Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 6

message: Based on comments of Neutral Good in paragraphs above I suggest it is safe to assume he supports this change. I suggest this only due to announced holiday departure by Neutral Good for four days. This should not be decided without his voice heard. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a democracy - it is about consensus and persuasion, we can read his comments for ourselves above without you reposting on behalf of other editors. It is not like we will close this with a mass vote in the next few days - consensus takes time, he/she will get his/her chance. Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on comments on Talk and archives, 30+ strongly oppose - so what - they can speak for themselves if they wish.Inertia Tensor (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: editorial

message: I've returned from my holiday and I see that we have a consensus supporting Shibumi2's proposed lead. I am asking WP:ANI to make the proposed edit.
I also see that in my absence, a good editor was blocked for 24 hours for trying to help, full protection has been restored and a false sock puppet accusation has been made. In spite of this misconduct, I hope that we can continue to work together to make this a Good Article. Neutral Good (talk) 03:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that there is no consensus for this and left a note on ANI. Lawrence Cohen 04:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Lawrence on this. It's interesting to note that User:Neutral Good's contributions have so far been limited to editing this page, and that they appear to have instantly grasped Wikipedia's social and technical conventions without any learning curve, strongly suggesting that this is a single-purpose account created by an experienced editor for the purpose of astroturfing this page. Over to ANI... -- The Anome (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and see also Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Haizum. -- The Anome (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi there 

message: *American Psychological Association :- 
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :- 
Thats a few hundred more Ph.d's. (Hypnosadist) 20:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't the APA. It's just Division 39 of the APA, representing New York City, one of the most liberal cities in North America. One might as well pretend that the next presidential election will be decided by counting the votes of registered members of the Socialist Workers' Party. I will remind you that the APA, alone among the many affected professional organizations, has decided to allow its members to be present during CIA interrogations. That may guive you a clue about how the APA as a whole would decide the question of whether waterboarding is torture. For the Stanford Encyclopedia, there appear to be only two people who contributed the torture definition for the article: Michael Davis and David Sussman. Neutral Good (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh they are from New york well that explains it. (Hypnosadist) 11:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more people who say its torture 

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 coerce information and confessions, 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
* Strongly support. Inertia Tensor (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It drones on, I'd rather support torture with refs linking below, not extra paragraphs. Inertia Tensor (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inertia Tensors proposed Lead 

message: Rather than deciding what *not* to include in the article, here are some elements to add, to help fill out the pre-2004 use of waterboarding, which does need more detail.
*The U.S. soldier courtmartialed for waterboarding in 1968 was part of the U.S. Army's 1st Cavalry Division.
*Waterboarding was identified as a crime in 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Major Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he called "torture."  Badagnani (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS for the second claim, please? Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alllll rightee then. You are more than welcome to add this to the Water cure article, where it belongs. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that some of the examples in both this article and the water cure article are misclassified. I brought the issue up last week on this Talk page but the discussion has already been archived by someone (even though it was active). I was waiting for this page to be unprotected before swapping them over, but it appears that could be a while. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two elements to add to article 

message: Note: WP:BLP is an absolutely non-negotiable policy that applies to every inch of Wikipedia, in every name space. Repeatedly violating BLP has gotten people permanently and indefinitely blocked. I just caught one BLP violation by Neutral Good here that was unacceptable and refactored it. Watch yourselves, BLP is one of our singular most important policies. Lawrence Cohen 16:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]]  and this page 

message: Is this the main issue in dispute here?  If so, I recommend we start a requests for comment to see if "waterboarding is torture" or something else needs to be said in the article.  Jehochman  Talk 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only half the problem now. The larger issue is that people seem to feel that sources can be excluded based on their own personal political viewpoints. If allowed, that would compromise Wikipedia article content and be akin to vandalism. But yes, an RFC is a start. People need to understand yesterday that policies don't get trumped by their personal POV. Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding is torture? 

message: This article is taking on a real recentist and US bias so i'm going to cut off the US section and create Torture during the War on Terror. (Hypnosadist) 16:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is too recentist and U.S. centric, and splitting it into two articles might not be a bad idea (I personally like it), but lets not do it while the article is protected and without prior discussion. We would also need to think of a suitable title. For those reasons, I've deleted  Torture durring the War on Terror for now, but with no prejudice towards trying the idea in the future. I would suggest we start a discussion here first on how this can be accomplished though. henrik•talk 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Amazingly enough, I agree with Blue Tie on this. While a reasonable case can be made for a split, Torture during the War on Terror is an absolutely awful title, with the controversy built right into the title. Before we do anything like this, we should try to achieve consensus that it should be done, and find a new, more NPOV, title. What that title should be, I can't currently imagine. -- The Anome (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is that title not neutral? There no commentary in it. --neonwhite  user page talk 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of that title was so we could include al qeada and militias "enhanced interrogation techniques" in one article. Something Randi suggested actually. (Hypnosadist) 17:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the concept is notable and reasonable for an encyclopedia.  At first I did not have a problem with the title but upon reflection, I think it may not be a good one.  But something like that article is a good idea.  however...The way the article was created was unbalanced and biased.  The timing was entirely wrong.  I would be in favor of an article of that nature though, if it were NPOV.  I think its an interesting and encyclopedic topic.  Are we sure there isn't an article already serving that purpose? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut it out.  This is not a WP:SOAPBOX.  And...again, your suggestion is irrelevant to the question:  Is there already an article that serves this purpose? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you bother to read the link? (Hypnosadist) 17:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  There is significant controversy about the UK deportation of suspects to countries widely known to use torture.  --neonwhite  user page talk 17:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and because of gitmo and ER the Canadian supreme court has said the USA is not a safe transit country (this means they cant extradite anyone to the US at the moment). (Hypnosadist) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually they can and do extradite people to the US.  Its happening as we speak. But that is irrelevant to this topic.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's spelled "Splitting." Oppose splitting - unnecessary and this article is not yet too long. Badagnani (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Chris, above; United States waterboarding controversy is probably the best title I've seen for a split-off article on the controversy itself. However, I remain to be convinced that a split is appropriate at this time, as I believe the controversy is not independently notable in itself, other than as a subtopic of a main waterboarding article.  -- The Anome (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliting this article 

message: Please, everybody, as we participate in these heated discussions — keep in mind that our main goal here is to come up with an article that we can all (or nearly all) live with, not to convince each other to adopt our points of view.  For example, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will persuade me that waterboarding is not torture.  And I don't expect to ever persuade everyone in this discussion that waterboarding is torture.  But neither of these things are necessary in order to achieve the main goal.  So, arguing to convince each other (although it's an engaging and perhaps addictive activity) is often a waste of effort; it's also vastly harder than what we actually need to accomplish, and probably impossible.
I have made this mistake myself several times, so I don't claim innocence here.  I'm just suggesting that we might be able to make better progress if we choose actions based more on trying to improve the article and less on trying to prove each other wrong. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only goal is a good article. My criticisms of the article have only been in that direction. I am not interested in getting anyone to believe one way or the other about waterboarding. The only argument I would try to win is to use wikipedia standards, particularly neutralility. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Waterboarding is torture is not a point a veiw, it's a fact. --Can Not (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide sources, please add them to the ongoing RfC at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Jehochman  Talk 19:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we already sourced the ENGLISH LANGUAGE and the DICTIONARY. The definition of torture actually covers the effects of waterTORTUREboarding. If US officials want to say its not torture, don't lie about it and say its not torture. Just say somewhere in the article that "US officials deny that this specific type of torture is torture." then we'll have fact infested article thats neutral and gives US their fair side of the story.--Can Not (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The goal is to create a good article, not to win the argument 

message: In subsection 4.2 of this article, the name of this individual is spelled as "Abu Zubaida". This spelling is used in a number of places in the subsection including the title. In one instance however, the name is spelled as "Abu Zubaydah". 
It is my opinion that this is unencyclopedic and that it should be changed to a consistent spelling. I propose that the spelling be "Zubaida", as this spelling appears most frequently in the article, and as this is the current spelling of the title. If a source is every revealed that shows the other spelling to be more appropriate, then at that point the spelling could be changed throughout.
Anber (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. There are far more contentious issues on this article. We should all try to find common ground wherever we can. 68.29.170.105 (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there any reason why this hasn't been acted on? It's really a no brainer IMO. Anber (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Zubaida/Zubaydah 

message: Multiple accounts, including  have been blocked for sockpuppetry.  See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek.  The above discussion is probably tainted and should not be used to establish consensus.  Jehochman  Talk 19:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you've probably got there is a university professor who assigned this article as some sort of class project. That would explain the shared IP address, the choice of the name "PennState21" by one editor, and Shibumi2's unexplained departure from his usual focus on Japanese Navy articles. I observe for the record that once again, I have been found to be  to any sock puppet activity; and of the nine editors who were dragged over to RFCU, only four were found to be related. (That means that each and every one of the other five are  if you are math challenged.) Thanks for your obedience to WP:AGF and WP:BITE, by the way. Neutral Good (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppetry

message: Since it seems like everyone else is having a crack at this, I thought I'd have a go. Please consider your response to this: unless you plan on taking this to an arbitration decision, or plan on logging in every day for the rest of your life to revert each other, there has to be compromise on both sides.
:Waterboarding is the practice of subjecting a person to a form of artificial drowning. The head of the subject is inclinded backwards, and water is poured over the face and into the breathing passages. A cloth or other object is often placed over the face, or in the mouth, in order to both inhibit breathing and stimulate the gag reflex. The simultaneous sensations of suffocation and the lungs being filled with water cause the victim to slowly drown, eliciting an uncontrollable physical response of extreme panic, gagging, and flailing. The procedure has been popularly used as a covert third degree interrogation technique, since it often leaves no lasting evidence of physical abuse. However, it can cause damage to the lungs, brain damage from oxygen deprivation, injuries due to struggling against restraints, and even death. Some subjects have reported that the procedure is extremely painful, and some have reported that it isn't so painful, but the common experience suggests that it is extremely unpleasant, and subjects will resort to providing a (possibly false) confession or information rather than endure the threat of further waterboarding.
:Waterboarding is a historic practice, with the earliest documentation of its use dating back to the Spanish Inquisition in 1492. Since then, it has been widely documented as a method of torture, and in the last century it has been classified as a torture technique by both international and national courts, including the prosecution of Japanese interrogators by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East following World War II, the prosecution of police officers within the United States, and the prosecution of soldiers in Vietnam. It's use is prohibited by many military forces, and it is explicility prohibited by the U.S. Army. The authorisation and use of the technique by the Central Intelligence Agency since 2002 has led to discussion and controversy, and moves by some U.S. Senators to introduce a law that would explicitly ban its use by all government agencies.
Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more the merrier. I like this proposal. It is factual and avoids the T-word in the first paragraph in favor of dispassionately describing the act. What do you think of would changing "cause the victim to slowly drown" to something like "cause the experience/sensation of slowly drowning" since the victims aren't meant to actually drown? henrik•talk 19:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no reason why the word shouldn't be used. We can't let editors effect the way wikipedia reads and alter facts because of political motivations. That's is clearly against the whole purpose of wikipedia. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but sometimes understatement can be effective. I think the initial paragraph here gives a good overview of how unpleasant and repugnant the practice is even without using the word "torture". And the second paragraphs leads with it. henrik•talk 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: We have several references that say that it is actually drowning - the lungs really do fill with water. It is definitely not just the sensation of drowning. I think that the paragraph is clear that the person isn't usually meant to die, if that's the interpretation that you're worrying about? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see. henrik•talk 20:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing but I think we should see how others weigh in.  I also have another proposal at the bottom of the page. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The tilting of the head back is the only common definition that we have. The technique relies on opening the throat by tilting of the head with respect to the body. Yes, that means it could hypothetically be performed on someone sitting down, although it would be an odd way to do it. Likewise, the technique can be done through complete submersion of the head, or partial submersion of the face. I tried to find a definition for the lead that captures all of these possibilities. I'm open to other suggestions. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the only common features of all accounts that I have read involve pouring water over the face while the person is constrained in some roughly horizontal position. I have never seen submersion per-se, but maybe. However, discussion over details is an example of the problem I was really objecting to:  Too many details. We need to work those out in the article and then do the lead as a summary. I will say however, I do not see fundamental objections to your lead based upon policy.  I think you did a pretty good job in that regard.  I have some objections in that area but not nearly as big as the ones I have with the current lead. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you point out below, little steps will eventually lead to a better article. Most, if not all, of the argument has been over the lead - if we can find a version that most people can live with, then that will be a great advance over the present situation. No solution is perfect, and nobody is going to be completely satisfied; the important thing is that nobody has any major objections. There are two reliably sourced references to immersion waterboarding in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, under "U.S. Department of State" Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no standard version.  No rag in mouth, Rag in mouth, plastic wrap, Level, inclined, lots of water, little water, in the nose, in the mouth, just on the face, etc. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are lots of variations. I managed to condense them to a 46 word description. As far as I can see it is factually correct. Whether it is concise or not is relative - for example, the lead of global warming is five paragraphs long, and there are probably longer examples. Having said that, I'm open to alternative suggestions. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I use artificial in the sense of "not natural" "product of man" etc. and the paragraph does go on to explicitly state that the lungs fill with water causing the subject to slowly drown. It is also the terminology used by Wallace in one of the few academic references to deal with the legality of waterboarding (see ). Having said that, I can see your point that people might interpret "artificial" as meaning "not real". "Controlled drowning" suggests to me a level of control that isn't  present - once the lungs are filled with water, there's no guarantee that you'll be able to empty them, which doesn't sound too controlled. "Interrupted drowning" isn't as descriptive, as there is only a single interruption at the end of the whole process. We could just say "a form of drowning"? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Bainbridge's proposal 

message: This page is now approaching 400 KB in length and is taking several seconds to load. Editors using wireless accounts may be unable to edit it effectively. Am I going to be blocked for archiving older sections of it that are no longer active? Neutral Good (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was meaning to bring this up.  We should not block editors for archiving long pages.  Automatic archiving does not work on such an active page. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The page is archived automatically, by a bot, as you know. Badagnani (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot isn't keeping up, as you know. As Blue Tie says, "Automatic archiving does not work on such an active page." I repeat: it's nearly 400 KB in size. Editors using wireless accounts may be unable to edit it effectively. Insisting on such a gigantic Talk page is a form of elitism. Only affluent editors with the money to spend on high-speed Internet connections are allowed to participate fully. This is supposed to be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Neutral Good (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The editor blocked was blocked for a good reason. S/he was selectively archiving text under active discussion, after having been asked not to do so, then, to make a WP:POINT, began to reinsert text from months earlier. This has been explained twice before; I now see the pattern here; editors pretend not to have read earlier discussion, then fill the page with more and more text that disregards that earlier discussion, eliminating significant discussion from just a few days ago as the new text fills up the page. This is analagous to the current discussion about the lead--with many editors insisting that WP disregard 600 years of history about this practice and privileging the statments of fewer than 5 conservative politicians and opinion columnists from a single nation, whose administration is attempting to redefine, in Newspeak-like manner, a well-defined and well-understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should assume good faith.  I have not understood why Shibimi was blocked.  To me it had something to do with what might have been an honest error.  But I really do not know why.  However, long pages should be archived.  That is reasonable. But I do not know why the other editor was blocked and you should not assume otherwise. You should assume good faith.  --Blue Tie (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the earlier discussion, thanks. It was clearly explained earlier, more than once, in much the same terms as I used here. Badagnani (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is irrelevant to the requirement to assume good faith. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you understand now why Shibimi was blocked?  --Iamunknown 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There are different methods of waterboarding and some are far more harsh than others, as one of your own sources (Wallach) points out. You want a world that is black and white on this issue. There are a thousand shades of gray. We should archive the page to allow people who don't have T1 and T3 cables to participate fully. Neutral Good (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: All versions (whether "less cruel" or "more cruel") involve strapping to a board, inclining the board, and pouring water over the face. They are all forms of torture. The international definition of torture, as stated by Wikipedia, is clear. If you feel so strongly that the English word torture must be flexible according to personal feeling, you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture), as well as the international definition of torture, as those wouldn't allow individuals to make up their own minds about these things. Badagnani (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some errors of fact.  It does NOT always involve strapping to a board.  It does NOT always involve inclining.  You may have other errors as well.  Do not assume you are right on all things when you are able to be wrong so often. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is called "waterboarding," as you know, because the "classic" version utilizes a board--although "ad hoc" versions may be performed without a board. This would be akin to playing a piano sonata on a toy piano when a real piano is unavailable. However, the existence of such "ad hoc" variants does not change the definition of "playing the piano." Nor does it mean that a piano is "not a musical instrument," because fewer than five individuals wrote opinion columns stating that they don't believe the piano really is a musical instrument. Badagnani (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then you have described different versions. Yet you said ALL of them do X.  You are not generally correct when you get expansive that way. Yet much of your logic and reasoning follow that trend.  For example, just above you say that "All sources since the 1500's say that waterboarding is torture". Do they really?  How many have you personally read?  You are entirely capable of error yet you are full of certainty on your facts.  Some humility would help produce consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Blue Tie, you beat me to it. We have photographic evidence from January 1968, proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US waterboarding technique does not involved strapping to a board and only uses one canteen of water, eliminating any possibility of death by drowning. The inclined board and the much larger amounts of water used in other techniques make them far more abusive. Badagnani, kindly acknowledge this distinction in your future discussion on this Talk page. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The soldier in that photo was courtmartialed for conducting this "less cruel" form of torture. The "more abusive" version of waterboarding is a form of torture, and the "less abusive" version of waterboarding is also a form of torture. That is well understood, and has been for at least 600 years. Badagnani (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The page is archived automatically, by a bot. This has already been explained, at least three times so far. Badagnani (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You have been one of the people who lengthens the page so much.  Please keep comments concise and avoid repetition and needless argumentation.  If necessary, we can reduce the bot to 7 days.  Jehochman  Talk 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Except the IPs and users now banned for sockpuppetry and abuse. Support 7 days, also. Lawrence Cohen 20:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I've changed it to 7 days for now. Neutral Good, Again: please note that wikipedia works by rough consensus, not vote tallying. How many people voting for a specific proposal really isn't the issue. henrik•talk 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving (again) 

message: One of the problems we, as editors, have with this article is that there is a large, majority group who declare that "waterboarding is torture" and another who declare that "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" and there is not much listening between the two viewpoints. I've come to the conclusion that some of you, especially in the majority, don't know what the range of actions covered by the term "waterboarding" really is. 
One form has been done to willing "victims" in televised demonstrations; the victims lined up to be repeatedly "waterboarded". Again and again, they willingly submitted to this torture (or so they called it.)
I submit that any procedure for which "victims" repeatedly volunteer is not torture. It may look to an onlooker like torture, it may be unpleasant, but it's torture theatre; I doubt that the victims would be repeatedly volunteering for 120VAC stimulation of their sexual organs, or to have holes drilled in their kneecaps, amputations, or any of a number of other things that we would all agree were torture. 
I'll preface the following fictional description of "real waterboarding" from the 1960s by saying that I don't know whether it was the CIA, KGB, or some other group that discovered that the real immersion was not needed, that wetting the skin in certain parts of the body, with some other conditions, would elicit the gag/vomit/drown reflexes. It is absolutely unpleasant, but I am not sure (see the line of people lining up to do it again and again) that it is so unpleasant as to be called torture.
This is. The subject is sleeping, after being kept awake several days. He is blindfolded and taken to a large room. His clothing is removed. He is bound face down to a diving board a few inches above the water in the strongly chlorinated pool, with his chin over the end of the board. Someone walks out on the board, immersing his face in the pool. After a brief time, signaled by people observing the subject, he walks back, allowing the face to emerge from the water, and the victim to breathe. This is done repeatedly, until the victim is unconscious. At this point, there may be a break in the proceeding, after which it resumes. Eventually, while unconscious, he is removed from the board and taken back to his room, where he is dried and dressed as he was before he was taken away. When he wakes, there is no evidence that any of this happened to him. It could have been a nightmare.
This may be done several times.
Finally, one day, when he's given water, it's heavily chlorinated, like the water in the pool. The smell ....
I do not think you would see people lining up to volunteer repeatedly to be subjected to this; and because this activity is called "waterboarding", that's why I wonder if all of the activities described as "waterboarding" should be called torture. I think that the differences are sufficient that some of them are probably not.
Thanks for reading. This is not only OR, it is original fiction. No one had anything done to them in the making of this post. You might be able to find some sources that describe this; I did not look. Verification is different than both reality and fantasy. htom (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You say "any procedure for which "victims" repeatedly volunteer is not torture". I'm afraid that is easily disprovable. Look in any undergraduate psychology textbook. The fact that someone may not find the experience tortuous (as they have heavily trained, or just feel the torture is worth the publicity or whatever), or may have a goal that allows them to endure the torture (seeking fame again, or wanting to "prove" that it isn't torture). Also, anecdotes don't count as evidence. The fact is by any reasonable definition of torture, waterboarding is torture. Claiming that some forms of waterboarding are not torture is misleading in the extreme  86.146.119.116 (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own opinion is that the primary reason that volunteers repeatedly subject themselves to whatever it is, is that they trust those doing the whatever, and feel that they are somehow "in control" during the procedure. In some of the cases, as well, it looks a bit like there's a safe word or jesture involved. In a torture situation, there is neither trust nor safety, and, as you point out, no reward. htom (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: "in televised demonstrations; the victims lined up to be repeatedly "waterboarded"" What television programme is this? If you can provide a reliably sourced citation this is probably worth including in the article. However, it says nothing about whether it is torture or not, as the above commentator points out, there are some people who would willingly undergo torture in exchange for fame, money, proving a point etc. Also, due to legal and liability issues, it is extremely unlikely that a television programme would subject people to waterboarding as practiced by real interrogators, where it is possible (though perhaps unlikely) that the subject may suffer some permanent physical damage or even death. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Street theatre demonstrations; google "youtube waterboarding demonstrations", you'll have an assortment. The one I had seen was outside the Justice Department, but that one seems to have been taken down. htom (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCDs2JXA71U Video says it all! (Hypnosadist) 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth mentioning as part of the "US controversy" bit of the article. However, Youtube is a primary source and not a reliable source. Please provide some citations to reliable sources discussing these demonstrations. Also, the narrator himself says that this isn't waterboarding as practiced for real - he says they're using a sheet of plastic below the towel to mostly block the inhalation of water; this is a theatrical production, and should be cited as such. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The range of waterboarding 

message: :See also: Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard#Article probation.
I see that article probation is now being potentially reviewed for this before the situation escalates to artibitration. I think this would be a wonderful idea, for administratively enforced probation on article and all talk pages. There is no reasonable evidence to believe these people are different. Most of the RFCU confirmed socks for the same IP all have history of working on the Free Republic article. That includes the IP of one of the worst trolls this site has apparently known, this Palatine character, who had that as his major problem. That IP, plus a host of others with the same language, tone and curious identical ```support``` language all arrive at once on the waterboarding talk page, at the same time, and all with the exact same stance? If not entirely sockpuppetry it's flagrant meatpuppetry. Either is a rules violation. Do you really think it's a coincidence that all' these unique human beings, all using the same ISP, all with matching political viewpoints, all with matching oddball habits of forming their ```support``` !votes, and all with basically the same language all arrived independent of each other, as soon as the "consensus" fight began to turn, and there were basically two people on the non-torture side of the debate? I've got a swell bridge for you too, that's only moderately used. Lawrence Cohen 19:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know and I do not care about this issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if it is sockpuppetry and stacking the discussion, it's a major problem. No one editor is entitled to more weight in discussion than any other. It is a bannable offense to game the system this way. It must be stopped if and when it happens, as soon as possible, since it is destructive. Lawrence Cohen 19:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly where is "article probation is now being potentially reviewed for this before the situation escalates to artibitration"? Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article probation and sockpuppetry

message: I feel that this page should be deleted until the current conflict in the Middle East is over. -Roofus (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the US was at peacetime or war doesn't matter, and neither does a sensitive nature of a matter. If it is published in realible sources, it can be discussed here, forever. Lawrence Cohen 10:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The answer is simple, the more we talk about this the less likely the CIA will be allowed to torture people. (Hypnosadist) 13:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That has really nothing to do with improving this article. Please focus on that, rather than making this discussion page a political forum. If you wish to influence US government policy, there are more appropriate venues. henrik•talk 13:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  And no, this page isn't going to be deleted. henrik•talk 14:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to discuss this in wartime 

message: Hello Blue Tie, and thanks for your kind reply. My position on this matter seems most consistent with yours. I'm not sure that I understand why you feel that my position is a violation of WP:SYN; please elaborate. I've never had an account here, always editing from my rapidly shifting IP address and never leaving much of a trail. I like it, though it does have its disadvantages. If you prefer, I'll add the word "Bob" before my tildes so that people can keep track of me. Is that comfortable for you? Regards, Bob 68.31.227.84 (talk)
:Hi Bob.  Yes I think it would make conversations easier if you put that name there. I do not mind that you want to be anonymous. I edited here anonymously for a while, and was reluctant to get a name. So I understand that.  But I have found it helps people work with you. As far as WP:SYN, I think that deserves a special section so look the bottom of this page. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Blue Tie

message: ::Akhilleus, thanks for your concern but I'm familiar with WP:NOR and I've just read it again. The SEP defines "waterboarding" as something other than what Wikipedia defines. The SEP says that waterboarding is "continuously immersing [submerging] the head in water[.]" That's not original research. That's reading what the source itself says. Obviously the source is discussing another interrogation technique and calling it "waterboarding."
::In the alternative, we might choose to try changing the Wikipedia definition of the term "waterboarding" to include the technique that the SEP has described. But then we have to carefully explain that the term "waterboarding" encompasses a vast array of different techniques and that the SEP wasn't talking about the CIA technique. 68.31.198.247 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have two reliably sourced references that waterboarding can be carried out by immersion. Those two sources actually suggest that this is the "modern form". See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for responding, Chris. I've read the Talk:Waterboarding/Definition page. Neither source specifies that the CIA technique involved immersion of the head. Also, we're not talking about that page alone. We're talking about what needs to go into the article. 70.9.157.130 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Akhilleus

message: First of all, thank you for taking the time to write down your thoughts on some points I raised in the discussion above. I feel that those three questions are important because - sources or not, NPOV or not - unless they are addressed in a way, the "vanilla" version of the article (WB is "something" other than torture) is unlikely ever to be stable. Now to your remarks: if WB involves suffocation - and it does - I see no way to classify it as an "interrogation technique". True, WB is not merely suffocation, because water obviously triggers some reflexes that make it extremely unpleasant. But it wouldn't make much sense to say, "this is merely self-preservation kicking in, it's nothing serious" because the same happens in a mock execution. Note that knowing that "this is not for real" does not help: it is precisely repeated mock executions that are most effective in breaking the subjects, despite them "knowing" now that they are not for real. The instincts are always stronger. Humans are hardwired for self-preservation: physical pain serves the same purpose, after all. I think I could endure more than 14 seconds of pulling fingernails, so - instincts or not, "real thing" or not - the idea that WB is some sort of interrogation trick and not torture still does not sound convincing to me. In particular, I don't see WB entering police work in the future and displacing "good cop bad cop" and other interrogation techniques. GregorB (talk) 12:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to comment by 68.31.198.247

message: I'm starting this section to solicit information on the "waterboarding is torture" question from sources outside the United States. All US sources should be ignored in this section, and any that are posted in this section should be stricken. Now that htom has exploded the myth about the Spanish Inquisition using waterboarding, let's try to determine whether the US really is a "puny" "footnote in history."
For example: what is the official Chinese government position on the "waterboarding is torture" question? What is the official Saudi Arabian position? The official Moroccan position? What are the official Russian, French, Turkish and Zimbabwean positions? The official government positions of Burkhina Faso, the Marianas Islands and Bangladesh, if all nations are to be considered equal and one isn't any more significant or notable than any other? If you can find them, post them here please. Neutral Good (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could allways look it up yourself. If you want to find out what 27 countries think at once you could look up the Torture and the ECHR (european charter of human rights). (Hypnosadist) 15:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The coucil of europe, thats 47 different nation states. (Hypnosadist) 15:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Council of Europe is not a government, any more than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the World Trade Organization is a government. It is an association of 47 governments whose principal achievement is the protection of human rights. The article you've linked is a statement of one person, Thomas Hammarberg, who holds the office of "commissioner of human rights." It has a Committee of Ministers and a Parliamentary Assembly but there's no indication that either body has endorsed Hammarberg's position or voted on the matter. Nor is there any indication that Hammarberg has the authority to speak on behalf of all 47 member governments. Thanks.209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless it is specifically stated that Hammarberg is writing in a personal capacity, then his statement represents the view of the Council of Europe, which is comprised of 47 nation states. Simple, really. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the linked page, Judith. Mr. Hammarberg did not sign it, "Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner of Human Rights, Council of Europe." He signed it "Thomas Hammarberg," period. Furthermore, the article is entitled "Viewpoint" rather than "Official Statement" or anything of the sort. Simple, really. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the CoE website "Mr Thomas Hammarberg was elected Commissioner for Human Rights on 5 October 2005 by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. Mr Hammarberg was nominated for the post of Commissioner for Human Rights by the Swedish government." the rest of his biography is here ->  . (Hypnosadist) 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It's still a valid source, either if it's him or the entire community, and needs to be added to the repository above. Lawrence Cohen 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He's clearly writing in his official capacity as it is on the Council of Europe web pages, and it's a very significant source for the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, Mr. Cohen. It's a valid source in the same way that the opinion of Joseph Farah (see below) is a valid source: one man's opinion, not as a statement of an official position of a government. Judith, if Mr. Hammarberg was writing in his official capacity, he would have signed it, "Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner of Human Rights, Council of Europe." It would be titled something other than "Viewpoint." There would be some sort of clear signal that it's an official statement of the position of the entire organization. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, a letter written by Mr Bush on WH stationary is private unless he signes it as President? You might be surprised to learn that many people do not sign using their function. The fact they use official papers is sufficient to make it an official statement.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 16:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You're comparing apples and oranges, Mr. Nescio. Mr. Bush is a head of state. He is the leader of a real government. The Council of Europe is not a government, and this does not have the usual trappings of an official statement. I will add that the Commissioner of Human Rights is an independent agency within the Council of Europe, in much the same way that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is an independent agency within the American government. It can't be assumed to be speaking on behalf of its parent organization. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  World opinion 

message: Op-ed piece by journalist Joseph Farrah:
{{cquote|"Waterboarding is not torture"
Americans are simply losing their ability to distinguish right from wrong.
I don't know how else to put it.
Up is down, day is night, left is right and right is wrong.
A good illustration of my thesis is the growing political consensus around the idea that the U.S. should stop using any effective interrogation techniques that make our terrorist enemies uncomfortable – even those involved in planning acts of mass destruction and annihilation.
:Per Wikipedia standards and consensus World Net Daily is not a reliable source. See;Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily. We can't use them for anything except as sources about themselves. Lawrence Cohen 14:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an accurate statement of Joseph Farah's opinion, Mr. Cohen. Therefore it can, and should be included. Joseph Farah is a notable person. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable enough to have a wikipedia article. (Hypnosadist) 15:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh really? Look here: Joseph Farah. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes he does, its spelt with two R's above, that will be why i did not find it. (Hypnosadist) 15:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Statements from unreliable sources are only suitable for inclusion in an article about the unreliable source itself. Feel free to take this to WP:RSN if you disagree. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes it can, as the consensus is that worldnetdaily is an unreliable publisher of opinion pieces and fringe theories. It applies to the whole site as a source. Considering he is very much linked to the site and it's publishing it's unlikely that a strict editorial policy will apply to anything he writes. He is also known for extremism , inciting violence  and fringe and conspiracy theories. ] [] The site is fighting at least one defamation law suit against it's content. --neonwhite  user page talk 21:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Then re-open the debate on WND on WP:RSN and see if you can change the concensus on it. (Hypnosadist) 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't feel that to be necessary for the purposes of this discussion. The article in question was written, signed and published by Joseph Farah, a notable person. It can reasonably be assumed to be an accurate statement of his opinion. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel it's valid, it needs to be added to the source repository above. Lawrence Cohen 16:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warterboarding not Torture 

message: To try to get this talk page back on track, I thought I would create this section to discuss any other disputes other than whether or not waterboarding is torture.  Therefore, if you dispute any other information or think there is some relevant information that needs to be included in the article below, please state so in the appropriate section.  Mind you, this is not a place to debate whether or not the information should be included or excluded, just a place where we can list those things that should be included, excluded or revised. Remember (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That simply isn't true. The US Senate did add a reservation that "That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."  The `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' is separate from torture, which the US defined for the purposes of the treaty in the same language  as 18 USC 2340. Andrew McCarthy discuss the distinction in his National Review article. He criticizes Condoleza Rice for saying that the US is bound by the `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' standard, but she is Secretary of State and he isn't. We might want to cover the question of whether Waterboarding is  `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' as well.--agr (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I was not asserting my concern as a sure fact but rather as something that caught my eye as possibly false information that needs to be reviewed.  That is all.  I am not taking a position on whether it is good, bad, evil, high, low, or green colored.  Just whether it is really a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * I agree that this statement would need to have a solid reference, or it should be removed. Jehochman  Talk 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I do not think it has been officially confirmed by the US Government either.  Rather people who worked for the US Government spoke on their own recognizance. However, it is officially confirmed that it is authorized.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have verified my position.  Yet you reject it.  You have not verified your position.  There is no point in repeatedly stating that you are following wikipedia policies when you are not or saying that I am not following them when you do not pay attention to what I post.  I have provided verifiable statements that the issue is debated. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am willing to listen. Can we start by outlining the points that are agreed upon, and then go from there? Jehochman Talk 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, I had been thinking along those lines for about two days now.  But I was concerned that people would be offended by one more "opportunity to vote".  So I was trying to think about how to proceed.  I have been and will be very busy but ASAP I will respond in detail, probably on your talk page first. ---Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is any help, I offer the statements P1-P6 at the end of this section as a possible starting point. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I appreciate your efforts in that regard.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't misunderstand the fact that I was asked to take a look at this as canvassing for support; I was merely expressing my opinion on the situation. I did not agree with him; indeed, whilst reading the arguments on this page I seem to have lost track of the editors who are discussing whichever points. As a general rule of thumb, I read the opinion and not the user. When he contacted me at first, I initially had no idea what this issue was about; I've tried to help by offering my opinion. I probably won't go any further than that, because any other comments which I would make in the future would be tainted by the "this-user-was-called-up-by-someone-who-just-wants-support-for-his-point-of-view" attitude. Jame§ugrono 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another stab at being constructive 

message: * Under "Legality" (which is not really about waterboarding but about torture) it says: "All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subjected to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition, and as such there exists no legal exception under this treaty". This is actually uncited and , I believe that the U.S., in 1992, signed with an exception.  The exception was that the treaty would not be superior in force to the U.S. Constitution.  What that means exactly, I am not sure, but I believe it means that in essence the treaty signing was for show and that in fact, U.S. Law reigns, for the U.S.--Blue Tie (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That simply isn't true. The US Senate did add a reservation that "That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment', only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States."  The `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' is separate from torture, which the US defined for the purposes of the treaty in the same language  as 18 USC 2340. Andrew McCarthy discuss the distinction in his National Review article. He criticizes Condoleza Rice for saying that the US is bound by the `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' standard, but she is Secretary of State and he isn't. We might want to cover the question of whether Waterboarding is  `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' as well.--agr (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I was not asserting my concern as a sure fact but rather as something that caught my eye as possibly false information that needs to be reviewed.  That is all.  I am not taking a position on whether it is good, bad, evil, high, low, or green colored.  Just whether it is really a fact. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * I agree that this statement would need to have a solid reference, or it should be removed. Jehochman  Talk 15:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I do not think it has been officially confirmed by the US Government either.  Rather people who worked for the US Government spoke on their own recognizance. However, it is officially confirmed that it is authorized.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed Information (other than waterboarding classification as torture)

message: * Descriptions of the widely varied methods called "waterboarding" htom (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I have verified my position.  Yet you reject it.  You have not verified your position.  There is no point in repeatedly stating that you are following wikipedia policies when you are not or saying that I am not following them when you do not pay attention to what I post.  I have provided verifiable statements that the issue is debated. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am willing to listen. Can we start by outlining the points that are agreed upon, and then go from there? Jehochman Talk 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, I had been thinking along those lines for about two days now.  But I was concerned that people would be offended by one more "opportunity to vote".  So I was trying to think about how to proceed.  I have been and will be very busy but ASAP I will respond in detail, probably on your talk page first. ---Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is any help, I offer the statements P1-P6 at the end of this section as a possible starting point. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I appreciate your efforts in that regard.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't misunderstand the fact that I was asked to take a look at this as canvassing for support; I was merely expressing my opinion on the situation. I did not agree with him; indeed, whilst reading the arguments on this page I seem to have lost track of the editors who are discussing whichever points. As a general rule of thumb, I read the opinion and not the user. When he contacted me at first, I initially had no idea what this issue was about; I've tried to help by offering my opinion. I probably won't go any further than that, because any other comments which I would make in the future would be tainted by the "this-user-was-called-up-by-someone-who-just-wants-support-for-his-point-of-view" attitude. Jame§ugrono 06:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Information that should be added to the article

message: Neutral Good, your account seems to be a single-purpose account entirely devoted to editing this discussion, and other Wikipedia user and administrative pages in ways related to this discussion, with no real history of any other edits on Wikipedia. Even under your previous IP address of 76.209.241.196, your edits were only to waterboarding-related discussion pages. You seem to have instantly grasped Wikipedia's editing conventions from your first edit on: can you tell me, have you edited Wikipedia before, and if so, under what name or names? If you have not edited Wikipedia before, how did you become aware of this discussion in the first place, since these pages are not discoverable via search engines? -- The Anome (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a long history of editing from an anonymous IP but I reached a realization that the editing pattern, coupled with an easily pinpointed IP, would reveal my real-life identity. I took a Wikibreak for a few months, changed my ISP to something more generic, and now I'm back. Did you miss me? Neutral Good (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Good 

message: I was asked to provide a version of the lead.  I think the whole article needs re-written, but assuming a re-write along the directions I would imagine, I suggest this lead:
::Waterboarding refers to a variety of interrogation techniques that involve immobilizing a person on his or her back and pouring water over the face with the intent to restrict breathing or to to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning.  (It should not be confused with the Water cure which is the forced ingestion of water into the stomach.) Evidence of Waterboarding in one form or another shows it to have been conducted since at least **Whenever**.  It is widely considered torture although this has been disputed or questioned, chiefly in consideration of different methods and conditions.   Its effectiveness as an interrogation method is also disputed; it may produce information quickly but critics question the validity of information produced in desperation and under duress.
::International law prohibits torture, but the specific legal status of waterboarding varies by country.
I am thinking of it in terms of wikipedia policies and the questions: What/How? When? Where? Why?
I propose this lead as a SUMMARY of details found in the article with the following article structure in mind:
::Methods and Process
::History
::Disputed Status as Torture
::Effectiveness
::Legal Status
Do I support my own lead?  Well, I consider it best without regard to the rest of the article but as I said, it should be a summary of what is found in the article and should not contain new information (except for the warning not to confuse it with the Water Cure).  
I should add that I frankly believe that when people read the Methods and History, they will have, ON THEIR OWN, come to the conclusion that it is torture.  THAT is the way wikipedia should operate.  Like the WP:NPOV policy states --- let the facts speak for themselves.
--Blue Tie (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which words do you find to be weasel words? Perhaps they can be improved. One of the problems with a lead is that things can be considered weasel words when in fact they are supported by the article content.  And as I said, I envision a certain article content. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you propose an alternative that lives within wikipedia policy. We cannot say that it is a form of torture if that is not a fact. And it is not a fact if it is disputed.  I do not believe that it is disputed that it is an interrogation technique, so that is what I used.  I also tried to follow the idea of a summary of a proposed article outline.  What do you propose -- and I am willing to support leads that are logical, reasonable but most of all, fit with wikipedia policy and do not push a pov. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a fact, it fits the dictionary definition. You can't change that because you don't like it. Any interrogation technique that inflicts mental or physical pain is defined as torture, you're text describes torture so to not use the word is ridiculous. --neonwhite  user page talk 18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, your definition of what is a fact is different from what wikipedia says is a fact per policy.  That is the problem with your approach.  You are ignoring wikipedia policy.  By doing so, you ensure a lack of consensus.  Policy helps us arrive at consensus.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not ignoring any policy, a dictionary defintion is a verifiable fact and is not disputed here. You cannot redefine the meaning of a word to follow your political viewpoint. Leave that to the politicians! --neonwhite  user page talk 19:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said you are not ignoring policy.  Can you cite the policy that says: "If its in the dictionary it is a fact"?  I can actually cite policy that discusses what a fact is on wikipedia.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The fringe POV (held by fewer than 5 conservative politicans and opinion columnists in a single nation) cannot be privileged in the article's lead. All sources, save for these, dating back to the 15th century, state that waterboarding is a form of torture. Thus, it appears that your assertion of POV is best directed at yourself, as such an outlandish redefinition of a well-understood English term would fit the definition of Newspeak better than an English-language encyclopedia. As stated at least 15 or 20 previous times, this does not prevent these commentators' fringe views from being outlined in the article, but they must not be allowed to change the very definition of this practice, which is well understood. Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a fringe POV should not be privileged.  I have not done so as far as I can tell. Can you propose a solution that does not violate wikipedia policy?  In particular, we cannot say that it is torture if that is not a fact. And per wikipedia policy it is not a fact.  So, can you propose a solution that fits policy? I think it should also read well and follow some general outline. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is a fact. Look up the defintion  --neonwhite  user page talk 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two errors.  I am unable to find a definition of "Waterboarding" in your source and it would not really matter -- a dictionary is not the sole arbiter of fact. Wikipedia has a policy of what constitutes a fact.  It also has a policy regarding Original Research.  In that policy it has an aspect called "Synthesis", which it specifically describes as OR. An example of synthesis I have seen on this page is: So and So says Torture is X.  This and that say Waterboarding is X. So, Waterboarding is Torture.  That is specifically forbidden per wikipedia policy.  You were not suggesting that approach were you?  I would appreciate it if your answers would fit within wikipedia policies of WP:ASF and WP:SYN. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody is doing anything like that. Your misrepresenting of policy and disruption of the consensus to prove a point is getting tiresome. There are no words banned from being used on wikipedia, torture is an english word it has a meaning, it fits here there is no policy that forbids its correct usage. That is common sense. There is no opinion in the correct use of the word. There are multiple sources that say waterboarding is torture. This has been said many times over. I'm not going to say it again, i will just consider it a refusal to get the point. --neonwhite  user page talk 19:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I am not misrepresenting policy, something else must be tiresome.   Or if you think I am misrepresenting policy show me on my talk page explicitly. Quote the policy and show how I am doing it wrong. Please be sure to address the policies that I am using WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and remember that NPOV is non-negotiable, while guidelines, essays and opinions are not policies.  I promise, if I am misrepresenting policy I will be the first to stop doing so, because I do not want to do that. But I would prefer that you not make that accusation without some justification to it. On the other hand, you have repeatedly refused to put forth ANY sources that contradict my position. NONE.  Yet you are the one saying that I am not getting the point.  Something a bit one sided on that deal.  I further open my talk page to ANYONE who thinks I am misrepresenting policy here. Please educate me.  Otherwise please do not make the accusation.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment - The sources are now at a separate page (it is linked at the very top of this discussion page). Don't worry; they are all there--most stating that waterboarding is a form of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition (c. 1400) and about 4, from conservative/Republican politicians or opinion columnists stating their opinion that it is not a form of torture. Badagnani (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of those sources support MY position.  There have not been any sources that support a position opposed to mine.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Since when was my position that Waterboarding is not a form of torture?  NEVER have I taken that position.  However, the sources you quote DO support my position.  I have said what my position is many times. It is not a secret. Perhaps you should figure out what my position is before you object to it. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question:  I thought these concerns would be handled in the article and that the lead would be a summary of the article.  Are you saying the lead should provide special independent and new information to the article instead of summarizing the article?  Or did I misunderstand your comment? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm.  Did you not notice torture IS in that summary?  You might also consider this summary of supporting points (with internal links). --Blue Tie (talk) 12:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but only with a number of qualifiers, which should not be there. --BozMo talk 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Curious. I would think that the issues related to the dispute should be there per WP:VER, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  Why do you think that they should not be there?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Tie's proposal 

message: Editors here are trying to promote the idea that waterboarding is torture or that it is not torture.  The talk page is full of things trying to prove one view or the other.  Its a mistake.  We should stop trying to convince each other that it is one or the other.  The recent addition of Farrah's opinion is an example.  How does posting that improve the discussion?  We already know that there are notable people who object to calling it torture. No one who has a view that it is torture will change their minds on this based upon his views.  No one who has a view that it is not torture will change their minds just because some folk want to say it is.  Lets stop trying to do either thing.  We should just report the facts in a neutral way.  Follow wikipedia policy.
I suggest that people who want to say it is not torture, acknowledge that it is widely considered torture by notable people and probably (if not certainly) a majority.  I would also suggest that people who want to say it is torture, would acknowledge that notable people (and a reasonably significant minority) think it is not torture.  Both sides need to at least admit the other side has a point.  Just admitting the facts would go a long way to stopping the disputes. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nobody is trying to hijack anything. The current lead sentence conveys the impression that the notable minority doesn't exist. Rudolph Giuliani, Michael Mukasey, Andrew C. McCarthy and even Joseph Farah are more significant and notable than the 115 law professors. For example, I'm unaware of any Wikipedia article about any one of your 115 law professors. The lead sentence must recognize the fact that significant dissenting opinion exists. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Except there isn't significant dissenting opinion from any notable majority, unfortunately. Farrah is a demonstrated religious extremist, McCarthy said maybe it is, maybe it isn't, Mukasey won't say either way, and Giuliani is one person. I still see (8) people on the sources on the RFC. 8 people may also think the earth is made of taffy, which makes it no less preposterous. Lawrence Cohen 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Public opinion has no bearing on Wikipedia. We operate based on what reliable sources say, not truthiness. A substantial percentage of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, or that the government is covering up evidence of a UFO crash at Area 51. Public opinion does not in any way make these conspiracy theories true. However, we can report the status of political debate or public opinion.  "Senator Smith claims that waterboarding is not torture.[1]" when cited to a reliable source may be acceptable in a section of the article covering the waterboarding controversy as related to the War on Terror. Jehochman  Talk 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe that public opinion has no bearing on wikipedia.  If an issue is "What is the public opinion of an issue?" it would certainly have a bearing. In this case one of the areas of concern is:"Is the notion that waterboarding is torture, disputed?".  In that issue, public opinion would have value because public opinion is one of the venues in which disputes would be noticed. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: There are lots of world political leaders who believe in things that are plain and obvious nonsense. For just one example, look at Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Contemporary_usage_and_popularity. If a position is demonstably wrong, then having the support of a notable figure doesn't make that position any less wrong. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're comparing apples and land mines. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? They're both round... -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No it doesn't at all. That just will show if Republicans, the smaller of the two major American political parties by population in the nation, support Giuliani more in those caucus states alone. Lawrence Cohen 15:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without some type of acknowledgment of the political weigh of the issue and the controversy over even defining torture, this article will forcibly be biased.  08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors here have erred 

message: Waterboarding is a form of extremely harsh treatment used to compel someone to a behavior the administrator desires. Descriptions of waterboarding vary greatly, resulting in confusion when the term is used. This is an incomplete list, and very brief descriptions, of the different methods that I am aware of, with categories invented by me. I read too much, and may have paid too much attention to how humans have mis-treated each other for reasons good and bad. 
Do not do this at home or in your school. 
No sources are given; it shouldn't be hard to find them. The differences in these methods, both in how they are done and the results to the victim, are why I hesitate to agree with "all waterboarding is torture". There's a real danger in this topic (and other torture topics) of wp:beans and I'm not sure how we can both have the discussion and "save the children". In a month or twelve, when this is archived and people are ignoring the topic, probably some overseer should remove the how-to.
; Waterboarding (immersion) : The subject is strapped to a board or chair (or otherwise constrained in his movements) and his face is immersed in water and held there while the victim exhales; if his head is not removed the subject will drown through inhilation of water (see drowning). Even if his face is withdrawn, the subject may die from secondary drowning (see drowning article) or dry drowning. A variation on the dunking of medieval times. An interrupted execution by drowning, and (in my opinion) always torture. Similar effects can happen to a waterpolo player whose teammates (or opponents) act to keep putting his head underwater. Where the line is, there, between hard play and torturous hazing I'm not sure of; some of it is one and some the other, and probably the victim's opinion should determine.
; Waterboarding (flooding) : The subject is strapped or constrained in an inclined position with his face up, but below the level of his hips. This causes a flow of blood into the head and chest. His face (which may be covered with a cloth) is then flooded with a stream of water, making breathing difficult, if not impossible, because of the presence of the water. Again, the subject may die from either drowning (especially if water is forced into the lungs by the stream) or the other near-drowning mechanisms. An extreme form of "swirlie"; I hesitate to call a swirlie torture, but it might be. This form of waterboarding can become waterboarding (water cure) if care is not taken so that the victim does not swallow excess water. (This may be the reason for the insertion of the wadded rag in the mouth, or the pierced plastic wrap over the mouth, in some reports; it would decrease the amount of water swallowed, although it might have other effects as well.)
; Waterboarding (water cure) : As above in waterboarding (flooding), a mixture of interference with breathing as well as filling the stomach with water because the victim must swallow the water in order to breathe. Once the victim's stomach becomes distended, it is beaten to expell the water. (This seems to be the method most usually described from the Vietnam - Laos - Cambodia descriptions.)
; Waterboarding (other) : (to be expanded)
; Waterboarding (splashing) : The subject is contrained and his chest and face are splashed with water in a particular fashion. This wetness causes his body to temporarily react as if it had been immersed, but there is no disruption of breathing other than by the mammalian diving reflex through laryngospasm. It's probably incorrect to call this a "mind trick", as the trick involves reflexes below the mind level, more of a "body trick". Probably not torture, unless extended.
With this, I'll not be back to this topic until Monday. htom (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you elaborate where you're getting this from?  I have seen mentions of the "immersion" and "flooding" types you mention here, but this is the first I've ever heard of "splashing" being called waterboarding.  Is there any historical record of people referring to splashing water in the face as "waterboarding"? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Original work. I have heard and read of the splashing technique, but I don't know what its official name is. "Splashing" might not be the best name for the category, but it's very different than the others. I suspect that this is the method being used on those who quit out in seconds (notice the videos have people struggling for considerably longer than that) who report feelings of complete panic, and who are seeming embarrassed by this reaction on their part. The splashing would seem to be aimed at wetting certain areas of the nasal passages which results in a flood of nerve messages that produce the panic, which disappears once the victim sits up and sneezes. htom (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have also not seen print sources (or any other sources) referring to splashing water as constituting "waterboarding," "water-boarding," or "water boarding." It sounds more like what is called Chinese water torture (which usually involves the dripping of water). Badagnani (talk) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This technique is not related to the dripping water torture; it acts within seconds. htom (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never seen attempting to initiate the diving reflex referred to as a form of waterboarding, or even splashing. Reliable references? Mammalian diving reflex is something that any human who tries to swim under water will experience; yes, the heart rate slows, though this is also affected by other factors eg. most free divers will inhale large amounts of air before submerging, and then swim slowly to preserve oxygen. I don't see how it would be useful as a form of torture - it is not painful, does not cause panic, and certainly wouldn't induce a hardened criminal or terrorist into betraying their associates. Drowning, or running out of oxygen whilst under water, is a different matter. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll grant you that drowning is drowning, but not all of these are always drowning, or even close to it in some cases. I did not say that the body trick induced asphyxia; I do say that it appears to induce panic. If I had references I wouldn't provide them (and probably would not be contributing.) htom (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the work done here, but it needs sources.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; I hope the revised version is better. Sorry, no sources, I have not kept track over the decades. htom (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please read WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to see why this is assertion fails WP-policy.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 07:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is a diversion.  The description we currently have, and most of those that have been proposed, adequately cover all the descriptions of waterboarding I have encountered, save for the immersion of the head in water.  In all cases, the prisoner is made to believe that death is imminent through a process that (a) actually will cause death through water-induced asphyxiation if not interrupted within a few minutes and (b) induces the instinctive physiological responses to suffocation and drowning — and it is through this induced fear and intolerable physical suffering that the procedure works as a coercion technique.  My impression is that immersion is far less commonly cited as "waterboarding", which makes the current description just fine.  However, if we have enough reliable sources that include immersion as a method of waterboarding, I have no problem with mentioning immersion as an alternate method.  The number and nature of such sources would determine whether it could be mentioned in the body of the article as a variation of a general technique that involves no immersion, or mentioned in the lead. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this is a diversion.  The U.S. Government has never admitted using waterboarding in this century. All the information we have to date on CIA use comes from news media reports. These reports are invariably accompanied with a description of waterboarding that we can presume come from the same or related government sources. If what the CIA did was materially less harsh than than what the numerous reports in the press depict, they no doubt would have leaked that information by now. The fact that they destroyed all video tapes of actual interrogations strongly suggests the opposite. We  can assume that the outside experts commenting on whether waterboarding is torture are aware of, and rely on, the press definitions. --agr (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are two things here: the method and the tapes. Revealing the former (assuming that it exists) allows others to both use it, and to train to defeat it; both good reasons not to reveal it. The tapes could have been destroyed because of reasons other than concealing the method; concealing the identity of both CIA and prisoners comes to mind. htom (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, concealing the identity of both CIA and prisoners comes to mind. Major spincity comes to mind. In all these decades and all the videos, audiorecordings, photographs, dossiers, et cetera, the CIA was apparently able to conceal those identities, but tapes that might be hard evidence of a war crime, implicating the WH itself, suddenly endanger the lifes of CIA agents. Smells fishy to me.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kinda irrelevant to this page though. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterboarding 101.01 

message: : The U.S. State Department has recognized that other techniques that involve submersion of the head of the subject during interrogation would qualify as torture. *U.S. Department of State. 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, 
I'm a bit concerned about that analysis... This effectively accuses the U.S. government of applying double standards. Now, if anyone out there is arguing this case against the U.S. government, then perhaps that person should be used as a source. Otherwise, connecting what the State Department has said about Tunisia to this current debate, I believe, constitutes a novel claim. (Much like the example in WP:SYN.)  For what it is worth, I agree with the analysis, and I believe the US is applying double standards. However, I also believe that finding such contradictions should be left to political analysts outside Wikipedia. A sentence like this is obviously not just adding facts, it is effectively making a moral judgment, and that's what makes me nervous, because this particular judgment is clearly not in the cited source. --Vesal (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're looking for Physicians for Human Rights' report, "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", Sec. 2:63--. That source mentions U.S. criticism of Tunisia for using water torture; the U.S. has also criticized Sri Lanka. (And for all you nit-pickers out there, please read the source and notice that it's part of a discussion about waterboarding.) --Akhilleus (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This would certainly satisfy my concern. Thanks! --Vesal (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Just to clarify... By "would satisfy" I mean, please use this source instead / in addition to the primary source, as soon as this article is unprotected. --Vesal (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As I just said: "please read the source and notice that it's part of a discussion about waterboarding." Perhaps you're confused about the application of WP:SYN--it says that Wikipedia editors may not engage in original synthesis. On the other hand, we expect secondary sources to do so, and we happily use them as sources when they do. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then, show me a reliable source claiming that the State Department has defined the CIA waterboarding technique as torture. Not "waterboarding" but "the CIA waterboarding technique." I look forward to your response. Conflation will be the best you've got, Akhilleus. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the linked source, I think you'll find that it argues that the specific method of waterboarding used by the CIA is torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've already read the relevant pages (17-18) of the linked source and, as I said, conflation is the best you've got. Speculation and weasel wording is so unbecoming for such an august organization as the Physicians for Human Rights. Without being in the room during an interrogation, or giving the subject a physical exam afterward, they can't be sure that hypoxia or near-asphyxiation has occurred. Without extensive interviews with the subject at several extended intervals after the interrogation, they cannot maintain that lasting psychological harm has occurred. So they speculate. They say that it "can and probably will" happen. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that you didn't read page 19, which states in part: 'U.S. personnel who authorize or engage in waterboarding will almost certainly commit the criminal act of torture under the WCA and the Torture Act and /or the crime of “cruel or inhuman treatment” under the WCA. Waterboarding unquestionably — and by design — results in both “severe” and “serious” physical pain and suffering.' Any "weasel words" that you've detected are present because the courts haven't examined whether recent instances of waterboarding violate the WCA, Torture Act, McCain Amendment, etc. So the report, quite responsibly, says that the courts would probably rule that waterboarding is illegal. But make no mistake, this report says that waterboarding is torture. For you to represent it otherwise is to misrepresent its argument, and arguably to engage in a species of uncooperative editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. State Department has recognized ... 

message: The technique of waterboarding is non-lethal.  
Spanish Inquisition
A form of torture similar to waterboarding called toca, along with garrucha (or strappado) and the most frequently used potro (or the rack), was used (though infrequently) during the trial portion of the Spanish Inquisition process. "The toca, also called tortura del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had the impression of drowning."[23] One source has claimed that the use of water as a form of torture also had profound religious significance to the Inquisitors
These techniques were meant as capital punishment and are entirely different  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 11:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise the quote you just cited says nothing about capital punishment, right? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realize that waterboarding bares no resemblance to being put on the rack don't you?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs) 08:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see how the rack is relevant to your unsourced claim that the Tormento di Toca (aka "waterboarding") was meant as capital punishment, but I'll humour you with... "You do realise that waterboarding was historically considered a fate worse than racking, don't you?" (Source: "A History of Torture" (Scott 1940); waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual.") Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Inquisition? 

message: FYI. Please weigh in on this matter on ANI, at this thread, rather than here if possible. Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this "project" has been quite disruptive. I've half a mind to protect the article right now to prevent further disruption. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. Give us all a week to think about what's going on here. htom (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Unconditional support, and when you protect it please do it indef this time. I almost wish we could semi the talk as well for just as long, and the RFC, but that wouldn't be fair. Lawrence Cohen 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Lock down the page and semi the talks.  Re-evaluate in about a week.  R. Baley (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Please do not lock yet. No one has messed with the page yet.  Please wait until there is some edit warring.  We need to make this article better and if we lock it again, we will have to wait for another long period until we figure something out.  Remember (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This discussion has become a circus. It's tiring enough dealing with the single-purpose accounts created explicitly to argue on this topic, without having to deal with organized groups of editors also joining in as part of a social experiment. -- The Anome (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ned Scott, always making new friends. Anyway, I'm not sure to what extent resolving a dispute amounted to engineering one, but irrespectively, being straight-forward about this project would have gone a long way towards fostering good faith, from the outset. Thx. El_C 02:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: So done. henrik•talk 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard student group discussion 

message: So far there has not been an effective, cited fact and policy based rebuttal of the there is a dispute position.  I suspect you intended the above comments to be a rebuttal.  But they are not.  Indeed, they support the view that there is a dispute. Admittedly they only expose one side of the dispute, but that is to be expected from someone with a bias to that side of it. 
Let's look at the supposed rebuttals in detail.
Item 1, does not say there is no dispute. It says that there is a dispute.  It miscounts the numbers on each side, but that is neither here nor there.  That is hardly a rebuttal.
Item 2, is a red herring, presenting the idea that the dispute is by some sort of lone wolf insignificant group.  It is not.  The dispute has been shown to be supported by 29% of Americans and by recognized, notable and prominent, named individuals.  Simple blind assertion that 29% of Americans (about 65 million adults) is a "lone wolf" does not pass reasonable scrutiny.  When combined with the fact that notable individuals also share that view vocally, it just evaporates.  This is not a rebuttal, it is a denial. Not the same thing.
But.. There is an alternative possible view of Item 2.  It is that the rebuttal in effect is: "Wikipedia policy should not apply".  That would indeed be a rebuttal of sorts but one well that in effect demands a suspension of wikipedia policy.  However, wikipedia policy per WP:CON does apply here.
Item 3, admits that there is a dispute and does not go any further than to simply stipulate. So this is hardly a rebuttal.
Item 4. (assuming it is different from Item 2) admits there is a dispute but insults the minority side of the dispute, thereby declaring it be invalid in the dispute and thus ignorable by wikipedia.  This is Original Research.  It is not a rebuttal.
Item 5. is not a rebuttal. It is some sort of random remark unrelated to the issue of whether there is a dispute.  However, interestingly enough, this Item says we cannot evaluate sources even though the argument in Item 4 is a form of evaluating sources. Self contradictory but not a rebuttal.
Item 6.  is also not really a rebuttal but rather ignoring the fact that some of the people who say waterboarding is not torture have said that it might be depending upon how it is done and who does it.  But Item 6 pretends those cites do not exist and claims that they must still be produced. That is not a rebuttal.  Unless simple, baseless denial is "rebuttal".
Note also that in the extended answers regarding the issue, there is an appeal to the error of WP:SYN.
As I have said, there has never been a cited, policy based rebuttal of this issue.  This continues to be true. 
Furthermore, there are valid legitimate sources that explicitly say the issue is debated.  This can be cited. 
And, a number of recent, objective editors have found that this issue is valid and should be addressed differently than the lead does now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 18:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Well, if there is a really good source that details the fact that 29% of Americans believe this, then I guess that could be mentioned somewhere in the article, not in the lead of course. In general, of course, I agree: the "fifteen billion flies can't be wrong" argument has never been especially persuasive to me. Guy (Help!) 19:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So that we are communicating clearly, let me ask you to express your view of exactly what the proposal is that "doesn't need a rebuttal".  I suspect you have responded to a different proposal than the one I offer. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * Yes - in case I wasn't clear, I was not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, merely given little weight. BLACKKITE 19:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a link to a 2005 ABC News/Washington Post poll that says 35% of Americans say torture is acceptable in some cases.  That raises the question of whether the debate in the U.S. is really about waterboarding being torture or just a willingness to use waterboarding, torture or not. The only reason the question of waterboarding being torture comes up is because US law makes torture illegal. John Yoo states plainly that he is taking a narrow view of the definition of torture  based on his belief that Congress intended a limited view of what would be a crime under the anti-torture statute. His goal is to get past the law, not render an opinion of what torture means in the ordinary sense. The later is what should guide Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: We stand without a rebuttal to date

message: ATTENTION ALL ADMINISTRATORS
Please see this edit:  and block  immediately for violating your new 1RR rule. Also, please revert his disruptive edit. (In the alternative, please don't block me if I do it myself after you haven't reverted it in the next couple of hours.) Otherwise, you will be endorsing violation of all the new rules and a lot more people will be violating them. Also they're talking about banning me from the article for three months over at WP:ANI, so I think a three-month article ban for Black Kite is appropriate. He has a disruptive editing pattern in the article mainspace and he deserves it. Thank you. Neutral Good (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand 1RR.  Users are allowed to edit the article, they just cannot make the same edit twice, in whole or in part, in a 24-hour period.  Try again some other time.  Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this new rule, Nick? "Making controversial/no consensus/POV edits is definitely a blockable offense under these constraints " We just discussed consensus for this and Henrik shut it down before half of the "waterboarding may not be torture" editors had a chance to express our opposition. There is no consensus for that edit, therefore Black Kite needs to be blocked. Neutral Good (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Guys, it is really unseemly and I think it violates WP:AGF to be running around saying "off with her head".  Be more kind hearted and consider that there are real people on the other side of the screen -- people who if you met you might even like.  Heck you might even be sexually attracted to them! :-) (Now we know why there are so many divorces!). --Blue Tie (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Violation of new rules on [[Waterboarding]] 

message: # Remember (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: people who are currently supporting a split

message: #Oppose - Waterboarding is sufficient for now, to cover these aspects. Badagnani (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: people who are currently opposing split

message: Per WP:WEIGHT, I have reduced some sections - Jim Meyer and a newspaper op-ed piece are not authorities or reliable sources in this context, and have been removed.  I have also attempted to steer a neutral course in the previous edit-war over section headings and the "individuals" vs "authorities" reversion.  Also fixed some typos and a dead link on the Glenn Beck show. BLACKKITE 23:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a somewhat recent observer, could I ask whose opinions -are- relevant.  I doubt there are all that many 'torture experts' wandering around. Arkon (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Probably not, and certainly not the views of an American pundit. I've asked the reverting editor to explain his reversion here. BLACKKITE 23:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons I ask, is that if I know what is acceptable to you, it will be easier to provide it, and reduce needless things such as this.  Arkon (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is that the "controversy", such as it is, in the USA, is being given far too much prominence in the article.  Given that, the article needs precise, focused cites from authorities - it certainly doesn't need the bloat of random comments from US media pundits. BLACKKITE 00:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My question is who you do consider to be authorities. Arkon (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  A historian with experise in relevant periods of history would no doubt be considered an authroity. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks a bunch.  The first group is sorta who I was referring to when I mentioned the 'torture experts' above.  In practice I think that leaves us mainly with the legal types. Arkon (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that it is legal types that are 'torture experts', there is much medical opinion on what is torture and how torture can be quantified. Legal experts can only usually talk about a definition of torture in one country (UNCAT and EU experts excepting). (Hypnosadist) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whilst that may be true, i think they are still relevant as legal experts not medical experts are the people who define a war crime. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes only lawyers can say its a warcrime but only doctors can discribe medically the effects (long and short term) on the human body, and provide the scientific basis for any legal discussion. (Hypnosadist) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree on the assessment of who an authority is.  This is not a science topic. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it is. Considering wikipedia is about knowledge it all is. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bald assertions of nonsense are unhelpful.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial changes 

message: Let's have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, k? This whole kerfluffle could be headed to ArbCom if things keep up. I've made a suggestion on ANI about getting a bunch of NEUTRAL administrators to try to ride herd as a short term solution to avoid taking it to ArbCom where things could get really bad for all concerned. Let's cut out any edit warring and incivility here, k?
*Agree.  Or I would like to.  But the article is protected so there is no chance of edit warring.  I regret that McBride imposed rules with zero enforcement (well one should not have been enforced, but I have seen the others before and they work). However, what I really want to do here is thank you for the nice relaxing words. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok... 

message: This isn't working. I think handing out a bunch of blocks (a minimum of three, by my count) would only inflame things further, so I've returned the article to full protection. It's clear the article needs a good long period of full protection so all the parties can discuss things and try to reach consensus. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So now Black Kite's controversial, POV, unsupported-by-consensus edit  is going to be cast in concrete? And are you going to block him for it? Neutral Good (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax a little. Its not really all that bad!  Go out, get a nice milkshake.  Be happy!--Blue Tie (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue Tie speaks wisely. Get away from this for a while and grab a milkshake (or something stronger), play some music, or whatever pleases you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  He seems to have acted in good faith. --neonwhite  user page talk 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kim, the only reason a block wasn't handed out to Black Kite was because he's part of the "waterboarding is torture" crowd. If it had been me or "Regards Bob," the block would have been lightning-fast and it would have lasted for weeks or months. The bias of some of the admins hovering here is obvious. Now I realize that remark isn't going to make me any powerful friends. I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to build a better encyclopedia. That starts by making the first six words of this article NPOV. If that defines me as an SPA, that's only a reflection of the POV-pushing of others. Neutral Good (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I had never thought of this.  I cannot see any flaw in your logic. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps with patience the situation will resolve.  Can we perhaps discuss some less controversial edits in order to demonstrate cooperation and build trust, then attempt to address the more serious areas of disagreement?  Jehochman  Talk 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again 

message: I'm not sure that this is helpful.  I have come to this article as an uninvolved admin in an attempt to help solve the multiple problems that exist.  It is immediately obvious that the main problem with the article is an attempt at POV-pushing and the addition of items of undue weight by a small group of editors.  While there are a small number of good-faith editors holding this viewpoint, we also have confirmed sockpuppeteers (i.e. User:Shibumi2), tendentious single purpose accounts (i.e. User:Neutral Good), and various IP editors some of which are SPAs, and some which upon investigation, lead towards banned users.  Worse, the actions of this group are actively driving off good-faith editors (of varying viewpoints) from the article. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.  The edits that I made made last night were either copyediting, creating more neutral phrasing, or removing utterly irrelevant POV material from the article, and are completely in line with policy (as pointed out above, and by other admins on the AN/I thread).  Yet these were reverted straight away.  But instead of continually protecting the article, perhaps other admins might look a bit deeper into the root causes of the problem?  Either that or let's just go to ArbCom; a number of new Arbs have experience of problematic articles of this type.   Certainly we cannot proceed forever in this manner; the article cannot be fixed whilst being repeatedly locked. BLACKKITE 07:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for the dispute on this page. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to post a statement here, I'll copy it over for you. Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my Talk page, Mr. