Talk:U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals

message: An article about torture manuals in general should be titled "Torture manuals".  This article is about something definite which is called by the name "The Torture Manuals", so the article should also have the definite article.  I'll move it now. Gronky 18:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be "The Torture Manuals" 

message: Exactly what is the source for that the manuals were used by "Right-wing Death squads all over Latin America"? And why should death squads be limited to the relatively mild torture techniques described in these manuals? Ultramarine 06:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source was linked, but I changed the wording to militaries and added a second source. Bmedley Sutler 07:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death squads 

message: The box lists several allegations regarding the manuals. The ultimate source for this is this article: . However, even accepting this source, there is no mention there of the years 1982-1991 or of, for example, "arresting a target’s family members". Furthermore such a largely unsourced article (or having to little information to find the claimed cited sources) is inappropriate for such a prominent box. I propose we reduce this to the claims actually made in the article and make a proper attribution regarding the claims. Like, "SOA watch claims that the manuals included materials on motivation by fear, payment of bounties for enemy dead, false imprisonment, the use of truth serum, torture, execution, false imprisonment, extortion and other techniques." Objections? Ultramarine 10:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add this link to the box  Its all in there. I can change the date back to 1963 too. Okay? Bmedley Sutler 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also I wrote on your page. You keep using only one source sometimes a non important one. The documents thmselves say these claims, so to make it so that people only think SOA watch makes the claims is misleading. Please stop doing this with one less important source. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these things are not mentioned on the page you cite. You cannot cite 7 entire books as as source, you have to be more specific, page numbers etc.Ultramarine 08:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The box is fine. The box contains all the methods taught at SOA. Every one was used there. Bmedley Sutler 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have given no source for this claim, except the the largely unsourced SOA watch article which does not mention some of the things in the box or the other article above which mentions even fewer. Again, you cannot cite 7 entire books, Wikipedia requires pages number/quotes when citing long books.Ultramarine 18:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those techniques were taught at SOA. Are you denying that any of them were not taught there between 1963 and 1991? Which ones? I will find more links to  good 'RS' sources and add them to the box too. Bmedley Sutler 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That only includes some of the things mentioned in the box and only for the year 1982-991.Ultramarine 23:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box 

message: They are based on older manuals back as far as the 1960's that show the US advised torture and electrocution." That is not mentioned in source, they describe the CIA manuals already described, but that the army manuals used the CIA manuals is not stated.Ultramarine 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all in there. In the GWU page. Read it. Maybe it should be execution not electrocution. It talks about having good current (for electric torture like Abu Gharib). Do you like that is says 'execution' instead? Bmedley Sutler 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the page does not state that the army manuals was based on the CIA manuals. Give a specific quote if claiming this.Ultramarine 09:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"Indeed, similar material had already been incorporated into seven Spanish-language training guides. More than a thousand copies of these manuals were distributed for use in countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, Ecuador and Peru, and at the School of the Americas between 1987 and 1991.</I>Bmedley Sutler 17:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar material does not mean the same. The source does not clam that the CIA manuals were used for the army manuals.Ultramarine 17:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will find the source or change the words slightly. Bmedley Sutler 18:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the person making a claim, you have to provide the source as per WP:V. If no source then material can be removed anytime which will be done. If you find a source, then you can this sourced material.Ultramarine 18:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Based on older manuals" 

message: The list on this page is from page 10 of the Amnesty International pdf file. 
Which refers to the soaw.org article: 
SOA Watch, “Pentagon Investigation Concludes that Techniques in SOA manuals were ‘mistakes.’” February 21, 1997.
Online here: http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=269.  
But the soaw article, from what I can find (there are several links off of the article) does not mention kidnapping at all. Travb (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The list

message: The current name "U.S. Army and CIA interrogation manuals" is neutral but 1) not correct regarding the army manuals which deals with many other topics beside interrogation and 2) not correct more generally since the article only have material regarding the manuals declassified in 96-97, not all manuals (interrogation or not) that the US have. As such a better name would be "U.S. Army and CIA training manuals (declassified in 96-97)". Thoughts? (See also earlier discussion above).Ultramarine (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The manuals was used in intelligence courses. So unless objections I will change the name to "U.S. Army and CIA intelligence training manuals (declassified in 96-97)"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 12:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: This article is so biased against US Army and the CIA it's not even funny. --Topk (talk) 08:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIAS 

message: The big boxes overwhelm the article. Is there any way to make them less imposing? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Ultramarine (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  BIG boxes 

message: :For the Bush administration memos, see Torture Memos
Igottheconch (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: added shortcut

message: I tried to add a working link to whale.to to replace the dead National Catholic Reporter, November 5, 2004, link, but got a spam notice. So I did something irregular: left the dead link and suggested a Questia link that doesn't offer the whole article and then suggested googling for whale.to. Yopienso (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I believe there was a TV documentation about the CIA's work in Vietnam. Made in the 70s or 80s. See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.44 (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam: Phoenix Program