considered" is included, though, I feel like the point is made that there exists some debate, and given that, the strong presumption from "generally" seems fine. There really DOES seem to be numerically overwhelming consensus (a minority of the citizens of a single country, even a hugely important country, notwithstanding). I'm less sure about "extreme," if only because that's a indisputably subjective term, and probably shouldn't be included in the first line of a Wikipedia article. Although I certainly agree that waterboarding is "extreme," there aren't objective reasons why it must necessarily be considered so. Theokrat (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Theokrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I would also agree to wording that removes the word extreme from the proposal. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. "Extreme" is a subjective term, and the statement that "waterboarding is an interrogation technique generally considered to be torture" is strong enough without "extreme." Shamulou (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I like that change. I also think "generally" is also a subjective term, but I find myself only weakly objecting. The problem I have is that I do not think generally is exactly right, because it conveys the notion of "as a rule". But, on the other hand, what other adverbs are appropriate? "Frequently" almost makes it sound like it might not even be half of the time. The same goes with "often". "Popularly" might almost be more accurate than anything but I am not sure it sounds right to sort of indicate that it is popular for people to be thinking about torture! I do not like the word "generally" as much as I do not like these other words I have mentioned above. The word "widely" seems pretty good and I would favor that. Also, as I have said previously, I think that ultimately the lead should be re-written when the details in the article are right, but I think that this lead is very close to one that might have a consensus. I praise this effort. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Weasel words: "considered to be". By whom? Newspeak: "interrogation technique". No, waterboarding is verifiably a torture technique, per the reliable sources. Do not change the article from a plain statement of verifiable fact. Wikipedia is not a political battleground. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • They're only weasel words if used in lieu of references. Considering the extensive sources in the article pointing to those who consider it to be torture, that is not the case here. I agree that Wikipedia is not a political battleground, but the change I propose is, in light of the evidence of dispute, the most factual and encyclopedic statement of what waterboarding is. That is what we're aiming for, ne ce pas? -Lciaccio (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's inappropriate to classify the question of whether or not something is torture as a 'verifiable fact'. The very nature of the question implicates human conceptions, and it would still be a concept even if there was unanimous agreement. What this proposed change to the lead statement attempts to do is reflect the general direction in which (credible reports of) human conceptions lean, while acknowledging (a) that it is a concept, and (b) that it is not universally shared. Vhettinger (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed with the edit that removes the word "extreme" (mainly because in a sentence that includes the word 'torture' the word 'extreme' seems redundant). I slightly prefer 'generally' to 'widely', but don't feel strongly one way or the other. Vhettinger (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Vhettinger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No. The current lead is fine. "considered to be" is weaselly, "interrogation technique" comes straight out of recent political discourse. Encyclopedias shouldn't be written according to recent political controversies. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The question should be Is it NPOV to state 'Waterboarding is torture,' in the lead sentence of the article when several expert legal authorities state that it is not torture in any case; that it is torture only in some cases; or that they cannot themselves be sure? Ra2007 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's like asking "is it NPOV to state 'The 9/11 attacks consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda' in the lead sentence of the article when several demolition and munition experts state that the attacks may have been carried out by, or with the complicity of, the US government?" Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Or even "is it NPOV to state 'The Holocaust is.. the killing of approximately six million European Jews' in the lead sentence of The Holocaust when some historians say it didn't happen? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree The lead seems fine as it right now. As waterboarding fits the definition of torture and there are many reliable sources stating waterboarding as torture. Also there is a site devoted to it, with links to legal definitions on what constitutes torture here → GeeAlice ♥ 04:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Hmm, I see this is a class project, from which I am not a part, therefore I strike my "opinion". → GeeAlice ♥ 05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is NOT a class project. It's a live Wikipedia page. Several editors came here as a class assignment, but that matter has been discussed and resolved. You, and any other editors are welcome to express your opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No majority reliable sources that it is considered just an "extreme interrogation technique". The majority say torture. Suggestion doesn't take into account the "debate" of it possibly not being torture is only post-2001. Should be more like "waterboarding was considered torture for hundreds of years, has been prosecuted as torture under international and US law, but after 2001 some American lawyers and politicans tried to justify its use by claiming that it might not be torture." Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. What on earth is an 'extreme interrogation technique? WP should be clearer than that. Relata refero (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Extreme interrogation technique" is a euphemistic political term for torture -- legal doublespeak, you know, to soften the blow as to make an act appear not as bad as it really is, in order to instill doubt. Lawyers/politicians do it all the time. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. ;p → GeeAlice ♥ 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard student group discussion

