Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 8

message: Yes, voting is evil. No one needs to flay the dead horse again here. Simple poll: 
* Legal status of waterboarding in any legal jurisdiction: does this carry any extra special value for us, over "opinions" of experts? This is specific to the is/isn't torture question, which is not going to go away until we have a consensus that is acceptable to the bulk of the editors here. 
; Yes
# 
#If the law specifically mentions "Waterboarding".  Otherwise it may not apply. Perhaps... if it does not use the term waterboarding but describes the process as illegal, that might be ok, though at that point our use of it is Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as japanese in the second world war (check) and american troops in vietnam (check). (Hypnosadist) 08:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as its explicitly banned for all US military personel to do it as its torture. Of course its been banned in europe since the late seventies (violation of the ECHR). (Hypnosadist) 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with you the classification of torture is a semantic and medical (there are proceedures to measure and quantify if torture has happened to your patient). (Hypnosadist) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would also suggest that it is likely that waterboarding is not illegal in some countries.  These may not be countries we would prefer to live in, but they exist.  In these countries laws may not be so well codified that they can be reviewed and analyzed either.  And, I should also point out that the issues of waterboarding being torture and being illegal are not exactly synonymous.  It may be considered torture, but legal (like in those countries I just talked about).  So, legality is not exactly a statement that it is not torture in at least some cases.--Blue Tie (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you believe waterboarding is not illegal in some countries then find sources to that effect. (Hypnosadist) 10:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it works the other way around.  In order to assert something, it must be established.  If it is illegal in a certain country the laws of that country should be cited. That would be either Legislation, Regulation (or Decree) and/or Judicial Ruling.  But you are missing my point by looking for sources.  I was not suggesting this be added to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to cite to specific laws. Other RS that discuss the matter in question are 100% acceptable. Laws are primary sources and not preferred. Lawrence § t/e 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. But your stance is not supported by history, precedent, practice, or consensus. Lawrence § t/e 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll: Please participate 

message: * Spell term consistently as "waterboarding" throughout. In two places forms of the term are spelled with a hyphen: "water-boarding" and "water-boarded". Elsewhere it is an open compound "water boarding".
* Under "Technique", in the third paragraph "According to some experts, information retrieved from waterboarding may not be reliable..." the "according to some experts" seems like weasel words and unnecessary, although the overall sentence is supported by a citation from Human Rights Watch. I suggest replacing these four words with "As with any method of torture,". There is no point in confining the information as to reliability of supposed confessions to one particular method of torure. All coerced information-gathering would face the same problem.
* Under "Contemporary use and the United States," fourth paragraph, "answer" should be pluralized.
* Under the section "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed", there is a messy sentence where his name is being pressed into too much service: "This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed interrogators called this bravado, and who claimed that he was waterboarded only once." I suggest it be replaced with: "This is disputed by two former CIA officers who are reportedly friends with one of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's interrogators. The officers called this 'bravado' and claimed that he was waterboarded only once."
* In the section "Abu Zubaida", his name is once spelled as "Abu Zubaydah". The third paragraph has the phrase "some discrepancies regarding reports about the amount of times Zubaida was waterboarded." Because the times are countable, the word should be "number of times," not "amount of times".
* Under "Controversy in the United States", fourth paragraph, the word "respondents" is once misspelled as "respondants".
* Under "As a political issue in the 2008 presidential election," there is a confused sentence: "For example, Rudolph Giuliani stated in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, he stated ..."   That should read: "For example, in response to a direct question of whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, Rudolph Giuliani stated:" 
* Add "Category:Torture devices" to end of article. — Objectivesea (talk) 10:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll support that good hard work, nice improvements Objectivesea. (Hypnosadist) 11:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If no one has any objections, I'll start implementing these suggestions. henrik•talk 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it. Lawrence § t/e 06:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: . (When "water boarding" or "water-boarding" were used in direct quotations I did not change them) henrik•talk 19:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: henrik•talk 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested minor and non-controversial improvements 

message: A primary source from the DoD that they use waterboarding.  (Hypnosadist) 12:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sources 

message: Consensus absolutely does not and will never require unanimous support. Lawrence § t/e 00:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I sort of wish you had felt that way in November. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in October and November, before we had collected over two hundred sources and viewpoints on Waterboarding, I bent over backwards in organizing so that all views would be considered at least on talk here. Once I saw the body of evidence and RS were incredibly solidly to one side, I made a decision in my mind that would be best for Wikipedia in direct opposite to my own personal beliefs. And I personally stand by that to this day. And I've never believed consensus had to be unanimous, because the idea is insane. Any one person, or five, could filibuster progress anywhere on Wikipedia then. It would be a very stupid idea. Lawrence § t/e 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a great job.  And.. you had a consensus version of the lede, which you then compromised in order to get ... what you supposed.. would have been unanimity. In trying to get unanimity you pushed the lede too far in one direction and it fell over. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds about right, Blue Tie. Neutral Good (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder on consensus 

message: How about this for an opening paragraph?:
"Waterboarding is an enhanced form of interrogation that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. The subject may experience the sensation of suffocation and some incidental inhalation of water, the subject imagines the feeling of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent, though he or she is in fact completely safe.In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding is performed in ways that leave no lasting physical or psychological damage, it carries the risks of temporary discomfort. The psychological effects on participants in waterboarding have generally been found to be minor to non-existant,"  -71.84.8.177 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  you believe this to be a sock puppet? --neonwhite  user page talk 14:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently a vandal. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How? the page is protected? --neonwhite  user page talk 18:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that BlueTie refers to the previous edit history of the proposer. I am inclined to oppose because I am very unsure of the "safety" of the described method; a little study of a drawing of the internals of the human neck shows that face down may less likely to damage the breathing passages (and be less likely to induce the gag reflex.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 00:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not Torture

message: It is evident from the proposed decision at ArbCom that they will not resolve this content dispute for us. We are expected to resolve it outselves. I suggest WP:RFM. I would be willing to accept any result that arises from such a process if it will stop the bickering. Neutral Good (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but it's probably best to wait until after the arbitration concludes. Surprising things can happen during the voting process. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: Is the "Chinese Water Board Torture" referred to by the 1991 US GAO report the same as what is referred to as "Waterboarding" in 2004.
If they are not the same, how are the acts different, and how are the two terms related?
Should the opening line be:
:Waterboarding (also known as "Water board torture") is ...
or
:Waterboarding is a CIA interrogation technique similar to "Chinese water board torture" in which ...
Either "Waterboarding" is another name for "Water board torture" which is very similar to the Inquisition Toca torture,
Or "Waterboarding" was invented by some creative CIA agents with too much time on their hands and any resemblance to previous torture techniques is coincidental.
Nospam150 (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an etymology section at the start of the history section would be better, or starting each paragraph in the history section with what it was called in that time period. (Hypnosadist) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 "Waterboarding" vs 1991 "Water board torture" 

message: Interesting article on Hayden's recent testimony - .  Money quote - ""It is not included in the current program, and in my own view, the view of my lawyers and the Department of Justice, it is not certain that that technique would be considered to be lawful under current statute," Hayden said. Though now legally questionable, Hayden said waterboarding was legal in 2002 and 2003, a time period when the technique was used to interrogate Al-Qaida detainees. "All the techniques that we've used have been deemed to be lawful," he said." This information (or at least a link to the article to reflect the CIA's view) should be added to the article. Remember (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  article on CIA's view of waterboarding - thinks its legality is questionable 

message: See article. Badagnani (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN special rapporteur on torture [[Manfred Nowak]]: U.S.'s defense of waterboarding "absolutely unacceptable" 

message: Here's a link to the article.  Finally a statement from the administration on the practice . Remember (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I included this link not to point out that it is legal, just to point out a source to add to the article that shows that Bush administration's definitive statement on waterboarding. Remember (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA Times reports WH says waterboarding is legal 

