Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 3

message: the point of waterboarding is to seal the mouth and force water through the nose. the article does not emphasize this, instead it goes for the opposite, suggesting that there is a hole cut in celophane etc.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.12.135 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please sign all posts by adding four tildes after your post. You must know something we don't know, because the articles we're using state that the mouth is forced open. The version you describe must be an alternate method. Do you have sources for this? Badagnani 22:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: technique

message: This article is great!  Well-sourced, NPOV, informative, and reads very well.  I came here after reading an article about the US Attorney General nominee, and learned quite a bit.  Well done to all involved.  
I have removed the "In Popular Culture" section, which stands out like a sore thumb in such an otherwise dandy article.  Of course, if any of the regular editors here feel strongly about it, please revert by all means.
Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, trivia section... 89.100.48.103 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Bingo. Apparently they feel that if it doesn't say in law "Ripping nuts off with pliers is torture" literally, then it is not torture. Hmmmm, with that sort of "logic" all a torturer has to do is change the name of the torture. Oh wait, "Enhanced interogation", what's next, enhanced prison (gas chambers)? 89.100.48.103 00:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article as I read it clearly defined waterboarding as torture in the lead; it was extremely well sourced.  I don't like the weaselly version as it now stands.  I just wanted to clarify.  ➪HiDrNick! 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos! 

message: In the current state of the article, I agree with the United States being mentioned in the initial section as the most recent media coverage.  I do not find fault with this and believe it is pertinent information relating to this article.     --Pyrex238 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make a good point. However, this is not caused by bias, but just because these sources are much easier for us to find. Do a google search on "waterboarding," you'll find 50 articles about US waterboarding, not a lot about Cambodian, Argentinian, Spanish, or Japanese waterboarding. I wrote a good part of the current "technique" section. If I had found clear descriptions of the technique from Cambodian, Japanese, etc., sources, I would have used them. I was planning to add some more sources of this sort for more breadth, in fact. Worldworld 03:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The political bias is "spinning" waterboard as something other than the plain unvarnished fact that it is torture. Stop "spinning" it to suit American propaganda objectives and we'll stop correcting it to the plain obvious neutral objective truth. Anything other than  the direct simple statement "waterboarding _is_ torture" is political spin and will be corrected.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.37.96.11 (talk) 01:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with that in the slightest, nor did I remove that statement from the article whatsoever.  All I have done is move the United states recent allegations into the proper section, that is all.  I feel this is a completely reasonable edit --Pyrex238 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you - sorry, your edits are getting caught up in the war between those two IPs and associated reversions. It's best we all back off until they get banned. Inertia Tensor 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello. If I have inadvertently reverted your changes, I apologise. I only mean to revert the categorical claim made by some editors that waterboarding "is" torture - reverting to Larry Cohen's quite balanced edit, in other words. For NPOV reasons of course. 220.255.115.209 02:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 800,000k approx have been judged by various agencies that have died in Iraq that statistically would not have done so had the US not illegally invaded. Anyway, that debate aside, please keep up your edits, sorry they got caught up in the fighting by those idiots. I have put in for 10RR on one, and someone else has called for temp protection (ban the IPs from it). I think you are on to something by removing all the US centric discourse from the top, but I guess we have to wait for this to pass :-( I didn't separately report that European IP also reverting as I happen to agree, but of course you may as can the admins. Inertia Tensor 03:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to a study published by the british medical journal Lancet, the number of Iraqis who have lost their lives in direct relation to the war reached 655,000 by June 2006. That would put the number of Iraqi deaths over 800,000 today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inertia Tensor (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant Political Bias 

message: Per request on WP:RPP, the article has been fully protected for a few days. From the contributions, it's not simple anon vandalism but a full-on content dispute. Folks - please try to resolve the matter here first before warring about the article - Alison ❤ 04:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I apparently triggered World War 3 by dropping that touch of NPOV in the lead... • Lawrence Cohen 04:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just utter mayhem and quite obviously a content dispute that's spiralled way out of control - Alison ❤ 04:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As nearly all the vandal type stuff was anonymous editors, would it help to semi protect for a while after full protection drops off? • Lawrence Cohen 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The prot is only for three days. If things go well, we can unprot in a while. I just want the pandemonium to stop - Alison ❤ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: No. I just checked a few here - Alison ❤ 05:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fully protected 

message: In the <a href="http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2368990.ece">Independent news article</a>, the brief story makes claims and cites unnamed legal experts and an unnamed CIA officer (who is contradicted by CIA officers who are named elsewhere in the wiki article).  If "legal experts" aren't named nor their qualifications given, can we really rely on their assumed "expertise", even if the unknown experts were cited in an otherwise reliable newspaper?  I mean, if a DUI lawyer says, "I think waterboarding is very effective," does this mean he can be cited as a "legal expert"?  If I sound like I'm nit-picking, I'm not trying to.  But verifiability is key, and Independent reporter Andrew Gumbel is normally tasked to covering Hollywood stories, not political / military / legal issues.  I would like to see a better source for this story's claims, is all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.58.248.33 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are poorly sourced news stories valid citations? 

message: I suggest wikifying the word "torture" in the first section so that readers can easily compare the description of waterboarding with the actual definition in the torture article.  --Risacher 15:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. • Lawrence Cohen 15:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: - pretty uncontroversial - Alison ❤ 15:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikify "torture" 

message: The overall tone and writing on this article is very specific to the United States. While we're a big nation, we're only one, and waterboarding is hardly unique to us. A pretty compelling section on the US and waterboarding can certainly be built, but we need to generalize and internationalize the article heavily. The lead is basically, "Waterboarding is this. The United States... The United States... The United States... The United States... something else, The United States... something else." That is a bit of undue weight. Just a thought. • Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the big controversy at the moment is in the U.S. If you know of sourced info on current use in other countries, by all means let us know.--agr 17:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article isn't US-centric because of the authors, but because of the information that is available. If anybody can add something from another nation, please do, but this article may have to stay US-centric with the current political situation. Randvek 00:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point. Maybe tone it down on the lead, and built it out below in the US section, a bit? • Lawrence Cohen 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States-centric 

message: This recent article about waterboarding, which outlines its teaching in the U.S. and its practice and effects in some detail, would add greatly to this article. It also describes the experience of Henri Alleg, one of the most prominent examples of someone to have been subjected to this technique, speaking about his experience. I don't believe Alleg is mentioned at all in the article, but he should be. Badagnani 20:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a quotation from Alleg would be a fine addition to this article. Ka-Ping Yee 04:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptive article

message: The section on effectiveness is US-centric, modern-centric, and generic to torture in the large, not just waterboarding; as such, I'd recommend it be deleted and replaced by a single link earlier in the discussion.  I'm not seeing a good link on torture or its sub-articles, but I highly doubt that the waterboarding article is the place to talk about the effectiveness of torture in interrogations.  Bhudson 22:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Effectiveness" section 

message: How exactly does waterboarding differ from water cure.  Is waterboarding a subset of water cure? Remember 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe in the latter you put a funnel down the person's throat and pour more and more water down the person's throat. This was done in Medieval Europe, and they would measure how many flagons had been poured. Presumably some would go into the stomach and some into the lungs, but most into the stomach. The Water cure article describes this in some detail. They are just two versions of Water torture. Badagnani 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't some fraternity perform a kind of "water cure" as a form of hazing a few years back? I think I read about it in Playboy (one of the initiatees died, prompting the story about this and other forms of hazing). I don't think a funnel was used, but they did make the hazees drink as much water as they could for a number of hours while trying to keep them from peeing (which obviously failed), and continued pouring water into and around them. 204.52.215.107 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Chi Tau at Chico State.  204.52.215.107 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding and water cure 

message: wrt. 1st §: waterboarding can't be interrogation, only a technique to support (or defect, depending on pov) the interrogation process. i think calling it interrogation is factually incorrect. 
-- .~. 84.133.80.66 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  But I don't see where the article, as it currently stands, makes this mistake. Ka-Ping Yee 02:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps user 84.133.80.66 meant the usage of the words "interrogation technique" as being doubtful.  No obvious error comes to mind reviewing the material.  Could someone else fine-tooth comb the article? --Lincoln F. Stern 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  technique to support interrogation process 

message: I received a rather nasty post (which I repoponded accordingly to) in my talk page from Remember complaining of POV and demanding I use the talk page, which I have been. Ironically, this user has NOT used talk at all. Anyway, I have rolled back the revoltingly POV weasel words creeping in. Considering we are talking about clearly defined torture, I find this attempt to water down such an horrific crime to make it more politically palatable to a handful of war criminals and a rogue regime as an utterly unconscionable act, and certainly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suspect that even if Red State described this as "Controlled Drowning" there would be an uproar. I propose to revert any such weasel word on site. I suspect that the body of people here in talk seems like they would agree. 89.100.48.103 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh the delicious irony of being accused to have never used the talk page by a anon user who thinks the term "controlled drowning" is POV, when in fact, I was the first person to bring up whether we should use the term "controlled drowning" on the talk page. (See ).Remember 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the majority of the people here support this version, which I have reverted to. Please re-read this entire page. We cannot definitively call it torture, as we have a relatively clean split in sources--a ton call it torture, a ton do not; many notable experts call it torture, many do not. Our opinions of its status as torture are irrelevant. WP:NPOV is the arbiter of what we call it. • Lawrence Cohen 17:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, as Lawrence Cohen has just pointed out, do not make wholesale changes to the article as you have. Many editors here have put a lot of work into achieving what we have here now and it's about as balanced as it's been. I don't want to protect the article again but will if needs be. If you're going to make major, controversial changes as you have here, please bring it to the talk page first - Alison ❤ 17:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm staying off this for a few days now, however I strongly contend that consensus on this FULL talk page is waterboarding is torture - end of story. Thuis far I can see 2 objectors. BTW - have you seen tonight's CNN poll - Even 69% of Americans (as in the people who's gic is doing the torture on their behalf) consider it torture. 89.100.48.103 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, no. A significant legal opinion disagrees. Stick to NPOV. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  My intent was not to make wholesale changes - but to revert them until a concensus was achived. Looking at the history, it looks like for many months a very fragile concensus was achieved, as with anything this can evolve, and a few days ago Laurence made an edit which kicked of that edit war I regret getting sucked into. 89.100.48.103 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the article should stay at the pre-Laurence's halloween edit, until a new consensus for change is established - thus far I simply don't see that. As such I contend that I am not making major changes - but preventing (and reverting major changes until a consensus is achieved. Obviously with 2RRs I am backing off for others now as we don;t want to go back down the war road. 89.100.48.103 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (ec) I have no interest whatsoever in the content, or in who's POV is the right POV here. What matters to me is that this situation doesn't degenerate into another full-on war. Now, things have been progressing steadily since the 5th and a lot of work was put in here before that. I deliberately only added a limited full prot for that reason as I trust you guys to get on with the job and settle your differences. Now, as I said, progress has been made here - like it or not - and the onus is on you right now to get involved with the others and bring your views to the table, not revert to a revision that you like, thus showing contempt for all the work the others have put in over the last week or so - Alison ❤ 17:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine and well-sourced. Most editors don't seem to have a problem with it. I say keep it. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is well sourced- see comment below   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words - "Controlled Drowning" 

message: Back to 89.100.48.103's original topic, what is the feeling of editors on using the words "controlled drowning"? Do people feel that this is inaccurate, imprecise, original research or too POV to one side or the other?  I myself think it is fairly descriptive if the point of waterboarding is to introduce water into the lungs in a controlled fashion, but I am worried that we are pushing the use of a term that is not widely accepted or used.  So from my view any official sources using the term controlled drowning would alleviate my worries.  I am also surprised that 89.100.48.103 thinks that this term is POV towards the Bush administration given the fact that the term "controlled drowning" sounds like a scary form of torture to me. Remember 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine and well-sourced. Most editors don't seem to have a problem with it. I say keep it. 220.255.112.159 19:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is well sourced- see comment below   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Back to controlled drowning

message: Alison, could you downgrade to Semi? The only real fighting is anons going at it with each other. • Lawrence Cohen 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't, sorry. Not for a content dispute especially one in which anon editors are in dialog on the talk page. They have the same standing as anyone else in a content dispute unless there's some very obvious socking going on - Alison ❤ 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: If you like, you can have the protect reviewed on WP:RPP. I'll stay clear and you can tell the others there that I'm not averse to a review and prot change if anyone sees fit - Alison ❤ 20:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, in hindsight it's probably better this way, since it forces proper discussion rather than us all mashing the RV buttons. • Lawrence Cohen 02:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi, please 

message: ... again. Sorry about that but things have spiralled out of control again. One anon editor has now been blocked for 3RR. This time prot is indefinite until we can work something out here - Alison ❤ 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused.  What are we working out here? I want to know so that we can figure out when we have actually come to an accord on the issues.  Is the debate whether we should discuss whether it is torture? Remember 21:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems largely down to the "torture" word now, and not much else - Alison ❤ 21:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article fully protected 

message: Waterboarding actually saves TERORRIST lives.
Think about this:
If there is no way to effectively interrogate terrorists, what
incentive is there for the military to ever risk attempting to
capture enemies alive?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.15 (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly worthy of mention low down, but should carry no weight as we can't have the same people who practice it saying it is or isn't torture due to strong bias. Inertia Tensor 06:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting tidbit 

message: This subcat is NOT for the discussion of waterboarding.
I propose this topic only be unlocked when we have reached a concensus, AND written a resulting draft of the first paragraph in Talk, and it has been signed up on. Inertia Tensor 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlock Proposal 

message: This subcat is NOT for the discussion of waterboarding, or hashing out a new version - make another sub-cat for that.
When we have reached sort sort of consensus, and have written a proposed replacement of the opener which people agree on, then please place the already-agreed version of it here, Allison or Chaser can then have a look at it, and consider whether it is safe to unlock. Inertia Tensor 07:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement Header 

message: *In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., 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.
:::START COMMENT HERE
Most likely liberal democratic activists who find fault with this administration whenever possible.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.240.42 (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 100 U.S. law professors

message: *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." Lawmakers: Mukasey must reject "waterboarding", Reuters via Yahoo News, October 29, 2007  --agr 11:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another great supporting source, thanks agr. Inertia Tensor 04:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lindsey Graham

message: *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."
:::I'm not sure if they were waterboarding the suspect in this case if they were administering the water cure, which as I understand it focuses on forcing the subject to ingest large amounts of water as opposed to only forcing water into the lungs of the victim. -- Remember (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow the link. "The “water cure” appears to have consisted of pouring water from a dipper into the nose of appellant, so as to strangle him, thus causing pain and horror, for the purpose of forcing a confession. Under these barbarous circumstances the appellant readily confessed" I think pouring water into someone's nose counts as "forcing water into the lungs of the victim." Seleucus (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what influence did racism have on this event?--Can Not (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noted the race of the defendent because the Mississippi Supreme Court in 1926 would have been extremely biased against any African-American defendant; their overturn of his conviction due to the use of waterboarding should be viewed as especially significant. Seleucus (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mississippi Supreme Court, 1926

message: *Cite it here as ref, without [ref] tags though
:::START COMMENT HERE
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/former-interrogator-enters-waterboarding-fray/index.html?ex=1355029200&en=24bb2ab7b1b414da&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmaull (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ADD YOUR SOURCE FOR OR AGAINST HERE 3 etc