FYI. Please weigh in on this matter on ANI, at this thread, rather than here if possible. Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This was somewhat paranoid and shameful. Actions initiated way too fast without talking to the people about it. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of conflict of interest concerns, I obviously I will not edit the title of this section. However, I ask interested editors to follow the above links and read the defenses of the involved individuals (a group that includes me), particularly those written by LCiaccio, to the effect that the involved individuals were neither pre-selected for their views in violation of WP:CANVASS, nor did anyone express views that were not their own individually sincerely-held beliefs in violation of WP:MEAT. I hope that these unbiased editors will recognize that the issue is murky at best, and that the "confirmed meatpuppetry" title of this section is wholly inappropriate. Again, owing to my obvious conflict of interest, I realize that perhaps my hoped-for response of unbiased readers is incorrect. However, I do not believe it to be so. Theokrat (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the evidence what was going on (see Talk:Waterboarding/Definition#Another Attempt at Consensus). This page has seen a disproportionately large amount of "gaming" of our system, this simply being the most recent example. Transparency was nowhere to be found in the off-Wiki discussions. Kindly spend more energy showing full transparency rather than defending this behavior. Badagnani (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that anything is inherently clear from several users voicing general agreement. However, to avoid cluttering this page any further, I invite comment on my talk page (I don't know if there's a more appropriate location; I obviously haven't been around long) rather than here. I do, however, ask again that the title of this section be changed, either now or at the end of some further discussion. Theokrat (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was very clear when I said "transparency was nowhere to be found in the off-Wiki discussions." Some of those discussions may be found here. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but that seems unresponsive to my concern, as a lack of transparency does not a meat-puppet make, and as the Wiki policy there listed makes clear, "meatpuppet" is "derogatory and should be used only with care." Again, I'd like to move this discussion to a more appropriate location, wherever that might be, but so long as this heading remains, I feel obliged to at least make some efforts to clear my name and the names of the other involved individuals. Theokrat (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you are forgiven. Please do not do something similar again without full transparency, as per our community norms, thanks. Please don't move this discussion anywhere, thanks. Badagnani (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you. Unfortunately, this section of the talk page continues to have a title that I believe to be inaccurate, but which I will not myself edit for reasons of conflict of interest concerns. If someone else would please change it, my issue would be entirely resolved. Theokrat (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, the section title was inaccurate now that the matter has been fully explained and resolved. Apologies for the harsh welcome, I hope you may still consider sticking around. henrik•talk 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That section was already archived.:-/

If this is the same as in other years, basically it's several groups of Harvard law students acting as a kind of impromptu mediation cabal. These are REAL law students, not wikilawyers, and they are applying the skills they are learning on wikipedia. This is a Good Thing (tm).

Boy is it ever. I just wish we could keep them on after their assignments! \o/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually love to stay and keep working on this, although it looks like it might have gone to ArbCom and I am not familiar enough with this process to know whether and how I might still be able to participate. I have participated in Wikipedia for several years, although this is my first foray into such a contentious matter. Although I at first shied from staying involved, further reflection has convinced me that I was allowing the reactions of a few Wikipedians scare me away from something I am nonetheless entitled to do. Although I did chose my initial participation based on a (completed) assignment, I do not see my lack of strong opinions on the matter as a hindrance, but a help, to the appropriateness of my contributions. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! ArbCom generally has no problems with the editors trying to resolve the issue themselves even after a case has been filed. Au contraire, if we manage to resolve the problem before they have to, saving them some work, they'll probably appreciate it. henrik•talk 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read some more. I'd like to note that I do not support Badagnani's position on this matter at all. It is *vitally* important that people can discuss stratagems to solve conflicts away from others.