message: Just wondering if you have seen this article yet from the Wall Street Journal, which says:
"CIA Likely Let Contractors Perform Waterboarding"
"The CIA's secret interrogation program has made extensive use of outside contractors, whose role likely included the waterboarding of terrorist suspects, according to testimony yesterday from the CIA director and two other people familiar with the program.
Many of the contractors involved aren't large corporate entities but rather individuals who are often former agency or military officers. However, large corporations also are involved, current and former officials said. Their identities couldn't be learned.
"The broader involvement of contractors, and the likelihood they partook in waterboarding, raises new legal questions about the Central Intelligence Agency's use of the practice, ..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120241180470751381.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us
Thanks.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA allowing contractors to use Waterboarding 

message: :Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death.[4] The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.[5]
Lung and brain damage is lasting physical damage.  The inhalation of water and later respiratory ailments that can arise are lasting physical damage.  Broken bones are deemed lasting physical damage due to the fact that breaks remain prominant and complications can occur with them for many decades after the injury is occured.  Psychological effects may be deemed 'physical damage' under almost all legislation in common law countries as well as most codified countries.
:Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts,[4][7] politicians,[8] war veterans,[9][10] intelligence officials,[11] military judges,[12] and human rights organizations.[13][14] 
Any interrogation method that involves applying physical force to a prisoner, restraining them and asphyxiating them especially, would be deemed torture by any sensible educated person.  The contention of whether or not it is torture, in my opinion, is merely indicative that there have been trolls present claiming it's a legitimate interrogation method.  The fact of the matter is, if there were a census to be held and we were to vote on whether it is torture or not, there would be an overwhelming majority affirmation that it is.
Thus, I suggest someone edit these passages to remove all weaselism, or we'll get straight to the voting. 58.107.154.192 (talk) 10:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the discussions above and in the archives. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --neonwhite  user page talk 15:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in opening paragraph. 

message: On two occasions, I believe, an interview with Jimmy Carter on CNN is used for the argument that "water boarding is considered torture by various politicians" or something to that respect. The source, the interview with Carter, however, makes no mention whatsoever of waterboarding. That source therefore makes it inappropriate for that statement in the article. I would suggest if you would like to keep "politicians" in that you use perhaps something McCain has said about waterboarding. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but due to the attacks on this article its still protected. (Hypnosadist) 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is clear consensus, I or any other admin can edit the protected article accordingly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm still trying to get concensus on a split (see section above) and then this could be delt with in more detail. Meanwhile this story from newsweek is mentioned above as a source for McCain's views  and the ref could be added to make "politicians" mean more than one politician. (Hypnosadist) 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Politicians" -> Carter 

message: Recent article by a person who was waterboarded in a controlled setting calling it torture.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great source! (Hypnosadist) 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Also helps with the etymology of waterboarding as well. (Hypnosadist) 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article by someone who experience waterboarding 

message: I can't figure out if my addition is related to the supposed content dispute under arbitration, so I'll leave my submission here in the hopes that it is integrated by a more knowledgeable admin.  I propose placing it before the last paragraph on opinion polls in the section "Controversy in the United States".
Numerous military authorities have decried the use of waterboarding.  In 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the senior uniformed lawyers of the four armed services for written commentary on waterboarding; all four stated that the practice was inhumane and illegal.  They were subsequently supported by several retired colleagues."Ambiguity That Dishonors America, Letter to the Editor by Judge Advocate General of the Navy Thomas Romig and Judge Advocate General of the Navy Donald Guter, The Washington Post, November 8, 2007.  See also "Retired Judge Advocates General Write To Leahy Condemning Waterboarding", hosted by liberal Center for American Progress  Similarly, in December 2007 twenty-eight retired generals and admirals wrote an open letter to the House and Senate intelligence committees urging them to prohibit the CIA from engaging in harsh interrogation techniques."CIA Chief: Hill Should Have Been Told More" by Walter Pincus, The Washington Post, December 13, 2007  The same month, the Armed Forces Journal wrote an editorial declaring, "Waterboarding is a torture technique that has its history rooted in the Spanish Inquisition. ... And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work.""To Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Nominee Michael Mukasey", editorial, Armed Forces Journal, December 2007
Thanks, BanyanTree 12:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed addition 

message: I noticed this piece in the Vietnam War section of the article: "Waterboarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in the Vietnam War."
Sadly, the resulting link is not more detailed. Where these generals talking about internal Department of Defense policy, or was there a law at the time making waterboarding illegal? Certainly, generals don't make laws.
There was also a mention on The Daily Show about illegality in WW2. Apparently, there was a case where interrogators using waterboarding were sentenced to death under US law. It aired sometime in the past week or so and  would have the clip. It's obviously not a very good reference, but it might be a good starting to point to find that information, which may be helpful in the article. The-Bus (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the U.S. soldier from the famous Vietnam waterboardin photo was court martialled, found guilty and thrown out of the army. He would've been subject to US military law, and as far as I know Judge Advocate General's Corps officers are partly responsible for both drafting new laws and amendments, and also advising on the practice and applicability of existing laws. Of course, it would be good to have more information on this specific case, so feel free to investigate further. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about legality 

message: See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding#Article probation. All editors are bound and restricted by this, indefinitely. Will someone please add the appropriate templates here? Lawrence § t/e 14:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The ArbCom having come to a conclusion, and having instated remedies (other than keeping the article protected over a long period of time), I have requested unprotection of the waterboarding article, at the protecting admin's talk page:  --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding probation - ALL editors are now restricted, please read 

message: If I was the subjected to waterboarding, I would consider it torture.
Furthermore, the image makes the subject more concrete than abstract words. The image alone immediately grabs the attention as extreme -- much faster than words could ever do. Deleting the image makes the discussion too abstract; it divorces the reader from the reality of the extremity of the practice.
Truth should not be suppressed just because it is uncomfortable to think about.
Mclaypool (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the support please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_8 to register your point of view formally (As should anyone else who has an opinion). (Hypnosadist) 16:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning the Proposal to Delete the Waterboarding Image 

message: The lead states, "Waterboarding gained recent attention and notoriety in the United States when the press reported that the CIA had used waterboarding in the interrogation of certain extrajudicial prisoners," and provides this source. However, I do not see that source as a very supportive one in that it doesn't claim waterboarding gained attention because of the media's outing of this secret. The Newsweek article from June 21, 2004, does seem to be among the first major news sources to discuss the waterboarding issue in the United States. Based upon that, however, I think the sentence is sort of implying that investigative media persons revealed and uncovered a big secret, when really it looks like the White House was putting it out there and especially when the CIA themselves revealed they used waterboarding. So I think more realistically the notoriety did not come from the media reporting the CIA, but rather the CIA reporting what they themselves did. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Waterboarding gained attention and notoriety in the United States when it was reported that the CIA had used the technique in interrogating certain extrajudicial prisoners"? Avoids the question of who reported this. Although I do think that there were press reports of waterboarding before government sources acknowledged it, I don't have any citations right now. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds reasonable. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding intro. 

message: * A Washington Post article writes about the testimony of Steven G. Bradbury, acting chief of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, to a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee subcommittee. Bradbury wrote two secret memos in 2005 that purported to authorize waterboarding; in the testimony he attempts to distinguish United States use of such torture from similar methods employed during the Spanish Inquisition and subsequently - Dan Eggen, "Justice Official Defends Rough CIA Interrogations: Only 'Severe, Lasting Pain' is Torture, He Says"] in Washington Post, 16 February 2008
* A New York Times op-ed article by a United States Air Force colonel who was chief prosecutor of the "military commissions" at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005 to 2007, argues that the use of torture by United States armed forces and CIA agents lowers the world standing of the United States, jeopardizes U.S. soldiers and hampers legitimate judicial efforts which must reject unreliable and illegally obtained evidence - Morris Davis, "Unforgivable Behavior, Inadmissible Evidence"], New York Times Op-Ed Contributor, 17 February 2008
Objectivesea (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great sources. (Hypnosadist) 22:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two new newspaper articles 

message: Some nice articles discussing the torture thingy and possibility of prosecution.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding liability 

message: This is a small point that I don't think requires debate. The United States Supreme court in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain,  said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law." That deserves mention in this article because the article is unclear whether the US is bound to follow the UDHR.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a secondary source that mentions this case, but it certainly seems relivent to the application of the UDHR to waterboarding. (Hypnosadist) 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of Waterboarding under the UDHR 

message: I think the following should be added to the article in the history section between Colonial times and World War 2;
===After the Spanish-American War of 1898===
After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the court-martial of the American General on the island of Samar for allowing his troops to waterboard, when the court-martial found only that he had acted with excessive zeal Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the General dismissed from the Army. 
I'm not bothered about the wording but i think this set of events is important to this article and the current US debate. (Hypnosadist) 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone got any suggestions to improve the above proposed section, or any objections? (Hypnosadist) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding this now article is unprotected. (Hypnosadist) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Lawrence § t/e 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing to write the article 

message: After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water torture.” President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the court-martial of the American General on the island of Samar for allowing his troops to waterboard, when the court-martial found only that he had acted with excessive zeal Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the General dismissed from the Army. 
I'm not bothered about the wording but i think this set of events is important to this article and the current US debate. (Hypnosadist) 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone got any suggestions to improve the above proposed section, or any objections? (Hypnosadist) 15:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding this now article is unprotected. (Hypnosadist) 16:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. Lawrence § t/e 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: After the Spanish-American War of 1898

message: As this article is now over 64 KB in size, it is now twice the sugested maximum length for articles. Some of the talk about the article concerns its apparent US-centredness. Arguments are made that this is a distorted focus; arguments are also made that such a focus is legitimate, given the current use by the U.S. government and the current arguments about its use by a modern democracy which in most other ways respects human rights. I suggest that the article be divided into two -- the main Waterboarding article and a new article: Use of Waterboarding by the United States (or some similar title). The main article could briefly summarize the U.S. usage in a single paragraph with a link to the new article: For a fuller discussion of this, see also Use of Waterboarding by the United States
Objectivesea (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Split I support this, also will help with the modern US undue weight. (Hypnosadist) 21:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support Conditionally, of course. The US sub-article will I presume be subject to the existing probation, as a related page, and will need to be tightly monitored to not advance any fringe theories or viewpoints. It can't be just a POV fork. Lawrence § t/e 22:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oppose Waterboarding use by the CIA is not "current." It stopped in 2005, which is three years ago. If the article is too long, trim out the repetitive chanting of every "waterboarding is torture" source under the sun, and select a few that are representative with links to the rest. Neutral Good (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Waterboarding use by the CIA is not "current." It stopped in 2005" Thats only if we believe them, don't forget they said there were no secret jails in eastern europe but there were, etc etc iran/contra etc etc. (Hypnosadist) 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take my evidence over your speculation any day of the week. Neutral Good (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Support In its current form there is undue weight toward the US. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdividing this Article 

message: Having read the same arguments hashed over ad nauseum for months, with overwhelming references to large numbers of sources clearly and unambiguously calling waterboarding torture,  I suggest in all sincerity that such adherents to this fringe view seriously consider turning their efforts to the more appropriate venue of the waterboarding entry in Conservapedia. I do not suggest this as snark or as an insult. I'm simply observing that such passionate defense of waterboarding as "not torture" has a natural home in Conservapedia. The problem with Wikipedia, and this article in particular, is best expressed by Stephen Colbert: "Facts have a well known liberal bias." -Quartermaster (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL, Quartermaster be careful as this article is under Probation and as such comments like the above could easily be seen as snarky. (Hypnosadist) 14:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Even more funny is Consevapedia has some sources we don't have, which i'm going to use to improve the article, LOLS. (Hypnosadist) 14:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. (Hypnosadist) 15:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Found nothing about Michael Hayden in the story. (Hypnosadist) 03:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The National Review article is an opinion piece, not a reliable source. If we can find a reliable source on who made the 5 minutes claim, we can add the information to the US section. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is torture defined by how long it takes? I don't think so. ~ UBeR (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appropriate place for "waterboarding is not torture" 

message: See . Badagnani (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors again attempting to delete Vann Nath painting from Wikipedia 

message: Anyone know the status of this one, and who owns copyright? Lawrence § t/e 00:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a United Press International photo. The details were published in a recent Washington Post article: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post published a front-page photograph of a U.S. soldier supervising the questioning of a captured North Vietnamese soldier who is being held down as water was poured on his face while his nose and mouth were covered by a cloth. The picture, taken four days earlier near Da Nang, had a caption that said the technique induced 'a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk.'"
Badagnani (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on an image 

message: Why is this article part of the military history project when it is about an interrigation method, something not in and of itself military related? Also, why hasn't it been rated as to its relative importance if it has already recieved all this official Wikipedia administration attention? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a member of that project,i can only give you my answer which is waterboarding is part of the War on Terror thus it is part of the military history project. As to why no-one has rated it i'd say ask at the project page. (Hypnosadist) 03:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ask there except that I'm afraid the importance rating may generate a whole new edit war between the side thinking its "mid" and the side thinking its "low" (which is my own opinion). I'm not trying to ABF of anyone here: I just think that a relative "outsider" who's also a longtime registered user should be one giving the rating if it's given out. Perhaps it's best to just leave that blank, then? 24.32.208.58 (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, it has been utilized in military campaigns throughout history. See this article, e.g. This war is no exception. The Army, which does interrogation as well, mentions it in its interrogation field manual. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects (?) 

message: I've added this to each:
We need to globalize these. The US views and opinions are only a small part of what matters in the world, and we need to accurately report a global view. Lawrence § t/e 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality + Classification as torture sections 

message: "Some would call it torture but it is only reserved for the most evil of terrorists. It is an effective means of quickly getting information from a terrorist without doing any lasting physical damage." should not be in here, plain and simple
:Unfortunately, without proper sourcing, and respect for our rules on neutrality, this is completely incompatible with how we do things. Lawrence § t/e 07:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: for the same reasons i would leave it as "interrogation" instead of torture (in the first sentence)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.238.136 (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have well over a hundred (I think 170 now?) sources and authorities, from all over the world, that identify the practice as torture, with records of it as torture dating back centuries. Only modern American viewpoints of a generally single political demographic (the minority demographic in the United States, in addition, by percentage of population I believe--American Conservatives are a minority in their own nation) have tried to re-brand waterboarding as "interrogation" or "not torture". Giving their viewpoints unearned weight on an article in an international encyclopedia on a global historical topic would be inappropriate. American views are not of special value in this case. Lawrence § t/e 22:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By definition, interrogation consists of questioning an individual who is under detention. Typically, they are sitting in a chair and the interrogator is also sitting in a chair, or else standing. In waterboarding, however, a captive is bound to an inclined table, with his/her head and mouth covered with a cloth, which is not conducive to the interrogator hearing his/her responses. If waterboarding is to be construed as an interrogation method, then so must all other forms of torture--as any activities that cause great suffering may interspersed into an interrogation session. Thus, there would not be any forms of torture we could continue to call by the term "torture," as they would all be redefined as "interrogation methods." This is illogical and seems motivated solely by a frantic, after-the-fact attempt by certain elements in the United States to change the actual definition of this well-described and -understood practice in the public eye (using Wikipedia as a tool, or battleground to do so, as the eighth most visited Internet site), as it has now been admitted it has been conducted by agents of that nation's government. Badagnani (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think all good editors would agree that less vague an article is the more use it is. --neonwhite  user page talk 04:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Neutrality 

message: A mediation request has been made here. The results of the third sockpuppet investigation in the history of this content dispute may be found here. In addition to confirming all previous results, here are the new findings: two , two  and one . I hope that this will finally resolve the matter and that we can address the content dispute through mediation in a constructive, good faith manner. Please participate. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You omitted the part where I said the findings "do NOT EXONERATE anyone" as well as the part where I said "I will look very unfavorably on any misquoting of these findings"... How do you plan to correct that? ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You've already done a fine job of correcting it, Lar. But I did link your complete findings and recommendations 9in my original edit. Now could we all please end the false accusations, the drama and disruption right here and now, and move forward to resolve the content dispute? Neutral Good (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Strangely, you are not summarizing everything that Lar said. Interested parties should make sure to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine#results in full. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

text: No, it does not finally resolve the matter. Jehochman  Talk 00:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what would finally resolve the matter, Jehochman? Besides my departure from Wikipedia? Neutral Good (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would finally resolve the matter would be if we stopped seeing new users that strangely seem to know lots about inner workings of minutia and past history of certain hot topics, and who seemed pretty good at wikilawyering, but even more strangely, didn't seem to grasp basic principles of the project such as reliable sources, neutral point of view, not pushing agendas, civility, respect for other views, and so forth. ++Lar: t/c 05:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request and results of sockpuppet investigation 

message: * This is about the legality of the Legal opinions given by John Yoo et al. Might of use for the article at the moment but definately this story will be on this page. (Hypnosadist) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New interesting sources 

message: I found it puzzling why some of the items in the See also section were there, necessitating a click even to get a rough idea what they were. I added brief descriptions to each, which I think is an improvement to the article. I've done this and seen it done in numerous other articles. However, the addition was reverted. I have looked in WP:MOS and not found anything covering this. Opinions? -Pete (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your changes don't seem objectionable to me, but I haven't seen this done in too many of the "See also" sections I've looked at. I don't have a strong opinion whether they should stay or go. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Adding descriptions to see also section is unusual. See Wikipedia:See_also ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting; I've never seen it (the section) used like this before that I recall. Basically, we're treating See also here how we would a disambiguation page. It's different, but I have to admit that having the links in some context is nice. I'm tempted to add this to a few of my other articles I've built up, to see if it sticks. Newness aside, what do you all think of this alternate way to do it? I know this isn't the forum for that, but I'm curious. Lawrence § t/e 07:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done that way from time to time. Not the normal way, but if it doesn't come across as too unnecessary, lengthy, or overly didactic, I think it should probably be fine. Badagnani (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that it's somewhat unusual, but I still believe it's an improvement -- some of the items are fairly obscure without context. Also, the guideline cited above says nothing about the addition of such comments. Based on the discussion above, I'm restoring what I put in. Perhaps the context doesn't need to be there for every single item, or can be tightened up; I won't oppose efforts in that direction. -Pete (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they're short, this is actually an improvement over the bare link, IMAO. htom (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the addition, it helps the user understand why they would like to read these articles. (Hypnosadist) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, Pete, that's a nice touch. I'm constantly clicking on links to find out why I should click on them (and often finding out it wasn't relevant). Done lightly, like you did, I think I'll be judiciously adopting your approach in other entries. -- Quartermaster (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the good words! -Pete (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boring stylistic item for discussion 

message: has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of , who was indef banned for abusive sockpuppetry and violating his 6-month ban on Waterboarding related pages per this discussion. Lawrence § t/e 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not just these two, but all of the others seem to have gone since that date. Does this mean that at least some of them were the same person? Badagnani (talk) 08:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly.  They also could be different people who realize that shenanigans will no longer be tolerated around this article. Jehochman  Talk 12:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ProtectYoNutz and Neutral Good blocked indef for sockpuppetry abuse 

message: Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency stated the following, when Carl Levin (D-MI) asked, "General, do you believe that waterboarding is consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?"  Maples replied, "No, sir, I don’t.""Do you think it’s humane?" Levin asked. Maples replied, "No, sir, I think it would go beyond that bound."  From .  I thought someone might want to incorporate this. Remember (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another recent source 

message: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8397486
--BenBurch (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding as an employee motivation tool.  Yes, I'm serious. 

message: I removed category torture per WP:CAT. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have restored. There is an overwhelming number of sources that describe this practice as torture. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know its torture. I have removed since it is listed under the category torture devices which has torture as its parent category. Please see WP:CAT. Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not revert again, how rude of edits to revert without proper edit summaries or taking the issue to the talk page. Too bad. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not a "device", but a practice. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better, thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have pointed out on your talk page that this is considered a controversial topic with a distinct history of vandalism and edit warring and that any edits should be discussed first and a consensus gained. This was why your edits were reverted. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that they were reverted on the spot without an edit summary of any detail. I was removing a category that was redundant because it was already there per a sub category. I was not saying that this practice is not torture, because I believe it is. I took it to the talk page and was still sumarially reverted until Jossi was nice enough to remove the wrong category and post in here. Is this drama over for now? Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The article is currently in :Category:Physical torture techniques, which seems to me to be the correct category. That category is itself a subcategory of :Category:Torture. -- The Anome (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per WP:CAT, the main category should then be removed. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the removal of duplication affect the reader, making it hard to browse through subjects or spot their target easily? If the answer is yes, you should not remove the duplication.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your point here? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. Per Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories and common sense we can leave it as-is in both categories unless a consensus forms to do otherwise. Lawrence § t/e 14:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You agree with what? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with 70.109 that cat:Psychological torture techniques should be added butit looked like a redlink under preview, the way waterboarding induces hydrophobia is one of its most powerful ways it tortures. (Hypnosadist) 19:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to add it. Do you have an opinion about whether the parent category torture should be included against guidelines or not? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually removed Category:Psychological torture techniques because it says this cat is for forms of torture that do not do physical harm which is obviously not the case here. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it again per that categories description. --nyc171 (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it does not meet that categories description. Parent categories should not be pressent when a sub-cat is there, thats how i've always understood it and see no special reasons not to do that here. (Hypnosadist) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed this category. If you actually look at that category page, this article sticks out one, and two, it is already listed under War crimes that is a sub category of Law of wars. Is this some good reason to include this cat?--nyc171 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent category 

message: Editors here, this article is now really good, at least that is my impression on coming back to it after a gap of several weeks. It is pithy and to the point, impeccably referenced, well structured. I'd say it's time to move beyond the POV-dispute acrimony and seriously think about working it up to GA and even to FA. I'm not committing myself to anything, but actually I don't think there's a lot required to do. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't read it all the way through, but I generally agree. Only one concern, article stability is one of the GA criteria. It seems that POV edit warring has died down, but as long as this is an important news story, it's likely to crop back up. Anyway, I'd say go ahead and nominate if you feel the urge! I'll try to respond to suggestions in the process, for what that's worth. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the kind words, a lot of editors have worked hard here. I do agree with pete though, this article has not been stable long and new bits are added often as legal process goes on mostly in america. Lets leave it for one month then if its still stable send it for GA. (Hypnosadist) 23:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea to go for GA/FA status: if the article gets there, it would show that the ArbCom-imposed probation helped the quality of the encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not go for GA? 

message: Should the War on Terror footer be included at the bottom of this article?  What do people think?
The template is below. Remember (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First things first, I think the topic of "torture" should first be incorporated into the navbox. -Pete (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and waterboarding added to the template. (Hypnosadist) 23:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree, this technique is not limited to the US invention known as War on Terror.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 23:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand. Nobody's said it is. There are two proposals, (1) to add the navbox to the bottom of this article, and (2) to add torture and/or waterboarding to the navbox itself. Which are you disagreeing with? And, can you expand on your reasons? -Pete (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be against the navbox. For one, "War on Terror" is hardly an NPOV term (but that's probably neither here not there), but, for another waterboarding is not limited to the "War on Terror", and the "War on Terror" does not seriously depend on waterboarding. We don't add the template to M16 rifle or to C-5 Galaxy or to Arabic language, although all of these play some role in the event. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I would bet that 99% of what has been written on this topic has been written due to its use against suspects in Bush's War on Terror.  That is why I thought it was relevant.  I am not saying it clearly should appear on the page, but I thought that there might be an argument that it should be on the page. Remember (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont think you can say the article is linked enough soley to that one subject to include it. What if there is a foot for the Khmer Rouge, Algerian Civil War or Spanish Inquisition? we could end up with several. --neonwhite  user page talk 05:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Nescio you are right but Agent Orange is now forever linked with vietnam. As for a POV name, it is the name virtually all sides call it (no matter how much they may disagree with the name), if its not the "war on Terror" what is it called? (Hypnosadist) 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

text:  I disagree that it's notability is due to that, it would have notablility regardless. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template footer