Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 5

message: Waterboarding, long considered a form of torture by the United States, produces a gag reflex and makes the victim believe death is imminent. The technique leaves no visible physical damage. 
Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, considers waterboarding a form of torture. McCain has been quoted as saying that waterboarding is "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank." 
After World War II, U.S. military commissions prosecuted several Japanese soldiers for subjecting U.S. soldiers to waterboarding, according to Human Rights Watch. In 1968, a U.S. soldier was court-martialed for water boarding a Vietnamese prisoner. 
But in October 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed the United States had used the controversial technique to interrogate senior Al Qaeda suspects, and he said the White House did not consider waterboarding a form of torture.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we've gone over this before. The problem is that the opinions of Dick Cheney et al, are just that: opionions, until challenged by a body that has oversight over their actions, like the Senate/Congress, or a US Court of Law. Their opinions also have no legal bearing on the rest of the world. We will certainly note the minority/fringe view of the current United States government on this, but it would be made clear that its a minority opinion per WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and so on. • Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI 

message: I think we should also create a new section that discusses the notable political debate that is going on about waterboarding individuals.  For instance, there has been some buzz that Stephen King said that someone close to George Bush, such as Jenna Bush, should have be waterboarded so that they could get a first hand opinion on whether it was torture.  Now former Attorney General Ashcroft has responded to whether he would be willing to be waterboarded with the statement: “The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said." .  Also this was mentioned last night in the youtube debate see  
One of the evening's most emotional exchanges came in response to a question from Andrew Jones, a college student from Seattle.
"Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation," Jones said.
"My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?" he said.
"I oppose torture," Romney said. "I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form."
Prompted by the moderator as to whether waterboarding was torture, Romney said "as a presidential candidate, I don't think it's wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use."
McCain's response was passionate: "Well, governor, I'm astonished that you haven't found out what waterboarding is."
"I know what waterboarding is, Senator," Romney said.
"Then I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention," McCain said.
What do others think? Remember (talk) 14:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How did no one reply to so many sections before? We must have been all in tunnel vision mode. This would be a good addition (I think similar ideas floated around here and there since the first round of edit warring when the IPs duked it out). Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section 

message: The White House in Contemprary uses should not have quotes.68.173.12.180 (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, that almost looks like its in there as a joke. Lets take it out. Lawrence Cohen 00:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 23:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit 

message: *NewsNet5: Senator McCain - Japanese Hanged For Waterboarding Chessy999 11:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably best to not just arbitrarily stick that into the External Links (See also is for internal Wikipedia pages, not outside sites). It would be a little too POV, to put it mildly. It's a fine source, though, for when we open the article again. Lawrence Cohen 00:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add to "See also" 

message: Please remove link to Srpski article. It is not about waterboarding. --Rowaa[SR13] 17 :31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
:Would you please tell us what the article is about? Several other articles on waterboarding are interwikied to it as well. Badagnani 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, I just selected "latinica" and see that the links are all about the Pelopponesian War, Punic War, etc. Thus, it's most likely about what you say, and not about waterboarding. Badagnani 05:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The Serbian article is about (and is now interwiki linked to) Boarding (attack) - no relation to waterboarding. GregorB 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what link is being discussed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the Serbian interwiki, but I just realized Luna already got it here. Sorry! Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect link to other language 

message: Please put any new sources that should or could be included in this article below (Remember 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Sources 

message: This article has now been locked for about a month while lots of information and attention has been focused on the subject.  I think we need to reduce the lock to semi-protect so that we can integrate some of this information into the article.  If you have a problem with this please state your objection below and what specifically would need to be resolved before you could support a removal of the lock. Remember 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little confused by your above statement.  Is it your position that we need to agree on the text of the opening paragraph before unprotecting the article, but that once this is agreed upon you are willing to allow for unprotection?  Remember (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Main protagonists are all participating. Changing to weak oppose - I have HUGE AFG in L. Fundamentally I want to see YOU and RANDY find a consensus with the rest of us, we won't 3RR and you won't either, but we will, and have started things that went nuclear from others. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, and I am not that trusting the way things have been. Reasons for AGF have been damaged. There is more to EDITWARRING than 3rr.Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my proposal below to resolve lead issue. Remember (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Problem is some people do not want torture in lead, regardless of whether it has backing or not. Daly it has proven over and over again that they simply don;t care (not all). I am not talking about just now - but the past 2 years. Also, see the user responses in an above section. Giuliani does not say WB=T. Giuliani says it might be okay in some circumstances. Many in the US seize on that, viciously distort it - and practice OBFUSCATION buy confusing people between Is it torture and is it acceptable. TWO VERY DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. Look at Randy, he just does not want it involved in lead - look at the edit history - there is no safe consensus. This WILL erupt. Inertia Tensor (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it erupts, and a minority of people edit war to go against consensus and violate WP:NPOV, they may end up with administrative problems. :( Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inertia Tensor presents a very good analysis. The minority arguments presented appear to be attempting to convince readers that this practice is not that bad, even acceptable in some cases, and in fact should be used. However, that is a separate argument from whether it meets the definition of a form of torture and should be stated as such in the lead. It is, and it should be. If it is not, then Rack (torture) will need to have its title changed. Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inertia is spot-on with his analysis. The problem is we have one source that says its acceptable-ish, and another that says its not torture and is acceptable. I just casually pulled another batch of sources out tonight that show waterboarding is torture. Not to be silly, but its now 15 to 1 or 15 to 1.5, depending on how you count it on each issue. At what point does the consensus and facts become painfully clear? Lawrence Cohen 08:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is apparent that the fair and balanced-crowd think that unless we have a 100+ to 1 sourced position there effectively is a controversy and we are mandated to teach the controversy. Others may think that any position that is extremely different from the mainstream and supported by only a staggering minority of politicians does not warrant equal time in this article.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downgrade Full protection to semi 