What if I'm suspicious that someone is a sockpuppet, for instance? I might like to get a sanity check with someone, but if I voice such a concern in public, it might be seen as an attack on that person, and then no-one would believe I'm neutral anymore. (this would be a double tragedy if it turns out that the person in question is *not* a sockpuppet)

In conclusion, closed discussion is vital to mediating disputes. If Badagnani feels that this is not the case, I invite them to join the mediation cabal, and try on some real cases themselves, as opposed to merely attacking other people who are actually doing the hard work!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about an entirely different thing. Mediating disputes is not the same as editing a general article. There are editors involved in this article from all over the world, and who have been participating for weeks or even months. Whilst fresh opinions are welcome, a small group of new editors deciding offline what position to represent is not a good example of the transparency a collaborative endeavour like Wikipedia requires. Other editors need to understand why they came to their positions, not just what that final position is. Other editors also need to be able to present their own positions to them. An offline consensus is not going to automatically translate into an online consensus. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing what was done in several ways. I have already posted ad nauseum what actually happened, so I will not repeat myself here, but suffice it to say I suggest you read the accounts more thoroughly before drawing such conclusions -Lciaccio (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lciaccio this "closed discussion" is another hot topic you've landed yourself in accidently (you can pick them :-) ), first just ignore the people "shouting" at you as you did nothing wrong. Second if you want to know why this topic is so hot read on, some very Badpeople(tm) have created forums just to disrupt wikipedia and harass editors. On these forums they have "closed discussion" designed to push a POV against concensus or policy, even just flat out trolling, NONE OF THIS YOU DID! But this is why your innocent off-wiki work caused you to cop flakk, good luck out there and come to my user page if you or your classmates need any help. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lciaccio (and the others from Harvard) -- I, too, would welcome your return to Wikipedia, anywhere you would care to contribute. Thank you for your efforts at waterboarding, even if we did blow up at you; I am sorry that I bit newcomers. You may find it interesting to watch the ArbCom case, if it proceeds. htom (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to say welcome to all those from Harvard, you just chose a hot LZ. We do need minds of your quality to help push wikipedia to the next level. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

This unclosed RfC is now cited in the request for Arbitration Committee filing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Waterboarding

Best Sources & Commentary

Since I have been told it is appropriate to keep trying on the issue while the ArbCom request is pending, I thought I would give it another shot.

As stated before, my view of the sources above lead me to the conclusion that there had been sufficient reliable sources cited in favor of a dispute on the issue. However, after reading these sources more thoroughly, I realize that a closer examination of the sources themselves might prove helpful in determining their weight.

Here is my idea: post the best sources that state either that there is a dispute, or that waterboarding is not torture. Underneath each cited source, people may weigh in on their opinion of its weight. For example, it is my view that an opinion poll might not be as useful as it appears on first glance, since many of those responding are operating under an incorrect definition of torture, specifically one that excludes mental anguish. Or, some may be presenting opposition only from those with political reason to dispute its status as torture, such as from an administration who has used the technique, and is thus entitled to less weight.

Similarly, I would argue that statements that waterboarding is sometimes "acceptable" are not completely on-point, as it is possible to hold a view that torture is justified in some cases. [22] Ergo, it is possible for someone to approve of waterboarding while still believing it is torture. These are just some examples of reasons why a listed source may be discredited, I am posting this because I would find it useful to have others' views on the matter for the sources that have been listed.

Please do not post sources stating that waterboarding is torture. I do not think it is being contested that there are many reliable sources that state as such. (Please let me know if I am wrong on this) Therefore, if we can concede that they exist and that many have weight, we can focus on what many have stated to be the real question here: whether the other references meet the threshhold that lies between "fringe views" and those views that present enough evidence of a dispute to move the conclusion out of the realm of fact.

Thanks. -Lciaccio (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problme is that this isn't how we evaluate consensus for contentious content, because it will devalue the weight of the number of sources, and by selecting the "best" it disregards sources, and rewards minority viewpoints to have a fake weight they are never entitled to. This isn't a tenable way to do it. Its a clever outside the box way to go about it, but not appropriate for Wikipedia or supported by policy. Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - it is a useful way to move the debate to concrete issues that can be discussed. Lciaccio isn't suggesting that the article be based on that single source, only that we discuss its claims. For what it's worth, I'll throw this BBC Q&A out there as a candidate. henrik•talk 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis

We do not weigh what the different sources say and then decide if there is a dispute as to whether waterboarding is torture or something else. If a reliable source, such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal says there is a dispute, then we can report that as verfied fact. We will not read different arguments and then publish our own conclusion that a dispute exists. That would be synthesis, which is a form of original research. Encyclopedias do not include original research.

The legitimate question is do we describe waterboarding as: (1) torture, (2) a legitimate interrogation technique, (3) an illegal and discredited interrogation technique that is so coercive that the subject will say anything to get it to stop. (4)...something else? These are not mutually exclusive options. Depending on the number of reliable sources that say each, we can formulate a presentation that gives proportional weight. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is a verified fact that it is disputed, then wikipedia can report the dispute as a fact but must ALSO not report the subject of the dispute as a fact but rather as an opinion.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. Just naming a source is not enough, we still have to look carefully at what the source is actually saying. For example, is the reliable source reporting on a legitimate dispute, or on a fringe dispute? I would hold that the latter is entirely possible. I think that picking apart the sources in this way might enable us to flush out what is really there. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC Source

I think everybody recognizes that BBC is a reliable source (possibly the most reliable media organization). They state the following[23]:

Does it come under a technical definition of torture?

Human rights groups and many governments say that it does. The United States does not agree.

United States is with certainty short for the present administration, per common convention. So the question then becomes, can the position of the present US administration be considered unreliable, or a fringe position? On one hand, I'd say the bar for that is pretty high. On the other hand, they have a clear conflict of interest in the matter, admitting they've engaged in torture would make leaders liable to criminal charges.

Perhaps this RFC should be closed, and a separate one opened: "Can the US administration position on Waterboarding be considered a fringe opinion?" henrik•talk 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's a storm coming.

I would also point out that to interpret the BBC as meaning "the US Administration" is a kind of OR -- not a good basis for an RfC.

But really, didn't we just answer the question? A reliable source reports that the issue is disputed.

And it is not the only one. There have been other reliable sources that say it is debated, but they are more specific than to say just "The US'. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please lets try to keep the discussion to a higher level. (Though I agree it could likely devolve into a shitfest unless under tight reigns. Formal debates were invented for a reason.)

However, getting back to the issue at hand: Reliable sources reporting a dispute does not make it automatically rise to the level of weight that the neutrality policy requires to move something from fact into the realm of opinion. Since the question of whether it rises to that level is something reasonable people disagree on, we have to explore the question. BBC has, for example, written stories about other disputes which don't meet the weight critera, for example these ones: [24] [25]. Reliable sources that are unconnected to the conservative sphere in the US and predating the current controversy would be extremely helpful in showing there is sufficient dispute. henrik•talk 21:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to chew over: If we were talking weight of sources attributed to a person, or corporation, instead of the United States, in a compable position... would there be as vociferous an effort to avoid any attempts to treat the POV of one subject as a minority viewpoint? Would we be doing the same with another nation, such as France, Iraq, or North Korea? Lawrence Cohen 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

When somebody or their close friend is about to run afoul of the law, there is a tendency to attack the law. This does not put the law in doubt. "Waterboarding might not be torture" is a way for those who approved waterboarding in the past to dodge responsibility. Such remarks by people with command responsibility, or their allies, can never be viewed as an independent source. They are subject to a conflict of interest.

The US government is quite large and different departments may take different views at different times. For instance, the armed forces apparently forbid the use of waterboarding because it violates the Geneva Convention, and they certainly do not want their own members exposed to such treatment. If I remember correctly, George W. Bush at some point signed an order forbidding the use of torture on terrorism prisoners. Jehochman ^Talk 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Henrick, this is what I was trying to get at (and you articulated much better). The BBC source is the one I was first hoping to dissect, although I would find it useful to do so with some of the other sources cited for dispute/not torture. My first instict was to try to instill some sort of organization system, such as a numbered list of the sources and commentary underneath as to what the source actually says and what weight it should be given. I'll still put forth that this might be the clearest way to flush out what we have on the other side, but I'll let it evolve organically if that is what the impetus is. I still might try to do that if it looks like it might be helpful to put them together later, but that of course runs the risk of later mischaracterizing the views presented. Que sera . .

My own views on the BBC article have actually been articlulated here pretty well by others. My initial reaction was that "If the BBC says it is disputed, it must be true". When I read the article more carefully, I came to the same conclusions as many of you - namely that it was reporting only on the position of the US government. Ergo, the weight of the article should actually be given just as much as statements by the Bush Administration itself, replete with self-interest and all that baggage.

To me this also raises another question - namely is there a need to distinguish between what one says and what one believes? In other words, are the people speaking representing a deeply-held conviction as to waterboarding's status, or are they presenting a position that is useful, but ultimately a front? If what we are attempting to measure is belief in judging the presence of dispute, this might be an important distinction, albeit one that is ultimately unanswerable. Sorry if this muddies the water further. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't really report on what people believe, just what they say. For example, I find it hard to believe that university educated, intelligent historians would dispute that the Holocaust occurred given the massive amount of evidence to the contrary, and yet some do. So through my own reasoning I conclude that some, but maybe not all, actually believe it probably happened, but externally deny it in order to further some other agenda. However, none of this is reportable in Wikipedia, because I am not notable, and otherwise it's original research. I realise that this distinction is ignored repeatedly in Wikipedia articles, but for contentious ones it is quite important.

The BBC article is slightly sloppy in the way it reports "the United States does not agree"; they appear to be referring to the Bush administration and not the actual nation of the U.S. (as if a nation is an intelligent entity that could hold an opinion anyway). And the article isn't claiming that there was a debate throughout history, or between experts, in fact it only says "Human rights groups and many governments say that it does. The United States does not agree.". So, there is a debate between human rights groups, some governments and the U.S.? I feel that the use of this source to solve this question is a bit of a straw man; it's obviously citable, but nobody has actually denied that there's been a political debate in the U.S. within the last few years. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

CNN Poll

For now I'll continue to run down the list above, which is what changed my own mind on the matter (although I do not credit each one) My apologies if I've oversteped a norm I was not aware of by adding the subheading above.

2. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is 
a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29
percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not 
uniform -- hence disputed). 

Although the list itself was compelling, I didn't place much weight on this poll. Are popular opinions really credible if uninformed? For example, many of those surveyed might not have really understood what waterboarding is, or that it creates the sensation of drowing. Or, they might have been operating under the belief that torture is limited to things that cause physical anguish. My own view is that unless the people being polled are answering the right question - namely the one before us - their views do not necessarily present evidence of a dispute. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that they needed to be asked "Is there a dispute about waterboarding?"

If you are saying that there cannot be a legitimate dispute because they are "unlarned" or that they do not understand the law or something else like that, I would point out that it does not take a kind heart or goodness to dispute something. It also does not take a great intellect -- or a small one. It only takes an opinion. And an opinion does not even have to be informed for it to exist. But for you to declare that your personal value structure of what constitutes a "good opinion" invalidates whether there is a dispute, is somewhat arrogant. And no, I am not insulting you. The Hatfields and McCoys had a long standing feud that was in many ways quite stupid. Northern Ireland was locked in a war for many years over issues that no one could exactly remember clearly anymore and when they stopped, they started becoming wealthy. You could easily identify the opinions of the people involved as stupid, uninformed or formed out of false beliefs, but that does not make the dispute go away. And to declare that "I know best what a good dispute is" is really kinda out of bounds. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I think your logic might be reasonable if you were asking the question "Is Waterboarding Torture?". But not if you are asking the question, "Is it disputed that Waterboarding is Torture?" Which question were you focused on? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither one is the truly important question. The only question we should be asking here is: "Is it acceptable for the article to say that waterboarding is a form of torture?" Does the existence of a U. S. public opinion poll imply that the answer to the question must be "no"? I, for one, do not believe that we hold, or should hold, statements in Wikipedia articles to a poll-based standard. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I ask your question, "Is it acceptable...?" I have to ask first and foremost, does it meet WP:NPOV. To me it does not and therefore it is unacceptable. There is absolutely no external source that I can address that says "The phrase waterboarding is a form of torture is acceptable per wikipedia's NPOV policy". Nor one that addres that says "The phrase waterboarding is _________________ is acceptable per wikipedia's NPOV policy". There is no such source and the poll is certainly one of those sources that I am unable to use. HOWEVER, if instead, I read the policy and apply the evidence to the policy, the question comes up: "Is it disputed?". The poll indicates that it is disputed. That is how the information in the poll is used. It is completely inadequate to determine if, in fact, waterboarding is torture, or if wikipedia should say one thing or the other. But it is NOT inadequate to determining if there is a dispute, which is a key means of checking for NPOV. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ka-Ping. Polls of public opinion are not evidence here for the question being asked here. Again, this is a bit of a straw man citation - nobody has denied that the U.S. public, when asked about waterboarding in the context of terrorism, has a split opinion. But I wonder what the answer would be to the question "If Al-Qaeda insurgents abduct and waterboard an American soldier, should they be prosecuted for torture or not?". Again it's OR, and just my opinion, but I'd imagine "Hell yes" would be the overwhelming response. So why would such a fickle source be reliable in answering this question? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point. And though we may speculate on what other polls might ask, we only have the poll we can cite. The question is not" Should we follow public opinion in creating a lead?". The question is: "Is this lead, NPOV?" Checking that, we may ask "Is it disputed?" The poll helps answer that question. If you try to apply the poll to some other question, it does not apply, but I have only applied it to this one question: Is the matter disputed? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That is oversimplifying the matter. The real, but more difficult question, question is "Is the dispute significant enough to make the claim "is torture" opinion rather than fact?" henrik•talk 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is a tertiary question. First, "Is it NPOV?". Second "Is it disputed?". Third, "Is the dispute significant"? Is a 1:2 margin numerically significant? In my mind it is. But either way, the poll is important evidence in that question. I happen to think that about 1:7 starts to be where it dwindles to insignificance. Lawrence Cohen said that he would consider as much as a 1:4 margin to be significant. So people differ. I do not believe an absolute majority is the only measure of significance. Certainly the minority position can be objectively classified as "significant" per the policy under WP:WEIGHT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The moment people accept that determining whether a certain activity meets the legal definition of homicide, rape and torture is not done by opinion poll the matter can be settled as non-extistent dispute among experts.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

When this is no longer wikipedia, governed by wikipedia policies such as NPOV, it may then operate differently. Until then, things might not work according to your desires. Even if we only considered legal sources, not opinions found in the press, but actual legal opinions, we would have no article, because there is no case law that discusses "waterboarding". We might presume that a case here or a case there might involve waterboarding, or we might declare that a law about torture pertains to waterboarding, but that would be WP:OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reuters

In the story today here about the U.S. appeals court decisions about Guantanamo torture suit being dismissed, the closing paragraph is

"... In New York's Times Square, activists marked the sixth Guantanamo anniversary by staging a demonstration of waterboarding in the middle of a rainstorm. The interrogation practice has been at the center of a bitter dispute about what constitutes torture." —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Global warming has also been called a "bitter dispute". Again, this is another straw man citation, as, like global warming, nobody has denied that there's a political dispute in the U.S. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

An "interrogation practice"

I observe that Reuters calls waterboarding an "interrogation practice". Perhaps this controversy could be reduced if we changed the first sentence to substitute "interrogation practice" for "torture". We already have a very specific description of the practice that leaves no doubt as to its nature. The bitter dispute is whether the US should have performed waterboarding on detainees, and whether those who authorized this should be considered war criminals. The dispute can be summarized in the article, though I do not think it should be in the lead. We could probably create a daughter article to cover the dispute in detail because it has received widespread news coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Something similar has been proposed several times. It's unfortunate that it has taken this long for some of us to realize that the statement, "Waterboarding is torture," does not belong in the lead. This article must be NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In my proposed lead [26] I was careful not to say it was just an "interrogation practice", since that suggests it is just about questioning and answering. My wording "been popularly used as a covert third degree interrogation technique" left open the possibility that it could be used for other things, and made clear that it was "third degree" ie. involving a lot more than just talking[27]. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead never said "waterboarding is torture," as you most likely know. It describes it as "a form of torture," the way the Piano article describes that item as a musical instrument. As a form of suffocation with water being practiced on a bound prisoner, it has been regarded as a form of torture since the 15th century, as the sources (147 of them) clearly bear out. Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that there's a significant difference between "waterboarding is torture" and "waterboarding is a form of torture" is really splitting the hairs, don't you think? Neutral Good (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was just responding to Jehochman's query as to whether any kind of compromise wording is possible. I would be happy to use the US Army language of "almost certainly an act of torture". However, as with the Holocaust, if >95% of experts say it happened, then I'm happy for Wikipedia to report it as reality, even though it is not a fact, and is disputed by some. As for weighting, I note that the Holocaust article doesn't even mention the debate, let alone priviledge it by mentioning it in the lead. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I would argue that the Holocaust article SHOULD mention it. Other articles are not necessarily good indicators of how this article should be done. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but criticising the Holocaust and global warming articles, when most editors think that they're pretty good, puts your viewpoint in a small minority. Other controversial articles have gone through exactly these debates, and those who ignore the precedents that these articles set for Wikipedia are bound to be disappointed by the outcome of current process. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Global Warming article was put up for Featured Article Review and garnered either exactly or one vote less than 50% support. But it was favored so it remains feature. But 50% is not a small minority as you assert. Also, Global Warming is more scientific. This article is not scientific. The Holocaust, is not an article I am familiar with and do not know the details, but if it is handled wrong, that is not an excuse for us to go against policy here. Do you realize that your position on this is a logical fallacy? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And before anyone says, "We don't have to do on this article what happened elsewhere on Wikipedia," you're wrong. That's not how it works. Precedent is precedent is policy. Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says this? According to approved policy, it is the policies that govern. Particularly NPOV. But maybe there is a policy that says precedent trumps all. I have not seen it. Can you cite it?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Waterboarding is torture, but is that the best way to describe it? Upon long reflection, I think "Waterboarding is an interrogation practice that involves (list of heinous steps and severe results)" might be better. As a comprehensive article, we definitely must explain that "waterboarding is considered to be torture by (list of sources), although this is disputed by (list of sources)". Keep in mind that we don't usually describe terrorists with the word "terrorist". The usual NPOV term is "paramilitary" and then we describe what they've done, like blowing up buses full of civilians. I suggest that the reader will be more informed and impressed by an NPOV word and the details of the atrocities, than by a label like "terrorist" and "torture". Jehochman ^Talk 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so! I agree with what you have said. But still very hard to do -- because of source problems and the strong temptation to go into OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr. Bainbridge's proposal (now buried in the archives) is the best we've seen in that direction. I rather like the idea of dispassionately describing the act. henrik•talk 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated here earlier, waterboarding is not used only for interrogation, but also for punishment and other purposes. It would be good if you would read all the discussion archives before contributing here. Badagnani (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this type of approach you're suggesting (describing the procedure and its effects dispassionately, but in enough detail that any reader with a similar perspective to ours will immediately see that it is torture) is all right. I proposed something along those lines myself a little while ago, and it was fairly well liked among the participants in this discussion. I avoided "interrogation technique" because waterboarding is not about asking questions, instead skipping straight to the mechanical description of the procedure. While it would be my preference for the article to simply say that waterboarding is a form of torture, I am willing to take this approach in order to find an acceptable compromise. I proposed it specifically for these pragmatic reasons: in the hope that it would last longer, even if it is not ideal in my personal opinion. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am -- or rather I should say, I WAS strongly pushing for this approach all along. THAT view... describe it and let the reader decide has been my position ALL ALONG. However, I have become concerned that we do not have a good definition or valid descriptions. This is a concern to me. In about 10 days, I will be in a position where I can do some serious research (I hope). --Blue Tie (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Where we were, ~500 edits ago. The lead, then.

Waterboarding (aka "water boarding") is the practice of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[1] and can make the subject believe death is imminent while leaving no physical damage.

In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.</ref>[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on prisoners of war, euphemistically termed extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror.[12] ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding."[13] According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."[14]

Waterboarding has become an issue in the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be the next U.S. Attorney General. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Mukasey refused to say whether or not he considered waterboarding a form of torture, claiming he did not know the details of how waterboarding was conducted. Several Senators have indicated they will not vote for him without an affirmative answer.[15]

The word "torture" doesn't occur until the second paragraph, and there the use is attributed, in the form "waterboarding is torture". —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from being massively US centric, that lead also ignores all historical context. Why mention the US and not the Khmer Rouge? Why mention some "opinion" from the current day and ignore the fact that every court of law that's been faced with the issue has recognised waterboarding as a form of torture? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a better lead than the one we have now. Reading it over I saw only one word I would remove or change. It is possible that this might be US Centric because it is only the US that has done waterboarding. But we need more research now. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"it is only the US that has done waterboarding" - why do you keep saying this stuff when you know it isn't true? Khmer Rouge? Photos of actual waterboard in this very article? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it was true. I said it might be true. Let me explain.

1. We do not have a firm definition for waterboarding

2. Thus, if the original source does not say it is "waterboarding" it may not be waterboarding. It may be OR to call it waterboarding.

We need a definition of waterboarding. There have been several points of discussion on this. Have you missed them, or the implications? --Blue Tie (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing myself. Any statements that waterboarding is a "US matter" are patent fiction. Lawrence Cohen 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not fiction. Just a rejection of OR. Besides I did not say it was a "US matter". I said it might be. You may see no difference in these statements. I see a very big difference.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we suggesting that foreign viewpoints, opinion, and history are irrelevant again? This isn't an encyclopedia about the United States. We're heading down the blatantly unacceptable "foreign is irrelevant" road again, here. The very image in the article is "Painting of waterboarding at Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison, by former inmate Vann Nath." Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the discussion, given that I was the first one who actually questioned (before I had researched any other sources) exactly what the definition of waterboarding was back in '07. However, you appear to be trying to use the discussion to push the point that anything that wasn't explicitly described as "waterboarding" in the original source should be excluded from this article, so that the USA isn't listed in the same breath as the Khmer Rouge, Spanish Inquisition, and other nefarious regimes. Regardless of what I think of this, there is no way that you are going to get a consensus to remove historical sources of what we all agree is the same technique, based on the technicality of it not being called "waterboarding" in sources that date back hundreds of years. Please work towards an approach that has some hope of being accepted by consensus. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that this editor is claiming that if waterboarding is called long turk in Khmer, we ought not even discuss it in this article, but we'd need to make an article called "Long turk" and put it there; in fact, we would need a different article for each foreign language name for strapping a prisoner to an inclined board, covering his/her face with cloth, and pouring water into the breathing passages to induce suffocation. I have never heard any editor propose such an idea in any Wikipedia article, ever. Honestly, I cannot understand what the motivation could be for such an illogical request. Nearly in the same breath, the same editor makes a brutal "joke" about the recent comments by McConnell, leading me to question his/her seriousness in this matter. Badagnani (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we're saying that a source article about waltzing. You look at the article, and it describes the steps in a tango, and claims that those steps are a waltz, or the same as a waltz. That article in that source is not reliable on the topic waltzing. "The map is not the territory" problem. htom (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

McConnell weighs in

New article here. He thinks it's torture if done to him, but isn't sure whether it is when done to others. Badagnani (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as ridiculous as that, actually. He said: "Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture." Also that the legal test for torture should be "pretty simple: Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?" But the retired vice-admiral declined for legal reasons to say whether the technique should be considered torture by the US government. - From the BBC. He's said its torture, and then takes the fifth, because "If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it." Relata refero (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to say whether waterboarding is torture or it isn't. We can describe the procedure in detail, and the conclusion will be obvious to any sensible reader. We can also say who thinks it's torture, and who does not, and why there is a dispute (Hint: this recent dispute is related to cover your ass and command responsibility.). Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture), because that would allow the readers to better assess whether it is a form of torture. In the Violin article, we don't state that the violin is "...a hollow box of wood, covered with four wires"; we say "The violin is a musical instrument..."--giving first the definition of what it is, then describe it succinctly. The fringe is attempting, for political reasons, to change the well understood definition of what this practice is, and according such undue weight as to change the actual definition is inappropriate at Wikipedia (although likely quite appropriate for some other online Wikis that do take political POVs). Badagnani (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I must not be part of that fringe, because I have no political reason for changing the lead. Maybe I'm part of a different, NPOV fringe? I am trying to get the lead to describe how waterboarding (which is an activity, not an object) is done, rather than what society's label and reaction to it is, or should be. If you look at List of torture methods and devices], many of them do not start with "x is a form of torture". Perhaps you should start changing those. htom (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I did that. If you cannot see why the articles that don't outright state that the subject is a form of torture are different from the ones that do, then there is no hope here. Hint:

• Tooth extraction - primarily dentistry
• Bastinado - "a form of torture"
• Beatings - redirects to Strike - primarly combat/martial arts related
• Binding/Contortion - Primarly acrobatics and circus acts
• Blinding - disambiguates to "Blindess" - primarly about blind people and their condition
• Boiling - redirects to Boiling to death - "a very slow and painful form of execution by torture."
• Bone breaking - redirects to Bone fracture - primary article is medical treatment, healing etc.
• Branding - redirects to Human branding - primarily marking slaves as property
• Burning - redirects to Execution by burning - a form of capital punishment
• Castration - primarly use is religious / social (eunuchs) / medical.
• Chinese Bamboo Torture - links directly to torture article
• Choking - primarly medical, Heimlich Manoeuvre, first aid etc.
• Dry drowning - calls it torture and links to waterboarding as an example
• etc.etc.

Maybe you could name the substantial non-interrogation uses of waterboarding? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jehochman, but I am unable to respond in any normal level of detail because I am way too busy at work, with travel and with all kinds of things. I will try to get back soon. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding has now opened. Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

President Obama

President Obama on his second day of office has banned waterboarding and has clearly named it as torture. Peggyanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.241.232 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)