Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 10

message: User 12.46.25.232 has replaced "inclined downward" with "tilted downward" (see  revision comparison here) claiming the original phrasing is an "oxymoron" (which makes no sense to me). When I look up the word "inclined" I often find that "tilted" is a synonym. "Tilted" as an adjective often has "incline" as a synonym. Neither word indicates direction indicating to me that the additional adjective of "downward" in the original context is needed with both words to clarify the body's position. Any comments as to which word is more accurate or stylistically preferred? When I think of the head being "tilted" I picture it bent at the neck, whereas "inclined" would refer to the position of the entire body. Not worth going to war over this, but since my original reversion back to "inclined" was reverted by the same user, I thought it worth seeking comments. If you think this is too trivial, just don't comment - I'll leave "tilted" in the interim. -- Quartermaster (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclined vs. tilted - a trivial issue 

message: See . It claims that the single word form ("waterboarding," as opposed to "water boarding") was coined by Alan Dershowitz. Badagnani (talk) 04:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great article, with lots of sources, could be the basis of an etymology section. (Hypnosadist) 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an etymology section is needed as the origin of the word seems to be known, recent, undisputed, and claimed by the author.  An etymology section is useful if there are several theories as to a word origin.  The first sentence of this article might read: Waterboarding is a euphemism for water torture the authorship of which is claimed by Alan DershowitzAlan Dershowitz claims credit for the term Waterboarding  I personally think most of this article should be in the Water torture article, with an explanation of the term waterboarding embeded in it.  Perhaps a section of the water torture article could be titled 'euphemisms for watertorture'.Geo8rge (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  I think a short etymology section would be most useful.Remember (talk) 17:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Waterboarding is a euphemism for water torture the authorship of which is claimed by Alan Dershowitz.  What more is needed than one sentence.  Since Dershowitz claims he coined the term I suggest it should be the first sentence.  BTW, what was this called before the Global War on Terror?Geo8rge (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added a section on the etymology of the term based on these articles.  The references still need to be cleaned up so if someone could do that, it would be helpful.  Let me know what people think. Remember (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article discussing etymology 

message: I've removed reference to "Trendelenburg position" from the intro. It is out of context: Trendelenburg position is not a general name for the human position in which the head is declined downward - it is a term that only makes sense in the context of medical treatment. GregorB (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trendelenburg position 

message: After looking at the article, I think it's on its way to becoming a GA and then perhaps FA.  What do others think?  Does anything else need to be done for it to reach GA status? Remember (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no definite answer but you may wish to read the archive of its previous failed attempt at getting listed status. I looked at some of the article last night and was impressed by what I read but I haven't looked at the whole thing and I don't feel the inclination right now, perhaps later. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested this not long ago but it hasn't happened yet. Why not start a things to do list? Also, people here could have a look at some articles currently going through FA review. If anyone has an opinion on the best photo for the lead of Solar energy their input would be much appreciated at the mediation. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With your suggestion in mind I changed the header and have put the to do list below. Remember (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article - to do list 

message: Any suggested improvements would be welcome. Remember (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: TO DO TO BRING ARTICLE TO GA STATUS

message: I believe the term "Chinese water board," mentioned by William Safire here, should be added to the etymology/history section, as it seems part of the history of the current (single-word) term. Badagnani (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safire mentions "Chinese water board" (1991) 

message: Come on!  How much more POV can you get?  That is an opinion and not a fact.--Murphoid (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been epic discussions and an ArbCom case. Read the FAQ that will lead you to Talk:Waterboarding/Sources, where hundreds of reliable sources attest the fact that waterboarding is torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding is a form of torture... 

message: We should incorporate this information to the article and add it to the source list. During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former Attorney General John Ashcroft said:
: REP. MAXINE WATERS: Do you think that if these techniques were used on American soldiers that they would be totally unacceptable and even criminal? […]
: ASHCROFT: My job, as Attorney General, was to try and elicit from the experts and the best people in the Department definitions that comported with the statues enacted by the Congress and the Constitution of the United States. And those statutes have consistently been interpreted so as to say, by the definitions that, waterboarding, as described in the CIA’s request, is not torture.
From .  Remember (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting, but i'm not sure as to the source (i don't think its wrong but it is a clearly politically biased site) is there an american equivolent of Hansard we could use? (Hypnosadist) 00:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ashcroft testimony 

message: This edit, made without prior discussion, is incorrect, as I think we've determined that a board is not always used; a gurney or other device that is not made of wood may be used, and in some cases (as in the outdoor version seen in the Vietnam War photo) no board is used. Please discuss this edit, which seems to have involved adding a footnote that is cobbled from the editor's memory rather than from an actual source, before implementing it, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made that edit, and I made it because there is no reference to the fact that waterboarding does not actually put the victim at risk of drowning. For types of torture that involve the risk of drowning, perhaps an article like water torture should be used. Specifically, waterboarding is used in situations where it's not acceptable to put the target at risk of drowning, hence the use of a board or flat object to incline the subject to prevent water from filling their lungs. If you want to fret endlessly about whether or not the "board" is made of wood or not, maybe you are missing the whole point of the article. A board for this purpose can be made of many substances including but not limited to wood, gurneys, metal, plastic, etc. But to remove or contest the edit simply because not all waterboarding is done with a wooden board is... um... idiotic and missing the point.  Dragonnas (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @ Dragonnas: I'm afraid your fact is less than a fact. I would refer you to the testimony of pro-Iraq invasion enthusiast Christopher Hitchens, which recently received global publicity. His first response when interviewed after two stints of waterboarding, each lasting seconds, was that "it doesn't simulate drowning; it is actual drowning." The links are at the bottom of the article, but here they are again: Vanity Fair video of waterboarding, July 2008 and "Believe Me, It’s Torture" Vanity Fair, August 2008 Watch the video & see for yourself. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board 

message: The Human Rights Annual Report 2007 released Sunday by the UK House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee states that "the UK can no longer rely on US assurances that it does not use torture, and we recommend that the Government does not rely on such assurances in the future."Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also on the BBC website.. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK believes it is torture 

message: Why is there so much consideration to what the US Government thinks? The vast majority of right-thinking people the world over consider waterboarding to be torture.
The US uses this form of torture, and then denies it is torture, so now encyclopedias have to pretend that it isn't torture either? I guess the next step is for the US to start shooting prisoners in the back of the head and deny it is execution, so encyclopedias the world over have to redefine "execution" in all of their articles.
If the Government of Sierra Leone says that Aids is not an epidemic, does Wikipedia then have to change its Aids article?
It's just ridiculous to give so much weight to the Government of just one of the world's 220 + nations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 06:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outrageous 

message: "Waterboarding" Is Torture to Everybody Else in the World. There's more in the "Related Content" bar. GregorB (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not what you would call a left wing group, how much of paleo-conservative thought do this group represent? (Hypnosadist) 03:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, not a left wing group by any stretch of imagination, and that's why it may be interesting. Right wing criticizes WB as torture too, unlike what some have argued here. JBS people generally don't like Bush and neocons, which makes them close to paleo-conservatives - but it's hard to say to what extent. GregorB (talk) 10:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  People from the [[John Birch Society]] believe it is torture 

message: Eventually we need to delete the text that violates WP:NPOV, and at some point I will do this if we cannot find consensus on how and when to do this. The OR/SYN violations need to go as well.
Who says that there are no sections that violate NPOV? There has been enough content discussion, I want to debate policy compliabnce here. Raggz (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Eventually we need to delete the text that violates WP:NPOV" Show me. (Hypnosadist) 20:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete the text that violates NPOV?

message: There are a number of OR policy violations in regard to the US waterboarding. Do we all agree that we need reliable sources to support claims, and that without these this text must be deleted? Raggz (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could you list these violations specifically? I just had a quick look through the article: everything seemed to have inline citations. I certainly don't agree that any text should be deleted without it being first raised here, allowing people to find citations if it is felt that more are needed. almost-instinct 09:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposition that the suffocation with water of a bound, inclined prisoner, as practiced by agents of the United States of America, is "noble," "not so bad," "less bad," "kinder," "gentler," etc., than such suffocation as practiced by agents of the 190+ other nations in the world seems to be fairly speculative, as if the editor proposing that this purported "special" U.S. version be privileged by minimizing the possible damage this form of torture might cause *hopes* or *wishes* that Americans wouldn't do something so horrible. Such a speculation seems more appropriate for a blog or other personal website, or perhaps some form of patriotic website. If, however, a notable individual has stated their belief in such a "special" U.S. version, if it is properly sourced, we could consider adding such a quote to the article. We do have the statements of several individuals (all U.S. Republican Party politicians or media commentators) who have expressed a similar opinion. Badagnani (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Repost incase Raggz didn't see. "US waterboarding" ????? Ahah the Invisible Pink Unicorn is out of the bag. Its the mythical Nice waterboarding in the house. No it is OR to say that the USA has a special nice way to waterboard without RS's to support that POV. (Hypnosadist) 20:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[wp:or]] policy violations and deletion

message: The reference to the name Pearl Harbour should be spelled -or; since it is a proper name (even if the page is edited by those who would "generically" spell the word harbour.) The same is true, of course, for the World Trade Center; the main site of the 9/11 attack should never be spelled "World Trade Centre". 208.47.164.211 (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearl HarbOR 

message: This is something else. 
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.” at the time appears to be wrong; it's from a Politico op ed, which is not the most reliable of sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chinese water torture]] 

message: Is he worth referencing?  Geo Swan (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So, what about this [[Andrew Sullivan]] guy? 

message: There is a sentence in the section on the animatronic waterboarding installation that is way over cited. We don't need eight citations to verify a piece of information. Two or three will due. The only reason to use more is if it actually takes that many citations to verify the info (e.g. each citation only provides partial verification and only together do the citations verify the text). Otherwise, this is overkill. Someone who's invested in this article should pick out the best two or three and discard the rest. ask123 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the citations are only verifying parts, then it sounds like WP:SYNTH. htom (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Synthesis is something like "A is true because B and C are true.(citeB)(citeC)". It is perfectly okay to to use citations for individual parts of a statement like "A is true,(citeA) B is true,(citeB) C is true.(citeC)" 129.215.37.133 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over Citation 

message: Cheney confirms approving interrogation techniques in general and specifically approves of waterboarding suspects. Probably should be integrated somewhere. Remember (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new information that needs to be added 

message: Waterboarding is a form of torture? Come on! This is clearly taking a stance on an issue. Waterboarding saves lives.
98.226.26.89 (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I believe the premise, but what does one have to do with the other? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the comment cuts right to the heart of the matter. Those who advocate the use of waterboarding in certain cases do so based on expediency (e.g. the ticking time-bomb terrorist) not on any serious argument that waterboarding isn't torture. Even John Yoo admits his non-torture arguments are based solely on a narrow reading of the definition of torture in U.S. law, not on the word's normal meaning. --agr (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean John Yoo, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, yeah. Thanks for the correction. I've edited my comment. No need for a link to the wrong person.--agr (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There is too much of a US perspective to this article, I might tag it with a "worldwide view" banner. — Realist2 18:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain which recent, notable waterboarders this article has been neglecting? almost-instinct 01:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has way too much US focus 

message: The photographer at waterboardingdotorg has made all his/her numerous photos of waterboarding available with CC licenses. See . Which ones should we utilize?  Badagnani (talk) 07:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this one would get my vote almost-instinct 12:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I uploaded one to Commons that just shows a waterboard and added it to the article. Images with paintings in the background are more problematical for Commons.--agr (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photos available 

message: Since many forms of torture go back to antiquity, and occur in many continents, I'm very skeptical that waterboarding only goes back to the Medieval period in Europe. Waterboarding is very closely related to dunking, which is presently not well-documented in Wikipedia as to its origins.  I suggest we continue to look for earlier dates of origin for this form of torture.Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on origin of waterboarding 

message: I've added a second on waterboarding in 19th century prisons, with a citation of any incident in Sing Sing prison from the NYT archives.Ajschorschiii (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  19 century prisons 

message: This water torture, used in prisons in the U.S. in the 19th century, which we've actually looked at before, doesn't seem to be waterboarding because it doesn't fit the definition. It's simply another form of torture using water. The prisoner is seated in a chair, in a booth-like structure, rather than on their back. Please comment on this after reading the new text. Badagnani (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just added 

message: "On January 22, 2008 President Barack Obama made this practice illegal [131]"
2009, surely
:Purch your chache. I moved it down in the section and fixed the year already ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data error 

message: This section of the article claims that "Major Edwin Glenn was court martialed and sentenced to 10 years hard labor for waterboarding a suspected insurgent" and references 57. Cheney endorses simulated drowning. Retrieved on 2008-02-23 as its citation. The article on Glenn and the 10 year hard labor information actually comes from citation 59. Kramer, Paul, The Water Cure, The New Yorker, Feb 25, 2008. Available online and incorrectly reports the information in the article. The New Yorker piece cited explains that Glenn (the US officer court-martialed for the water cure) was "sentenced to a one-month suspension and a fifty-dollar fine" while Ealdama (the Filipino victim of US torture) was "serving a sentence of ten years’ hard labor." Blakestern (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, please fix the incorrect text in the article. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I have permission. I don't have an edit tab on this page.Blakestern (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect facts cited in the "After the Spanish-American War of 1898" section 

message: When typing on this page, I noticed that my dictionary on Firefox was telling me that "Waterboarding" is not an actual dictionary defined word. It also tells me that Firefox isn't a word, and it is an add-on to that, but that is beside the point. I tried it in Merriam Webster, Oxford English, and many others, and it is not in any of them. It is in wiktionary, but I don't think that really counts, as using that as proof would be like using the Bible as proof of God. 
This doesn't matter all that much, but I found it an interesting point. Alan16 (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Title... 

message: After the heated debate whether waterboarding is torture by apologists of the torture regime, some are now trying to do the same trick at enhanced interrogation techniques. Is it possible for some of the regulars here to keep an eye out and preserving torture, and not a form of interrogation, as the accepted main stream view of these practices? TIA.62.131.108.99 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apologists of the torture regime"? Thanks for the heads up, they may need help. htom (talk) 14:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "accepted main stream view of these practices". Because if something is accepted by most, we should just ignore the questioners. That is the way to improve the world, ignore everyone who disagrees with you. Alan16 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The view that waterboarding may not be a form of torture is not "ignored" in the article, it is discussed. Badagnani (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "it is discussed" I'm sorry, but I think that is just a ridulous statement. Alan16  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.203.242 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: How so? It is discussed rather extensively, with many prominent individuals and their views listed. Badagnani (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Discussed rather extensively"? There are two bloody paragraphs in a 100+ paragraph article. You follow these two paragraphs by quoting more people who say it is torture. That is not discussion. Look, if you think it's torture, and just want to ignore my opinion, fine. But you don't need to blatantly lie. It is not discussed. The only way you could discuss it less, would be to attach a sign to it saying "Waterboarding is torture, and f**k all you who disagree." Alan16 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also discuss if the moon is made out of cheese although you would probably call me a liar if I insist it's just a myth.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to draw an analogy, make sure it makes sense. The moon is not made of cheese. There is scientific evidence to prove this. Whether water boarding is torture or not comes down to personal opinions, not science. The thing which is the most aggravating is that you say it is discussed when it clearly isn't. This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for left wing partisan hackary. Alan16 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In disputes like this, we go with what the reliable sources say on the subject. What do they say? --John (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look. I'm not saying change it, so that it says waterboarding is not a torture. I don't agree with that, and I don't expect you'd do that. However, I'm saying that it is claimed that whether it is torture or not is discussed. It is not discussed. There are two paragraphs. Two! In an article of over one-hundred. These two paragraphs are also followed by more sources saying it is torture - in the discussion segment. That is not discussion. That is you saying: "These under-educated morons don't think it's torture. Yet these amazing, over-educated, god-like people, think it is." That is not discussion. Alan16 (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's a pretty good representation of the quality and weight of the sources, though. On the one hand, you have human rights organizations, legal professors, practicing lawyers, the current attorney general of the U.S., officials of other governments, officials of the UN, and so forth. On the other hand you have a bunch of non-committal statements by people associated with the Bush administration and full-bore denials by cable TV news pundits. Who should we give more weight to? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

text: *(ec)It is a fairly good if somewhat hyperbolic description of the situation, though. It just misses the educated but dissembling people. Anyways, by far the largest part of the article deals with the history and legality of the issue, not its classification. The two paragraphs give plenty of weight to that fairly minor and limited debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra eyes 

message: It seems that The Physical torture techniques category is part of the Torture category, so that is redundant and not needed here per WP:CAT? I know this was sort of covered before, but I see that it is still here. Also, what is up with the category Waterboarding? It has one entry? Is that an appropriate or needed category? Thanks, --Tom 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about categories 

message: WP:AE#Waterboarding and Neutral Good ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)
Why is Jim Meyers labeled as "conservative" while in the next sentence Christopher Hitchens is not labeled as "Liberal"?  Either apply these labels consistently or just remove them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stowbilly (talk • contribs) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please place new comments on the bottom of the page. Likely because Meyers labels himself as such, while Hitchens has held positions that have ranged from Trotskyite to conservative (such as his strongly pro-war positions of the past few years). Neither he nor those writing about him call him either conservative or liberal, because his set of views have changed so frequently, and are such a mixture of both. Badagnani (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Anyone who would call Hitchens a liberal must not have heard or read any of his stuff from the last 20 years or so.152.228.167.150 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 07:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: The ICRC, in its report leaked in March 2009, refers to waterboarding as "suffocation by water.". Badagnani (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to artricle 

message: Although considered as extreme, waterboarding is also used within the realms of sado-masochism play. Generlaly much less water is used, but the gag reflex is achieved just the same as part of consentual play.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTobester (talk • contribs) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt that that may be the case, but to add it to the article we need to have a reliable source saying so. henrik•talk 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would say that reliable source or not, it has no place in this article. Everybody who looks for this article is looking for an article on the torture used in places like Guantanamo Bay, not about BDSM. Alan16 talk 22:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was used at Insex.com but only once or twice as it was too tough on the Subs. (Hypnosadist) 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding BDSM play 

message: Currently, this PDF from 72.3.233.244 is linked as the Bybee memo. But the Bybee memo article links to a PDF at findlaw.com. How confident are we about which is the correct memo?  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 06:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The copy at 72.3.233.244 appears to be the same as the ACLU's copy.  —Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 07:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Chris for doing some good work on the references. (Hypnosadist) 10:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Bybee memo? 

message: Could an approved editor please add a link to this page to the external links section:
http://web.mac.com/fmprhoads/Videos/Active/Entries/2008/4/4_Waterboarding_is_torture.html
There are not a lot of songs about waterboarding, I think it is worth adding this link to the article.  Happy to discuss this.  JonWedd (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote NO, the article is well over length as it is, and this is just not important IMHO. (Hypnosadist) 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So, are you suggesting a fork?  I am not aware of any policies that authorize suppressing otherwise valid material solely on account of length.  Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of people seem to be talking about forking, i'm going to start a thread. (Hypnosadist) 20:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for additional external link 

message: The first paragraph mentions that several people believe waterboarding to be torture, but it doesn't state that these people are incorrect in their belief. The average reader might get confused into believing that it is. 173.89.210.101 (talk) 02:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is torture as all RS's capable of defining torture say its. Read the sources, the source i placed above from the Times of London for a report on what the Torture Waterboarding feels like. (Hypnosadist) 11:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the truth statement? 

message: Whoever has been removing text from this article over the past week, kindly explain why this was done, and where the consensus for such may be found above. Badagnani (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but is there anything that you miss? Most edits in the last week has been Chris Capoccia carefully cleaning up the references. We lost a few bytes of nominal length, and a lot of things got shuffled around. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That is not very helpful. Can you point out some of the sentences that have gone? Or some of the problematic edits in the history? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I thought I'd do the donkey work. It appears that the removal of about 3kB of stuff has happened recently. You two can decided the positives and negatives of said removal. Alan16 talk 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what has been removed has been removed from from within refs not body text, the rest is formating. Unless i've missed something it looks fine to me, i have been looking at the edits live and thought they were fine and have just reviewed them. (Hypnosadist) 19:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the messenger - I'll take your word on it. Alan16 talk 21:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your link was very useful, thank you. Chris's reasons given below also seem very good to me.(Hypnosadist) 21:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I'd stop being lazy and actually look at the link, and as Chris explains in more detail below, it all seems suitable. Alan16 talk 22:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The text was within source refs not in the body text. Also all edits conform to wikipedia policies so i would support all those edits made. (Hypnosadist) 10:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text 

message: Now; Intro> technique> effects> etymology> historical uses> Contemporary use> Legality. And change this to; Intro> Etymology> historical uses> Legality> technique> effects> Contemporary use>. Not content would be cut, what do people think? (Hypnosadist) 15:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really like this. Legality is always discussed within a given legal framework and situation - in this case, most of the discussion about legality deals with the contemporary use. Thus, it makes no sense to discuss the legality before describing this situation. I suspect it was legal for the Spanish Inquisition, while the use by the French in Algiers was just as illegal as the CIA's. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Can this idea. (Hypnosadist) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change in order of Sections 

message: I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right place so if someone could inform me weather I am or not, that would be appreciated.
The website I have added has some information that I could not find on the Wikipedia page, or in the discussions so here it is.
"Water boarding was used during the Italian Inquisition in the 1500s. Also during the reign of Khmer Rouge in the 1700's it was used in Cambodian prisons."
The website may include some other relevant information that has not been included although I did not look any further.
Website - http://science.howstuffworks.com/water-boarding.htm
Original Article by Julia Layton  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubenroadtrip (talk • contribs) 17:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Information 

message: If you do the math, for Khalid to be waterboarded 183 time in one month he must have been waterboarded ~every 4 hours. If anyone knows the duration of a water board session we can calculate what % of time Khalid spent being waterboarded. For instance, if it was a 1 hour session than he would have spent ~25% of a month being waterboarded. Which is considerable when you consider that if you sleep 8 hours a day you spend roughly 33% of your time per month asleep.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.84.63 (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting, but would represent original research. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm rather new to commenting on wikipedia so please forgive me, but it seems like if someone says "Product X costs Y cents" then transferring this to "Product X costs Z dollars" wouldn't be original research, so much as applying a conversion factor to a fact such that it is more understandable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.90.84.63 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  % of time spent 

message: Does anyone know of a reliable source linking Mammalian Dive Reflex to waterboarding? It seems to be highly relevant. Basically, submerging the face in cold water reflexively induces the sensation of drowning in mammals. HarborBoats (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No i don't and can't recall seeing it mentioned, but this may explain the cellophane method of waterboarding. I'll keep an eye out for you though. (Hypnosadist) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mammalian_diving_reflex is probably what you're looking for. htom (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammalian Dive Reflex 

message: This source mentions "choking" (the Dutch use of a cloth) and "pumping" filling the stomach with water by using large amounts, giving a great number more historical usages. Long-time editors, please read these few pages and see if anything should be added to supplement the historical section of this article. Badagnani (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source giving much more historical information 

message: No time to stop but i had to post this when i came across it http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/21/napolitano_torture_memos/ which contains this sick revelation;
The bias in favor of permitting torture may easily be concluded from a footnote in one of the memos. In that footnote, the author, now-federal judge Jay Bybee, declines to characterize such notorious medieval torture techniques as the thumbscrew and the rack as “torture.”
WTF! see you later (Hypnosadist) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOX News Senior Judicial Analyst says its torture 

message: Can someone run a spellcheck?  absense (sp) = absence. 02:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spellcheck 

message: I believe the Coney Island waterboarding thrill ride should be deleted from this article and a see also link added for it, discuss. (Hypnosadist) 22:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to delete this section in 2 days now it has its own article and is mentioned in W in the 21c. (Hypnosadist) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

text: RM early due to AFD on W in the 21c. (Hypnosadist) 00:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waterboarding in the 21st century]] strikes back