Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 9

message: Please forgive me if I'm out of line here and if I'm repeating something that's already been said.  I tried looking through the archives and what's above and started feeling like I was drowning in a sea of controversy.  But it appears that Wikipedia editors are expected to be able to foretell the future, and if they fail to do so and someone reverts their edit, they will be blocked.  Hopefully, I'm reading this whole thing wrong.  I just made an edit that seems pretty safe to me (gave a source and info that President Bush plans to veto a bill outlawing the use of waterboarding by the CIA), but if it's reverted, will I be blocked?
As to torture, I'm not going to argue about whether I think it's torture or not.  But is it appropriate for Wikipedia to say either that it is torture, or that it is not torture?  Unless we have a clear-cut definition of "torture" that any educated reader can agree with, I think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to take sides one way or the other.
If I'm out of line here, please just tell me and don't block me! Wakedream (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's appropriate. Have you read the archives? Badagnani (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for responding.  I have looked through the archives as I stated above, but admit I haven't read everything there.  However, in the U.S. at least we have some of the most prominent people in the country on both sides of the torture/not torture issue (as just one example, Republican President George W. Bush says it's not torture, whereas the Republican presidential nominee John McCain says it is).  Can Wikipedia say Bush is right and McCain is wrong, or visa versa?  Is that NPOV? Wakedream (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There are four individuals who have stated their belief that it's not torture (two Republican politicians and two conservative columnists). But it is torture by definition, and has been considered as such for hundreds of years. The definition of torture may be found here. Try reading the archives some more; this was one of the main subjects covered, at some length. Badagnani (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't believe Bush has said waterboarding is not a form of torture. He simply said something like "We don't torture." If I'm wrong, please put the quote where he says waterboarding is not a form of torture here. Badagnani (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to see White House says waterboarding not torture, and the statement "Although President Bush has stated that the United States has not and will not torture people, it has been learned that Mr. Bush himself has authorized the use of waterboarding on detainees" in Bush Will Veto Ban On Torture.  No, I'm not quoting a source where George W. Bush actually says, "Waterboarding is not torture."  But by his statements: the United States does not torture.  The United States does use waterboarding.  Therefore, he is in effect saying, waterboarding is not torture. Wakedream (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If he didn't say it, he didn't say it. Badagnani (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, that's a classical example of WP:SYN. Bush's words can be interpreted in many different ways ("the United States does not torture - at this very moment", "the United States does not torture - its a country, only people torture", "the United States does not torture - the CIA does"). Political dissembling is not unusual among politicians. Bush is not a WP:RS on anything but his opinion (and in fact, I have my doubts about even that). But anyways, Bush is not an expert in the field, and his opinion has no significant weight on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to the view that no living American politician is a RS about his own opinions (unless they're Motherhood, Apple Pie, and the American Flag; well, that list should be shortened to ... no, just completely unreliable.) htom (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In all fairness, I have to concede a point to Badagnani. In Bush explains veto of waterboarding bill it says, "But the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture."  President Bush has skirted the issue, as politicians who are dealing with extremely controversial topics are likely to do.  However, I do still contend that there is debate about whether or not waterboarding is torture.  Again, I am not stating my personal opinion on this issue, just stating that I question whether something that is so controversial should be stated in a Wikipedia article as fact.  The article currently says it is a form of torture, not that many nations and authorities have said it is. But Badagnani is right in saying if Bush didn't say it is torture, he didn't say it. Wakedream (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Please see my section below. This needs a dedicated section. Lawrence § t/e 17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboard editors you don't like! 

message: Re this edit, please review the history (yes, I know there is a lot) and present your policy and evidence (include links, diffs, etc.) for this change before enacting. This is the single biggest point of contention that has been repeatedly shot down and/or resolved in favor of the "is a form of torture" language with heavy and extensive sourcing in the past. What do you have that is new to bring to the table to support this change and edit? Lawrence § t/e 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments. While I've looked through the archives, I can't say I've reviewed every comment or edit.  I may be adding nothing new to the discussion, but did want to assert my support for what I see as Wikipedia:NPOV.  If another editor reverts my edit, I don't plan to change it back unless I find what I believe is overwhelming support from either editors or Wikipedia policy, and will likely post it for discussion first. By the way, my user name is Wakedream, not Wakedreams--it's no big deal, but I fixed it above. Thanks for listening! Wakedream (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I appreciate your reasonable tone and willingness to discuss. However, why, after everyone who issued an opinion opted against the change, did you go ahead and did it anyways? For the issue at hand, if you look at Talk:Waterboarding#Is.2Fisn.27t_torture_--_list_all_sources_here on this very page, you will see that literally hundreds of reliable sources - from law professors over medical experts, interrogators, former JAGs, to actual victims and members of international organization concerned with human rights and torture, have made explicit statements, often in peer-reviewed publications, that waterboarding is a form of torture and has been considered one since essentially forever. There is an extreme dearth of reliable expert sources — or even notable statements by anyone — on the other side. Expert opinion on this is not divided, and expert opinion is what WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE require us to report. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the edit with good intentions, and may well have been wrong to have done so. Thank you for providing the links! Wakedream (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for being very understanding, in this--a lot of good editors here are still a bit raw from basic all out attacks on this page by long-time banned editors, trying to slant the thing in favor of their point of view. Those sources, by the way, are a bit out of date--there are (just a ballpark guess, I haven't counted in a while) about 200+ sources and authorities that support the "is torture" wording now, and roughly 12-14 in favor of "isn't torture" or "may not be torture". Lawrence § t/e 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in lead by Wakedream 

message: This idea has been discussed and implemented before but was later changed back but not through consensus and many of the editors that opposed are not gone or not editing this page.  Because this proposal was never formally resolved, I thought I would bring it up again.
So how would everyone feel about changing the lead to state "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture)..."  
The advantages of this approach is that it allows those to quickly access the debate about this issue if they want to find it (as I think many of the internet traffic does), it does not push any POV and simply links to later in the page, and it links to the area that provides full support as well as details the intricacies related to the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture".  Remember (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the proposal since its obvious it has no support.  I won't mention it again. Remember (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Policy dictates that fringe theories are not given undue weight. see WP:UNDUE. This means that we do not have to allow room for political euphemisms or views held only by a tiny minority. This has already been resolved. see the archives. --neonwhite  user page talk 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please put a link to where this issue was resolved. Otherwise, telling people to just "read the archives" is akin to Badagnani's disingeneous and repeated attempts to block users he disagrees with by giving them the task of reading for a week before contributing to the discussion as he does so here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. 
Please see this discussion. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead torture debate itself is settled. If a small number disagree, they need to convince the majority with new discussion/section and new evidence. Lawrence § t/e 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of your bare assertion of fact, an actual link would be handy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And as has been explained repeatedly, there is no one sole link. Every time this argument comes up, it ends exactly the same. So no, I'm not going to keep a running scorecard to provide to each new person that shows up. If you have a problem with the lead, please post a new section, with why it should be changed, and cite convincing evidence of why. Note that saying "NPOV" is not sufficient. You need to explain why specifically under NPOV that when 230+ international sources say one thing, we should not say that thing because 6-10 sources of basically one political allegience in one nation say another. To do so would be to give that minority (American conservatives) authority over the rest of the Earth they do not have. If you want this changed lay out a new section with the + link at the top of this page. Provide convincing arguments and evidence. Lawrence § t/e 18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is no actual finished debate then the issue has not been resolved or "settled". Even a finished debate on wikipedia would fail to convince me when the issue (whether all instances of waterboarding are acts of torture) has not been definitively ruled on by a court of law (at least to my knowledge. What you represent to be a settled issue is just your opinion that the issue should be settled. The debate over whether waterboarding is torture is still alive and well and wikipedia should not represent otherwise. To do so would be to establish a POV. Wikipedia should reflect the facts on the ground. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: * Please include a link to this "weight of argument." I see clear POV, and I disagree that the lead is acceptable for that reason.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * WP:WEIGHT. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The American government view that it may not be torture is the extreme minority view, and the US government is not a particularly notable authority when compared to the weight of history and the rest of the world. It's just one government with a limited (4 to 8 year) lifespan. Lawrence § t/e 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not talking about a link to policy. I'm talking about a link to the results of an actual decision that was made by a consensus of well informed editors. Otherwise, I maintain that it is only your opinion that the discussion is over. At this point, it is not mine.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In response to Quartermaster, I think that the language "generally accepted" is a good way of describing it, and your point about a universal definition is well taken.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Re-Proposal 

message: Please see: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waterboarding. Let's see what happens. Lawrence § t/e 17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks as if its going to be a clear fail, with a Split of the modern american stuff. Thats what i propose we do. (Hypnosadist) 01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it fails because of that, discounting any unsupported POV statements, that would be the clearest endorsement for such a thing ever. Lawrence § t/e 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: POV hammering cannot be allowed to change the lead, which is factual and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that the article starts off with a large POV push.  Read the reviews that are coming back at FAC. Jehochman  Talk 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehochman, if you have an idea for a modified version of the lead, why not present it on the talk page? That way we can discuss it here, without any possibility of a revert war. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Calling it a form of torture is like calling the violin a musical instrument. The POV is in the hammering we've been seeing. The lead is factual and well sourced. What reviews show is that if something is hammered enough, even if it's clearly untrue people start to believe it. This starts with the shedding of doubt, which is usually enough (and, in fact, is what was asked for from the beginning of the hammering). It's a well-understood technique and works well--even with otherwise discerning and scholarly WP contributors who have not carefully read the sources and all the discussion, as many of us have done. Badagnani (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that musical instruments were that controversial.  If you can present prominent sources who say the violin is not a musical instrument, then I think we should indicate that in the violin article. Wakedream (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Waterboarding]] 

message: This discussion is going in circles.  Several editors appear to be tendentiously and disruptively pushing the idea that waterboarding's status as torture is in question.  No, it isn't in question, except by fringe groups.  I recommend taking the question of the lead to WP:NPOVN to gain input from experienced editors who have been previously uninvolved. Jehochman  Talk 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the impression I was under, but I needed to ask for a medical source citing if it was in question. There is alot of info here, and I may have just missed it. I'll just assume there isn't any. --CrazyivanMA (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.
----
i recommend to 'waterboard' gwb, until he confesses that it is torture. if he doesn't confess, only then i believe it could be safely used on all his millions of hard headed enemies as well......and that would be the most reliable source in the world! --125.24.103.239 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Is waterboarding a form of [[torture]], based on sources? 

message: Started a thread for that reason. (Hypnosadist) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that no one who responds to that thread is going to bother to read the sources in the article and on this talk page; instead, they're going to give us responses based on their pre-existing notion that there's a debate whether waterboarding is torture. As I've said a bunch of times on this talk page, we've got a situation similar to Global warming--there's overwhelming unanimity among expert sources, but because of the way things have been portrayed in the media, people with a casual knowledge of the subject think that there's a "controversy". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right. It's one of the drawbacks of our system (inhabited by dilettantes, who like to edit about many things but may be experts in only one thing), but can be transcended if people actually read the sources and history carefully and thoroughly. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making a good faith attempt to bring a resolution to this issue, two other editors talked about it so i decided to implement that discussion. we will see what happens. (Hypnosadist) 03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I made a simple request earlier, when a similar RFC was made--that editors commenting read all the archives before commenting. Not one spent one word to address this request. Badagnani (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Since we have never managed to figure out what those in the CIA who are doing waterboarding are doing, no one who knows has determined, and so we can't determine whether or not it's torture. We've had lots (hundreds, even) of reliable sources saying that lots of other water tortures are water tortures, and many of you seem content with the synthesis that says waterboarding is either one of those or something else that's also torture. I don't see any way out of that for at least a decade, if not longer. htom (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't discussing whether or not the CIA's version of using water as part of its "enhanced interrogation technique" is torture, or not, a separate issue from the discussion about using  "waterboarding is a form of torture" in the lead? Read "neutral query" as my tone of voice. I confess to a bit of confusion about your statement here. I don't see the logical connection here between what the CIA has/hasn't done, and the direct statement about waterboarding being torture. If the CIA really has just placed a damp wash cloth on an Al Qaeda No. 3's foreheade, I'll posit that is not torture. But isn't that a separate issue? -- Quartermaster (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec)No it is for editors who make the "extrordinary claim" that the CIA do nice waterboarding to provide sources that say that. The use or not of plastic has been covered by atleast the physicians for human rights source, stating all methods are torture. (Hypnosadist) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (conflict)Since "water torture" is confounded with "water treatment" and "waterboarding", what the CIA is doing would merely add to that confusion. I see "water boarding" as being different than "water treatment" and "water cure", and it's obvious to me that many of you don't. So I think it's hopeless for me to continue. htom (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I see it, "waterboarding" is fairly well-defined. "Water treatment" has referred to various different methods of torture over time (as well as to some completely harmless and benevolent treatments), and "water torture" is a more generic term.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  i agree and if you look at the water torture article it contains several techniques one which is waterboarding. Therefore it would be correct to lead with 'Waterboarding is a type of water torture'. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of changing "torture" in the opening line to "water torture" -CrazyivanMA (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Call_for_help_on_Waterboarding 

message: "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person..." to "Waterboarding is a form of water torture that consists of immobilizing a person..." Agree/disagree? -CrazyivanMA (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing "torture" to "water torture"? It seems accurate, as waterboarding would be a subset of water torture (and water torture is a subset of torture). It seems like a good proposal. Badagnani (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: This looks like a good one. Given how contentious that first line is, lets let this stew a day, however. Lawrence § t/e 21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm looking for a source to beef up the validity of the water torture definition so editors can't attack the definition of water boarding as water torture. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree. Looks good to me, and I can't think how it would be contentious (but experience says wait a day or two as well). The changes that seem to cause the most problems in the opening tend to be ones where the proposer has some ulterior motive to weaken or obscure the general definition. Badagnani's proposal seems to neutrally clarify things and doesn't change the gist - it just accurately clarifies the torture hierarchy. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike it. It's redundant in that the use of "water" is clear from the term itself. I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is ugly, ugly language and makes me cringe a bit. We could solve the aesthetic problem by just  linking  "torture" to water torture, of course. But our article on water torture is, honestly, short, mostly unsourced, and just not very good. Our article on torture, on the other hand, is very extensive and well-sourced.  I prefer the current version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only issue I see is that the article on water torture is weak. I don't care that its "ugly language". -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Line Edit 

message: Here's what I see is stopping this article becoming a FAC based on the comments it received in FAC review.  If we work together I think we can resolve many of these issues. Remember (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Waterboarding]] as FAC 

message: I added a box (hopefully correctly) that President Bush is planning to veto a bill against waterboarding on March 8, 2008.  Somebody please update this as he either does or does not.  And if I've formatted it incorrectly, please fix it.   Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yellowdesk was kind enough to not only fix it (in this case, remove the box) but provided me with a link that described what to do.  It's at Template:Current#Guidelines.  The box I added should be used when many edits are expected in a single day on a current event, not for an event that's currently in the news.  So many editors will just say, "you're wrong I'm cutting it out," or even, "you're a vandal!"  Thanks, Yellowdesk for your help! (By the way I'm updating the news on this.) Wakedream (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States bill is current event as of March 2008--please update 

message: *The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."
Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Badagnani

message: =====Law review articles=====
*Adeno Addis, "'Informal' Suspension of Normal Processes: the 'War on Terror' as an Autoimmunity Crisis," Boston University Law Review 87 (2007) 323ff.: "Although prohibited by the U.S. Army and likely illegal under detainee legislation, 'waterboarding,' the torture technique in which a prisoner is secured with his feet over his head while water is poured on a cloth covering his face, is reportedly still practiced." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, this article is lengthy (pp. 345 - 419) and is available here, if anyone wants to read it. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From Akhilleus

message: *Adeno Addis, "'Informal' Suspension of Normal Processes: the 'War on Terror' as an Autoimmunity Crisis," Boston University Law Review 87 (2007) 323ff.: "Although prohibited by the U.S. Army and likely illegal under detainee legislation, 'waterboarding,' the torture technique in which a prisoner is secured with his feet over his head while water is poured on a cloth covering his face, is reportedly still practiced." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, this article is lengthy (pp. 345 - 419) and is available here, if anyone wants to read it. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Law review articles

message: *New York Times. Rather than cite a specific article, I'll note that the NYT has a webpage where info about waterboarding is collected here. Notice that the Times has classified waterboarding as a topic within the general subject of torture--a directory line near the top of the page says "Times Topics > Subjects > T > Torture > Waterboarding". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: articles in magazines and newspapers

message: *Christopher Kutz, "The Lawyers Know Sin: Complicity in Torture," in Greenberg, ed. The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 241: "The government lawyers who produced, reviewed, and apparently endorsed these memoranda, including lawyers at both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, spent their creative energies shaping a policy whose aim and effect was to legitimate previously illegitimate forms of interrogation and captive treatment--forms ranging from the cruelty and degradation of forced nudity, sexual humiliation, sensory deprivation, and prolonged use of stress positions--to the clearly torturous, most notably including the practice of 'waterboarding,' wherein interrogees are submerged in cold water so as to create the impression of imminent suffocation."
*Kutz (same article), p. 243: "Waterboarding clearly fits the statutory definition of torture, as possibly do techniques of profound humiliation, fear inducement, and physical stress, notwithstanding the memoranda's cramped argument that the later techniques would be merely cruel." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Books and articles in books

message: *Gary Solis Adjunct professor, Georgetown University Law Center and former Marine Corps judge advocate and military judge.  "It remains amazing that, in 2007, any intelligent person can have any question that waterboarding constitutes torture, morally and ethically wrong, and contrary to U.S. law, U.S.-ratified multi-national treaties, and international criminal law."(Hypnosadist) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From Hypnosadist

message: *Attorney Andrew Williams, on resigning from Navy Judge Advocate General corps  (Knight Ridder pres wire service, Dec 27, 2007.) called it torture. Williams in his resignation letter said waterboarding was used as a form of torture by the Inquisition, and by the Gestapo and the Japanese Kempietai. He cites the post-WW2 conviction of Japanese Officer Yukio Asano for waterboarding resulting in a 15 year sentence. Edison (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Edison

message: *American Civil Liberties Union press release: ACLU Outlines Ways Waterboarding has Already Been Declared Illegal by the Federal Government. Says that "American Civil Liberties Union presents indisputable evidence that waterboarding has been repeatedly classified as torture and is banned by U.S. law." Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says: "it is hard to find a more clear-cut form of torture than waterboarding". Another text from ACLU, What is Waterboarding?, describes it as "a paradigmatic torture technique that has long been considered a war crime". GregorB (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting source as it can add the Pinochet regime to the Historical uses section, though i would like more sources on that if anyone has them. (Hypnosadist) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. There's also a HRW resource,            Waterboarding through history that mentions Hissène Habré, former president of Chad, who was indicted in Belgium for torture. Although drawings are described as "waterboarding", they apparently represent water immersion and water cure. I'm not sure that there is a meaningful difference between those techniques, though. GregorB (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From GregorB

message: Navy Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift (ret.) is interviewed on MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast January 17, 2008,
(available here) is quoted as saying the following
: Plus we have reports, that are credible, that waterboarding, forced nudity, prolonged isolation, are what we are doing. We may parse it legally, they are not in Europe or Canada or Great Britain. They call it for what it is, torture. This debate, which for us, continues politically in Congress is over in Europe. It's over in Canada. We're losing it there, it's done."
henrik•talk 19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Navy Lt. Cmdr in his role as JAG is definitely an expert authority on whether waterboarding is or is not torture. A verifiable legal authority. Lawrence Cohen 20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, just to make it clear for those who missed it while reading the article: He is retired from the US Navy and currently working as a law professor. henrik•talk 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: A Navy Lt. Cmdr Jag who is speaking for JAG, may be a reliable source for JAG. However, if he is speaking for himself, he is only speaking for himself.  Was the interview one in which he represented his views as those of the NAVY Jag or as his own?  Or did he not say?  If he did not say, we may not presume that he speaks for anyone other than himself. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's speaking for himself being a retired Jag, anyone going to call him anti-american? He can be added as yet another source. (Hypnosadist) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Complete bullshit. We don't devalue sources in this way. Once your an expert, you're an expert, period, full stop. Lawrence Cohen 06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Henrik 

message: * Richard Armitage, 13th United States Deputy Secretary of State. Interviewed by By Matt Frei for the BBC in washington. He states that he was water-boarded in trainng and answers when questioned as follows "Of course water-boarding is torture," he said bluntly. "I can't believe we're even debating it. We shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff." --neonwhite  user page talk 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  From neon white 

message: * Press release from Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Durbin 
:"  The United States has always repudiated waterboarding as a form of torture and prosecuted it as a war crime.  The Judge Advocates General, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services, have stated unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Yet, despite the virtually unanimous consensus of legal scholars and the overwhelming weight of legal precedent that waterboarding is illegal, certain Justice Department officials, operating behind a veil of secrecy, concluded that the use of waterboarding is lawful." Ofus (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From Ofus

message: : Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.
Not Relevant - whether a form of torture is acceptable or not has more to do with the ethics of a government. This still does not deny that waterboarding is torture.Nospam150 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So far this is only a list of sources. So yes, if you can find unambiguous statements by Cheney or other notable sources, list them here. Of course weighting the sources is a separate process. But so far the "is not" side has been extremely weak in finding any sources, let alone sources of a comparable weight to peer-reviewed medical and law journal articles, explicit statements by law professors, and even JAGs, and actual legal decisions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * 76.118 that is Andrew C. McCarthy's position and it is noted, dispite being based on his flawed (as in totally wrong) medical opinion. That is waterboarding does not cause severe physical pain when it does due to the oxygen deprivation (as noted in the many sources we have from people who have been waterboarded), and that short exposure to to torure does not cause long term harm (when it does and we have the medical evidence to say so). (Hypnosadist) 15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

text: * (ec)Some remarks: First, the convention explicitly defines the term "for the purposes of this Convention", not in general. Secondly, I will absolutely maintain that being slowly drowned - even if you know you will be rescued - is "severe physical suffering". Just try to dive 25 m without equipment. If you are reasonably fit, you will feel as if your lung is about to burst (if you are unreasonably fit, substitute 75 m ;-). There is nothing "mental" about this, it is simply the body telling you it wants oxygen. Of course, an additional mental component can make things worse - if at the end of the dive there is a swimmer above you (so you cannot immediately surface), you will very likely experience quite some mental anguish. Finally, if you look at the medical sources, it is very obvious that waterboarding can and does result in long-lasting mental trauma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

message: Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joseph Farah is widely considered an extremist. --neonwhite  user page talk 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Do Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity count? Thompsontough (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

message: *Uncyclopedia. Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. [] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: Who is responsible for complaints about neutrality? This is not correct or right and puts American lives and interests in danger. If USA government people are held liable for their actions, men women and children could DIE. Why am I not allowed to fix errors? This is a site hosted in the US, and needs to be held accountable for risking LIVES. What page here handles complaints to the Wikimedia people? I wish to notify State about this so they can follow up with the people who are legally responsible for this attack. 12.197.217.242 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. --neonwhite  user page talk 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: * The General Council of the Wikimedia foundation is Mike Godwin, here as User:Mikegodwin. For more contact information see . Yes, I agree that waterboarding (as well as extralegal "rendition" or keeping prisoners without charge or legal council) puts American lives and interests in danger, due to the large amounts of hatred and ill will it generates, as well as by serving as an example to other countries in showing a general disdain for human rights and international law. However, issuing legal threats against Wikimedia is not going to help. We are doing the best for a neutral description of the issue anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not neutral and adversarial 

message: My question is, if it's not interrogation, as consensus on this page seems to have decided, why would the CIA bother with it? I thought the purpose was to extract information, and even waterboardings fiercest critics have not, to my knowledge, alleged it was done just to be cruel and for no other reason. Right or wrong, wasn't it done to extract information, and doesn't that make it an interrogation technique? Thanks. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The CIA is not the only historical user of waterboarding. The Khmer Rouge used it to extract confessions, not information. In US prisons, similar techniques were used as punishment. Your question is akin to "if a hammer is not building material, why is the carpenter bothering with it?" Waterboarding is a form of torture, and it can be used for much the same purposes as other forms of torture - extortion, interrogation, intimidation, punishment.  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, that makes sense. At minimum, I think the wording you had put up calling it a form of torture should be used as it is not always as you explained. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Read the torture article. For the most part the purpose of torture is to extract information. The other rare uses would be for the joy of torturing someone. But in general, torture is an interrogation technique. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually that is incorrect, as many sources have said, information gained from torture is inaccurate and largely worthless. It's purpose is always been largely political rather than for intelligence. --neonwhite  user page talk 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "information gained from torture is inaccurate and largely worthless". I never said it was an effective interrogation technique. But I still believe its mostly used to extract information. Forcing someone to say something true or not, accurate or not, is irrelevant this still makes it an interrogation technique . -CrazyivanMA (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC) Well, information gained from a subject during torture should not be considered to be reliable. It can be evaluated, though, and may lead to useful information. However, other subjects may be more willing to disclose information if they know -- or imagine -- that one of their fellows has been tortured, or might be tortured. As well, after the torture, the subject may be more inclined to talk. Whether or not these subjects actually have information that is worthy of protecting is another question. Interrogation is primarily a mind game, only slightly a physical process. htom (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

text: When you state I still believe its mostly used to extract information I have to point out (as neutrally as possible and I don't always succeed but I'm trying) you are stating an assertion and an opinion. Mind you, that isn't a hanging offense, but in wikipedia land it should require some documentation and backup (i.e., stating why you believe it's mostly used to extract information - please share your sources that lead you to that conclusion). Should you find documentation to support your belief I urge you to bring it up for scrutiny herein. We could then discuss the authoritativeness and veracity of a specific cited source, rather than haggling over countering beliefs. I'll say that the STATED reason for torture (stated by the torturing authority) is ALWAYS for interrogation. To torture for any other reason would be redundantly cruel and inhumane.  -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lazy I don't want to look for documentation. I prefer to have people come up with documentation against what I say. For water boarding during the Spanish Inquisition, getting people to confess to their sins is extracting information, therefor an interrogation technique. Getting a political prisoner to lie on camera for proper gander purposes is still a form of extracting information, therefor an interrogation technique. Torturing someone as a punishment I would argue is corporal punishment. And torturing someone for shits and giggles is not using it as an interrogation technique. For based on these united facts I would say "I still believe its mostly used to extract information". It shouldn't be hard to find sources for these, I'm just don't see a necessity to cite sources people are aware are out there. I would only cite obscure sources needed to prove my point. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Spanish Inquisition, and most fascism regimes that have used it, did not use it primarily to gain information. The used it to create the climate of fear necessary to maintain their ideals. It was never used to interrogate. Propaganda is in no way related to military intelligence. --neonwhite  user page talk 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's highly implausible to suggest that the technique was not used for both purposes during both periods. Badagnani (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. That's why I think a section like this could be quite an interesting and dynamic read, if put together. Lawrence § t/e 21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The fact that there is even a discussion of whether it is or is not torture says that a truly neutral POV would not assert that it is.  Maintaining a neutral tone is not about using resources as method to vote on what is true.  If even one credible source says something is, it does not matter how many say it is not.  Being neutral means you must accept all credible sources and write an article that either does not contradict any credible point of view or gives an unbiased appraisal of the varying points of view.
Asserting the waterboarding is torture in the opening paragraph asserts than any other POV is wrong, regardless of credibility.  It is most certainly not neutral.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termyt (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Waterboarding (the suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner by means of water) is torture by definition. Badagnani (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: See?  My statement was not even about waterboarding at all. I can see by the long history that neutrality does not really matter as much as getting one's point across no matter the cost.  If we want to talk about "by definition" then you are even further from neutral unless you can supply a complete, unabridged, and universally accepted definition of torture.  Torture is a very old word that today is used more to invoke emotion than convey a definable concept.  To apply waterboarding to it by definition is to allow any incarceration be defined as torture "by definition."  Termyt (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement was not about waterboarding? What was it about, then? I also don't see how you go from waterboarding (a torture technique used for centuries and considered as such or centuries) to "any form of incarceration". Anyways, while I agree with Badagnani on the definition issue, that is not what this article is based on. It is based on a huge number of reliable sources claiming so, and no single remotely comparable source denying it. If you can bring "even one credible source", we can start debating. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text:  (additional reply) There has been extensive discussions on this topic over several months, and the consensus view is that according to the sources that exists, the phrase "waterboarding is a form of torture" is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources. For further details on how this conclusion was reached, I refer you to the discussion archives. henrik•talk 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Posting the content you did, on the discussion area of the Waterboarding article, and discussing the core issue discussed on this page for the past 6-7 months... it might be expected to assume you were talking about waterboarding, based on those factors. Lawrence § t/e 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also took the phrase "Asserting the waterboarding is torture..." as a hint... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It was not.  It was about neutrality in an article about waterboarding.  I said "asserting that it is" because that's what the article says.  If the article said it was not, I would have said "asserting that it is not."  I consider myself to be capable of writing what I mean, so please read my words instead of assuming my position.  I agree that it is torture, but that's my opinion.  I've read a lot of the discussion now and I see NPOV is whatever a majority of people think is NPOV.  Sorry for the OP.  Termyt (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is/isn't torture?