message: To increase exposure, I've posted about this situation to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding, the Fringe Theories noticeboard, asking for additional users to watchlist this article. Lawrence Cohen 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm watchlisting but won't make an input till I've had a chance to read the article, sources and discussion. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding]] 

message: CIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detaineesCIA destroyed video of 'waterboarding' al-Qaida detainees  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted videos 

message: So far each we only have 3 different proposed leads and only three votes on some of them.  If we don't resolve this issue we will talk about it forever.  PLEASE get involved in the process of figuring out what the lead should say.  I believe that we can can figure out a good lead that a strong majority of editors can agree upon as accurate and NPOV and then we can move forward.  But if people don't participate and instead get involved in other discussions this will never end. With that in mind, please vote on the suggested leads above and if you don't like a lead, PLEASE propose an alternative. Remember (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was considering writing a lead myself but it's not an easy job in this particular case, and I'm a bit busy currently (the following weekend, perhaps?). But yes, by all means: do participate, it's the only way to move forward. And I was also thinking: what about opening a subpage for the intro, then try to tweak it? GregorB (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE LEAD DISCUSSION ABOVE 

message: I've said little in this discussion, other than calling for more precise description of the activity described as "waterboarding", because there is public confusion as to what waterboarding actually is. Some of the descriptions say that the activity is actual drowning, various ways of immersing the victim's head in water, withdrawing it occasionally -- an "interrupted drowning", as the victim will indeed die if they're unlucky. Other descriptions say that only parts of the victim's face, neck and/or chest, and perhaps the mouth, nose, and some of the sinus passages need to be made wet, relying on body reflexes to convey the impression to the victim that their body is drowning, using the body reflexes to simulate the feelings that the former actually imposes; the victim is no risk of drowning (although they may be at risk of heart attack, choking on vomit, ....) Confounding the two activities (there may be others, but these two, near the extremes) with a single name does not lend clarity to the discussion.
I think that the lead should reflect at least that there are these two very different general techniques. The former (interrupted drowning) I think is torture (it's a form of mock execution), while the latter may not be (I know that's wiggly, and I mean it to be.) htom (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The descriptions from people who have actually conducted or been subjected to waterboarding are very clear about its nature and effects. The sources describing its use in Japan, Algeria, Cambodia, the United States, etc. are similarly clear about such details. Those presenting the concept of a purported "lighter" version of waterboarding are typically journalists who don't have any direct experience other than what they have heard, and are simply recycling what they have gotten from "official sources," in whose interest it is to promulgate the concept of the existence of such a "lighter" version. We know that Japanese, U.S., and other personnel have been courtmartialed for conducting waterboarding, and no distinction was made between a "harsher" or "lighter" version at any time. Of course, with the waterboarding tapes now destroyed there is no way to verify that such a "lighter" version exists. Badagnani (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simulated drowning" 

message: With the debate surrounding US use of waterboarding, I am wondering if we know exactly what the US's technique was.  The history of waterboarding in this article demonstrates that the technique can vary.  And there is a brief suggestion in the article that the CIA used a "modern form of waterboarding."  It is a legitimate question as to whether the various techniques of waterboarding have different risk factors or abilities to cause long-term physical or mental aggravation.  Do we have sources that reveal precisely what the "modern form" used by the CIA is?  Do we know how this "modern form" might be more or less harmful that other forms?  This would be illuminative on the question of torture. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by C.l.schwab (talk • contribs) 
:We don't really know anything about the US method unfortunately, beyond that it is confirmed as waterboarding in the classic sense per various government statements. The only definitive view of this that would have likely ever been seen, at this time, was on the CIA tapes that were destroyed. It would be nice sourced information to have for the article, but I doubt it will ever come to light. Lawrence Cohen 16:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Technique 

message: This has got to be the worst, most one-sided article on all of wikipedia. I seriously can't believe how bad this article is. It should be either completely redone with both sides represented, or it should be deleted. User: Uriah is Boss 08:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what are "both" sides? Are both sides of equal value? NPOV is not "all sides get equal screen time". Lawrence Cohen 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: What other side? facts please, not conjecture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible Article 

message: This story broken by ABC might be of use in this article,  and here is the BBC's take on the story.  It concerns one operatives view of waterboarding. (Hypnosadist) 05:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly could be useful, to integrate when protection is reduced from full to semi. Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CIA man speaks 

message: Anything unpleasant that a person is forced to endure can be construed as torture. Therefore, if coercion is needed to elicit a response---and if coercion is considered acceptable under certain conditions, then waterboarding should be such an example. Duress is necessarily unpleasant, but duress is not of itself torture. Torture seems more concordant with destruction to the person; intrusion into a person's psyche, even that which may cause lasting anxiety, is not necessarily torture. Recall that anything we must do---facetiousness is not the aim here---such as going to a physically grueling job or dealing with a tense atmosphere at work, could cause distress and even lasting anxiety and a sense of lost self-worth. That being the case, one still must encounter unpleasant tasks---even ordeals---in life as part of life. If we jail a person, that person is anguished by the humiliation and the incarceration. Yet, we must still jail certain offenders. Terrorist suspects and combatants are in the same category as jailed individuals, and if inducing  gag reflexes and experiencing the distress of water poured over their noses induces them to reveal vital life-saving information, then that is part of life. Torture is deliberately aggressive and degrading violence. Waterboarding probably is not those things at all. 204.14.15.130 (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While that is a fine opinion, it's still unfortunately an opinion. We can't use or consider any arguments for content that don't come from Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, because if we approached it with the thought process you've described, or do anything but work from what reliable sources tell us, we're doing Wikipedia:Original research, which is completely against our policies. Lawrence Cohen 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. This page isn't for the purpose of general discussion related to the topic, so it doesn't matter what individual Wikipedians feel about waterboarding. Opinions and personal findings are not acceptable encyclopedia material, and discussion that doesn't relate to improving the article in a tangible way is not constructive. Leebo T/C 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's anything wrong with expressing your opinions and  arguments on this talk page.  We just have to be clear about what has bearing on the article and what doesn't. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defining Torture 

message: This is a recommended edit for clarity, not content.  In the introductory paragraph, the sentence "Some nations have also criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding, including the United States" should read "Some nations, including the United States, have criminally prosecuted individuals for performing waterboarding."  The way it is now mis-cues the reader (i.e., you expect "including John Doe" at the end, as an example of someone that has been prosecuted for waterboarding).Josh.anders (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support Remember (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. GregorB (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and while you're at it, remove the sr: interwiki link, it's incorrect (see section above). GregorB (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Sharp eyes. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Support. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Done, since I don't anticipate any objections. Revised wording seems more clear, any problems with the content would just as likely apply to the old version, anyway, so... – Luna Santin (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Structure 

message: Admins, please add :nl:Waterboarding to this article. Unit17 (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious, support not needed. Lawrence Cohen 14:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Let me know if there are any objections. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Luna! Lawrence Cohen 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: I'm going to set some archiving of some sections on this page. The talk is getting completely fractured, and hopefully this will focus things a bit. Lawrence Cohen 00:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job.  Remember (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing this cleanup work.  It really helps. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: The current votes above indicate that Ka-Ping Yee's version of the lead has no explicit votes opposing it (although Badagnani, agr and Randy2063 have made comments suggesting they could oppose) and Inertia Tensor has stated that he is okay with reducing the protection of the page to semi-protect (and he was the only one opposing this motion before I believe).  Thus, unless we hear from some people who explicitly oppose Ka-Ping's version of the lead and propose an alternative, I vote that we reduce the page from full protect to semi-protect and put in Ka-Ping's version of the lead.  I am not saying that we can't continue to come up with revisions to the lead, but I am saying that almost all of us agree that the new version is better than the old version and that we need to unlock the page so that we can add some of the wealth of information that we have collected and which keeps coming out every day. If you oppose this motion, please state your reasons and suggested alternative course of action below. Remember (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be willing to help out with Good Article > Peer Review > Featured Article, but after we get this thing unlocked of course.Remember (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it would be a ways off, but given how everyone came together there shouldn't be any reason we couldn't do it. Lord knows there is enough material in the news these days on waterboarding to create a huge, detailed article. Lawrence Cohen 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Take a look at this. Lawrence Cohen 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagnani, if no lead version is suitable to you, could you please provide a version that would be suitable to you or suggest specific revisions to the lead that would make the lead suitable.  So far you have not supported any version of the lead (or if you have you haven't made it explicit) and you and GregorB are the last holdouts. Remember (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Or alternately, can you support the modified take on Ka-Ping Yee's that I put up and tweaked with your suggestions? Lawrence Cohen 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Good job. Remember (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead and unlocking 

message: We have consensus on the lead and wording, and I've made the request. Consensus doesn't have to be all or nothing, and since only one person actively disagrees and a few of us have minor quibbling details that we've all swallowed, we should be fine. Anyone who edit wars will be subject to WP:3RR, of course. I asked for indefinite semi-protection, the same as other ultra-controversial partisan topics like George W. Bush and Iraq War. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Remember (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request is in

message: It's done. I've updated the article lead with my modified version of Ka-Ping Yee's lead, based on all the support comments. Lawrence Cohen 18:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protected

message: This article seems relevant to the discussion. The U.S. House has stipulated that the CIA adhere to the rules set out in the U.S. Army Field Manual. Badagnani (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The US section on this is going to be a very detailed read once we open this up. Lawrence Cohen 23:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US House votes to ban CIA from using waterboarding 

message: Do we need an article split, 1)Waterboarding (about the method of torture) 2)Waterboarding and the war on terror (about the current controversy in america). (Hypnosadist) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eventually, unless press dies down, yes, we will. I'd be shocked if it ends up otherwise, but it's probably too soon. Lawrence Cohen 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Split 

message: Please state specifically any sentences or information in the article that you believe is not neutral.  If you do not state specifically what it is that you are objecting to, we will remove the neutrality tag. Remember (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support removal of the tag in a day or three if no reasonable material is provided. Lawrence Cohen 14:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, his arguments are nice, but not of much convincing power since they lack evidence: what sources? McCarthy is not yet mentioned because that source came up while the article was protected for almost two months because people who weren't logging in were vandalizing.  Also, one source from one person saying waterboarding is not torture is not sufficient, as has been explained repeatedly. What are the sources? Lawrence Cohen 15:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, his opinion has now been added to the article. Remember (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you beat me to it. Lawrence Cohen 16:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is not neutral? List here

message: Please state specifically any sentences or information in the article that you believe is not neutral.  If you do not state specifically what it is that you are objecting to, we will remove the neutrality tag.  Also please suggest any alternative wording.  If you are objecting to any phrase related to the assertion that "waterboarding is torture," please note that editors have come to a consensus on this determination and if you want to revise this determination you should do so on this talk page. Remember (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Again what is not neutral? List here

message: Can editors here settle any disagreements through discussion, or would you like outside help? - Jehochman  Talk 04:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help? 

message: I was going to add a new section to the page to specifically discuss the classification of waterboarding as a form of torture since I think this article needs to explain this issue.  Any thoughts on this? Remember (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding new section - Waterboarding's classification as torture 

message: Water cure describes the technique as "forces water into the throat or nostrils of the subject to inflict the terror of drowning, without causing the subject to drown.... A similar form of water torture is known as waterboarding, where water is poured over the face or head to invoke the instinctive fear of drowning."
Huh? These two articles need to make the distinction more obvious. As I understand it "waterboarding" is the covering of the face while water is poured over it to evoke gagging and fear of drowning, while "water cure" is the forced ingestation of water to expand the stomach. Water_torture#Terror_of_drowning supports this distinction. But does waterboarding necessarily have to be carried out with the subject lying on his back on a board? I added a paragraph about James Parker to water cure; he did something that sounds very much like waterboarding (certainly, it was not pumping water into the mouth to force swallowing and enlargement of the stomach), but he did it with subjects in chairs (presumably with head forced back), not lying on the back on a board, which goes against the current title and lead of this article. Maybe this should be moved to waterboarding?
Waterboarding also mentions "When the victim could ingest no more water, the interrogators would beat or jump on his distended stomach." suggesting that ingestation of water is considered waterboarding. Hmm. Maybe this should be moved to water cure?
Part of the problem here may be that water going in to the mouth will end up in the lungs and stomach, and the use of the face covering does not seem to be restricted to waterboarding (eg. see water cure#Japan "A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face."). Also note that in the same paragraph Chase J. Nielson giving testimony refers to the water cure as feeling "like drowning". Maybe this should be moved to waterboarding? And water cure#Spain notes "Before pouring the water, torturers often insert ...a strip of linen (known as the toca) on which the victim would choke and suffocate while swallowing the water." So, what is the difference? Can the articles make the difference clearer? Or are we talking about the same thing, just that waterboarding happens to be done lying on a flat board?
Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the BBC, "Water-boarding involves a prisoner being stretched on his back or hung upside down, having a cloth pushed into his mouth and/or plastic film placed over his face and having water poured onto his face. He gags almost immediately." So the position of the person, or presence of a board, or cloth in mouth versus face covering, does not seem to be that important; the main thrust of the definition is that the method invokes the gag reflex. Any other definitions/opinions? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: And according to dictionary.com and the Oxford English dictionary, "water cure" is "torture by forcing a person to drink large quantities of water in a short time" and "a method of torture in which the victim is forced to drink great quantities of water". So unless anyone objects, I would suggest  clarifying the descriptions, and swapping over the cases that are misclassified in these articles. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding versus water cure 

message: Per the following I've removed this advocacy website that doesn't meet WP:RS. See:
* Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F
* Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily
Frontpage Magazine upon closer review appears to be basically pushing nothing more than a strong anti-Muslim agenda and not much else in the form of editorials with no editorial review. Per those consensus discussions FP doesn't appear to be a valid source so I've removed it here. Lawrence Cohen 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frontpage Magazine is not a valid source to use in Wikipedia 

message: All the existing references are now fully updated; I just finished. If you guys can, please use the citation templates for additions? I use this tool that I found to make it easier:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php
We'll want that for when we take this to Featured Article status. Lawrence Cohen 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation templates, formatting 

message: I've been bold and put Waterboarding up for a GA review. Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article Nomination 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 20, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: Yes.
:2. Factually accurate?: No. Most content appears to be OK in this respect. However, substantial content is not adequately cited. This includes, for example, the assertion that Dick Cheney "seemed to agree with the use of waterboarding", which is cited to a blog (and not a reliable source), or the first paragraph in "Classification as torture in the United States", both sentences of which need citations.
:3. Broad in coverage?: No. All major aspects of the topic appear to be addressed, but the article goes into unnecessary detail over the current controversy surrounding waterboarding in/by the US: roughly half of the article is dedicated to that issue. Excessive detail includes the lengthy Cheney transcript, the coverage of the YouTube debates and the long sections about the alleged waterboardings of individual terrorists. These texts are of little informative value about the subject of waterboarding itself. Please remember that this is an international project (this reviewer is Swiss) and the minutiae of U.S. political controversies are of limited interest to people wanting to learn about a torture technique.
:4. Neutral point of view?: Generally yes. Much effort has been made in this respect, and commendably so, but the excessive detail mentioned above has the potential for WP:WEIGHT or WP:COATRACK problems.
:5. Article stability? No. On this day alone, the article has undergone substantial changes in numerous sections.
:6. Images?: OK.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far.— Sandstein (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err what experts? The regime that practices torture is undue weight. There are those who say it is torture, and there are those who refuse to say a thing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed "good article" nomination 

message: It seems, from his public statements, that Yoo does believe torture is permissible, if "good" people are doing it for a "good reason," against "bad people" (or the children of those "bad people"). Note that the term "torture" is used, and Yoo responds in the affirmative when asked if it is permissible.
:From http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0605,hentoff,71946,6.html :
:On December 1, 2005, in a debate between Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel and John Yoo, Cassel asked Yoo:
:"If the president deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?"
:John Yoo responded: "No treaty."
:Doug Cassel: "Also no law by Congress—that is what you wrote in the August 2002 memo [while Yoo was a Justice Department attorney]."
:John Yoo: "I think it depends on why the president thinks he needs to do that."
Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A clever misdirection, sir. In the discussion you've just cited, Professor Yoo was discussing whether TORTURE would ever be PERMISSIBLE, in the memo that has been previously cited, Professor Yoo was exploring the question of whether ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES, which included waterboarding in 2002 and were believed to be legal under US laws forbidding "torture," would also be LEGAL under international laws forbidding "torture." Please don't feign stupidity. When discussing "torture" in 2005, Professor Yoo was not necesarily discussing enhanced interrogation techniques; and when discussing "what is permissible" in 2005, he wasn't necessarily discussing what is legal. Also, I respectfully submit that if World Net Daily is too partisan to be accepted as a reliable source, then so is the Village Voice. Neutral Good (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral good go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to ask about village voice, that is where it was decided that WND was not an RS. (Hypnosadist) 12:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: " 'Enhanced interrogation techniques,' however, is a term invented for the purpose of evading the commonly accepted definition of torture." Until you can prove that it was "invented" specifically for that purpose, that is just your unsupported opinion. And you know where opinions belong in an encyclopedia article. They belong nowhere. My opinion is that it was "invented" to carefully, legally and fairly distinguish harsh but lawful interrogation techniques from the hysteria (and partisan motivations clearly displayed here) that surround the use of the word "torture." As McCarthy so insightfully pointed out, the law has taken great care to distinguish torture from perfectly legal forms of interrogation. You and your friends are deliberately trying to erase this distinction. Shame on you. Neutral Good (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Another clever deception of yours, sir. The US Armed Forces did not define waterboarding as torture. They merely prohibited waterboarding by US military personnel. Neutral Good (talk) 12:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: John Yoo's comments on torture

message: Can we remove the quote from the online Commentator? (someone named Jim Meyers?).
Evidently he "does not believe "waterboarding" inflicts pain."
Are there really people that subscribe to this thought? People that expect that if they were waterboarded, it would not be painful?
We should remove this, as the author is not notable or an expert of any kind on this subject?
There are much more notable journalists who would also not belong in this article.
Nospam150 (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "does not believe it inflicts pain"

message: I brought the article back to it's last consensus. Please, everyone, work out a new version here, achieve consensus, then make the edit. Sorry Blue Tie, I do appreciate your efforts here, but this is so troubled, we need to make such major changes stick - which I believe we can - but only through discussion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that the version was a consensus version. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Blue Tie, it was at the time, see the first 2 archives - this was the version that got this page unprotected after 2 months of working to a solution. We all agree that the consensus is not perfect, as I'm sure Randy will point out - what we now have to do now that it is out of protection is work to evolve it to better include your views, Randy's and others - otherwise we will end up back in the same place. I do appreciate what you are trying to do - I just believe that it has to be done in talk first. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus can change. In this case it should. I think the current lead is horrible because it is factually wrong and unbalanced.  I do not think my views about waterboarding matter (I will not say what they are) so much as that the article should be good.  And per wikipedia standards, the lead should summarize the article, not really provide new information. For that reason, I prefer a lead that does not need ANY footnotes because the details have been handled in the article.  This article needs work. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree as to the footnotes (and evolution of consensus), but honestly I would do wb = torture by this and that - end of lead - and leave the whole roiling row lower. Same goal, different interpretation. This is why I think we need to lock it down so we can trash it out without the distractions of rvs and no-talk edits (not you). Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The reason for the footnotes (not dialogue in last para) was some editors just willy-nilly deleted the first line, or edited it with out regard to the referencing. So sorry, I'm double takign here - footnotes and references are good - but repetitive dialogue is not so - as in the last paragraph. Inertia Tensor (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achieve Concensus (I reverted Blue Tie) 

message: thumb|right|300px|Painting of waterboarding from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison
Waterboarding is a form of tortureIn April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is  "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005. | http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10019179/site/newsweek/page/2/ ]In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, A former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press.Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 7, "Crimes against humanity" Definition of torture 7-2:e Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff  Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007 which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his or her face to simulate drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, and also to punish, and/or intimidate. It elicits the gag reflex, and can make the subject believe his or her death is imminent while not causing physical evidence of torture.
  
The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006 when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror."Variety of Interrogation Techniques Said to Be Authorized by CIA" by Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, September 6, 2006 ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the  'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding.""History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005 
According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is  "torture", "no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal."Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005 . US Vice President Dick Cheney  has endorsed the technique for terror suspects, saying it was a "no-brainer" if the information it yielded would save American lives. Cheney endorses simulated drowning, "Financial Times" October 26, 2006  Inertia Tensor
(talk) 00:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old version FYI, pre Halloween war

message: Irregardless of what this ends up as, any wording like "Expert opinion is divided" is completely inaccurate. Divided represents a relative split--we have a small minority that say it's not torture, and many, many more who say otherwise. Whatever you think of whatever sources for you own partisan political reasons or nationalism, this phrase is just patently false and made up. Unless you can get a source that says "Expert opinion is divided on whether it is torture" do not readd this phrase--it is pure original research and a violation of WP:OR. A 115-3 division is not a divided by any stretch of the imagination. Either way, source it, or adding it is a violation of WP:OR and anyone is free to immediately remove it. Sources that say that, please. Lawrence Cohen 18:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many different waterboarding techniques. Some include incline of body downward so that head is lower. Others do not. You pretend that all waterboarding techniques are identical. They are not. This is inaccurate. I refer you to photo of US personnel who waterboarded Viet Cong detainee in January 1968. Incline board was not used. Shibumi2 (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please don't play the language card to gain sympathy for your unilateralist editing of troubled articles - You have been accused of replacing Metric with English/Imperial units. That is almost exclusively the preserve of US authors, As most of us got rid of imperial units in the middle ages.Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was following style of first three articles I saw on Imperial Japanese Navy. Those were probably done by Americans but I thought they were correct. I learned later it was wrong according to style of WP:SHIPS. Since then I have used metric units. You are extremely hostile and arrogant. Please think about your position and tactics. They are not helpful to solve dispute over content. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Your participation is certainly valued, but please be aware that we have been working assiduously, over a period of months, to produce the most thorough and best-sourced article on this topic, one which is untainted by any form of POV, developing consensus via discussion and the careful consideration of sources. Bringing up purported doubts regarding items that have already been discussed and are well sourced, without providing sources of your own that dispute those sources, however, is not helpful. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We're not here to report truth or find truth, or do research. We're here to report what 3rd parties say. Lawrence Cohen 21:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Shibumi2- ASSUME GOOD FAITH, especially of those who take the time to bother getting involved in discussing the lead here with others before UNILATERALLY engaging in major edits - UNLIKE YOU, right after we have finally come out of freeze following a series of edit wars. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Compromise - this is accurate is NOT a suitable edit on the main page - DISCUSS, STOP TRYING TO RESTART A WAR. Waterboarding gets you wet is accurate - does that mean it is acceptable. In an article marked controversial - discuss, that is simply not acceptable. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Five?... There's far less than that holding your views - yes, I'm sure there are many who want to see change - but the way you want to do it - weasel words and UNDUE weight- I doubt it. There are far more - including me, who wish to achieve consensus - of this group there are many opposing views, such as Randy vs Myself. We want to do this right, and we have been restrained, because over time, with a lot of scars, we now assume good faith of each other. Why should we repeat ourselves for your benefit? Do you plan on calling a vote every week until you get your way? (Since when was wiki a democracy, it is about consensus). It's on this page and in the archives. It's already been said. Read the talk. And please don't misrepresent other editors. You should read what they posted on this WHOLE page. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert opinion is divided phrase - OR violation 

message: We are in the beginnings of yet another edit war - as such I request full protection so we can bring the new editors into the discussions and keep this moving on a discussed consensus basis. Sadly, some editors have not paid heed to the long drawn out process we undertook, nearly two months long, to get the major edit wars resolved, and establish working relationships to discuss major changes before making unilateral edits. DO NOT DISCUSS MERITS OF LEAD/TORTURE HERE PLEASE. Suggest protection times out in two weeks max. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  YOU: Fighting on the main article page instead of working to archive consensus, with gross disregard for the troubled history in the talk page. diff diff diff Inserting weasel words: diff And you even accused another editor of vandalism to justify 3RR. If you read TALK you would notice, that you are the one who is editing without seeking consensus. Badagnani simply brought it back to the last achieved consensus amongst the majority of editors. You came in here, did a massive edit to the lead, posted a short blurb in talk and thought that was ok., Result, the waring is back again. A little late to start discussing, especially as you are persisting in these edits without getting a consensus. A lot of people spent a long time, and many hours trying to get this article to consensus, that of course can always evolve, but you would not help us but instead went unilateral - and as a result you have a annoyed a lot of people who feel their work in compromise is going down the tube. Inertia Tensor (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See section above for discussion of consensus. Five editors oppose "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as article lead. They are Lawrence Cohen, Neutral Good, Randy2063, Blue Tie and me. Do you think you still have consensus for this Inertia Tensor? I am not edit warring. I will submit to consensus whatever it supports. But what does it support? Like they say on Survivor "I'll go count the votes." Shibumi2 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: STOP REPOSTING HERE - I CAN READ, YOU DO NOT NEED TO PASTE IT EVERYWHERE VERBATIM. And stop misrepresenting people. I am calling for protection now, as it is obvious a new war is starting, so given the history it should be locked until we evolve the consensus to include you. The purpose of a lock is to stop people like you who do major edits BEFORE discussing - as you did. That is what starts edit wars. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting full protection 

message: I'd like to present, for your consideration, the following lead:
:Waterboarding 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 passagesKatherine Eban. Rorschach and Awe, Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007.  "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic.".  Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminenthttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/08/AR2007110802150.html.  In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflexCIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described, ABC News, November 18, 2005. "Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.".  Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the real 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 deathOpen Letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales by Human Rights Watch. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure"Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, told me that he had treated a number of people who had been subjected to such forms of near-asphyxiation, and he argued that it was indeed torture. Some victims were still traumatized years later, he said." .  
:Waterboarding has been historically known as a method of torture since its use during the Spanish Inquisition.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/us/07waterboard.html  It has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate.  Today it is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal expertsIn April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.Benjamin Davis. Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff. "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on.", politiciansCarter says U.S. tortures prisoners, CNN, October 10, 2007. "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law, former President Carter said Wednesday. 'I don't think it. I know it,' Carter told CNN's Wolf Blitzer.", war veteranshttp://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/5/french_journalist_henri_alleg_describes_hisAccording to Republican United States Senator and 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005., intelligence officialsA former senior official in the directorate of operations is quoted (in full) as saying: "'Of course it was torture. Try it and you'll see.'" Another "former higher-up in the directorate of operations" said "'Yes, it's torture'". At pp. 225-26, in Stephen Grey (2006). Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. New York City: St. Martin's Press., military judgesPublic letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88., and human rights organizationshttp://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/11/21/usdom12069.htmhttp://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGUSA20061026002. 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 "History of an Interrogation Technique: Water Boarding" ABC News, November 29, 2005 and that the Justice Department had authorized this procedurehttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/washington/04interrogate.html.
I welcome your comments on it.  Here are a few points of context to keep in mind:
*This is a lead that has been previously discussed at length and voted on.  It was considered a decent compromise by many and it achieved near-total consensus among the editors on this talk page.  That's why I think it's an option we should consider seriously at this point.
*This lead does not mention torture in the first paragraph.  This is intentional.  My primary goal was to write something that will last.  At this point, it is more important to me to calm down this argument so we can make progress on the rest of the article than to mention torture in the first paragraph.  At the same time, it would be unfair to omit the historical context or the current majority opinion; thus these are mentioned in the second paragraph.
*This lead does not mention the United States in the first paragraph.  This is also intentional: the main focus of the article is waterboarding, not the United States.  The current controversy is noteworthy but not primary; thus it is mentioned in the second paragraph.
*This lead does not say anything about the acceptability or legality of waterboarding.  This is also intentional.  It's not Wikipedia's job to make moral judgements, and the legality issue involves many details and should go in a section of its own.
*This lead is fairly concise.  The plan would be to have a separate section devoted to the evidence and opinions for or against the classification of waterboarding as torture, and a separate section on the current controversy in the United States.  The lead does not give any further details on these things because (a) they are controversial and this will help keep edit wars out of the lead; and (b) the lead should stay brief and to the point.
*The statements are straightforward and sourced.
Please post your feedback below.  Note the question isn't "is it perfect?" but just "can you live with it?"  That, already, would be a step forward.  Thanks to everyone, again, for your continued patience, civility, and good faith. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's not very helpful.  I ask that you be more specific in what you see as factually incorrect, and why, and what you think should be changed to improve it. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the section just below where I am more specific.  Or if you want me to re-write the lead, let me know if that was your desire.  I do like this lead better than the current one though. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed lead with previously established near-total consensus 

message: * Yes, I think it's fine. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's not very helpful.  I ask that you be more specific in what you see as factually incorrect, and why, and what you think should be changed to improve it. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Please read the section just below where I am more specific.  Or if you want me to re-write the lead, let me know if that was your desire.  I do like this lead better than the current one though. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an acceptable lead? 

message: I have opened Archive 5 again. Before I did Talk:Waterboarding was 362 KB. This was too large. Shibumi2 (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: Blue Tie began an ANI discussion on this page and protection at:
* Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Waterboarding
Thanks. Please weigh in. Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Waterboarding]] 

message: It is clear to all who have been participating in this discussion over the past several weeks (during which time we developed consensus on the lead) that we have been preserving Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5#Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here (the list of sources, either stating that waterboarding is, or is not, torture). This list of sources should not have been archived, as was done a few hours ago in an ill-advised move (which was not even acknowledged in an edit summary by one of the newest participants in the discussion, who insisted on doing so). I propose that this list (as key evidence for the current discussion) be brought back to this talk page. Badagnani (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Shibuni, be also aware that WP:3RR applies to talk pages (any page, really). Lawrence Cohen 19:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look at his contributions; he's going through *all* the talk archives and simply dumping them here, to make a point. Now we'll have to clean up this pointy vandalism. Sigh. I've asked on ANI for immediate intervention; please weigh in there. Bottom waterboarding section. Lawrence Cohen 20:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of sources

message: Why are we taking *all* archive pages back into this one now? Is this some sort of WP:POINT that is being made? I have no idea why that was just done.   Lawrence Cohen 20:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it does appear this way. Badagnani (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives 3 & 4

message: OK, I think I got them all, and now I really do need to go out. Every thread through those that began on 12/20/07 for simplicities sake (as this page IS rather large, due to the non-policy based debate) that this seemed a good way to do it. I'm going to adjust the bot archival to be more frequent as we clearly need it. Please, let the bot do it's job, and no one at all archive again by hand. Going to set it for 14 days for now. Should be plenty. Lawrence Cohen 20:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives fixed and automatic archival

message: See Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_5#Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here. Badagnani (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources - main list 

message: can we reword brain damage in the lead as damage to the brain? Does that make any sense? Kushalt 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources mention the possibility of brain damage because, for human beings as well as other mammals, failing to breathe air leads to an oxygen deficiency in the blood (and, hence, the failure of oxygen to reach the brain). This can lead to brain damage. When waterboarding is conducted properly, the subject is unable to breathe, for either a shorter or longer period, depending on the occasion. As described above, this may lead to brain damage due to oxygen deficiency in the blood/brain. Badagnani (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Edit declined. I don't see the point of this edit. "Brain damage" and "damage to the brain" mean the same thing, and the former is probably better prose. Sandstein (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a suggestion 

message: Repeatedly, the statement is that we are reverting to a Consensus version.  
The supposed "consensus" version is faulty and contrary to wikipedia policies.  Now I quote from one of those policies:
"When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.  --WP:CON
So it is invalid to claim to be supporting consensus contrary to policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please detail exactly what policy either Ka-Ping Yee's or my modified version of his lead violates, and be detailed. Let's get this settled once for all. People, please keep this focused. No one please add any useless nonsense or trolling like "I favor the US version" or "no one respects the United Nations", because that belongs on another website, not here. Let's focus, and if we can't resolve this, we'll simply have to go some sort of enforced mediation. Lawrence Cohen 01:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allow me. This is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. The nominal topic is "Waterboarding." The real topic is "We loathe the Bush administration." You want an example of useless nonsense and trolling? Ask your pal Inertia Tensor why we should ignore John Yoo. And it looks like you're about to lose an evolved consensus, so your suggestion about mediation sounds like it might be sour grapes from a sore loser. 68.31.89.157 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is why i asked for this article split between Waterboarding (torture) and Waterboarding in the "war on terror", though Torture and the "war on terror" would be less POV and we could include the Al Qaida/militia torture chambers (and mass graves). (Hypnosadist) 09:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You might want to remove those personal attacks. I've left a warning on your talk page. Lawrence Cohen 06:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Calling you POV pushers and NPOV violators isn't a personal attack. If anything, it's an understatement. I think calling Neutral Good a sock puppet is a far better example of a personal attack, but you didn't have a problem with it. Selective outrage is such a joy on this special morning. Merry Christmas. 68.31.210.220 (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See comments below on User:Neutral Good's editing history. -- The Anome (talk) 15:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus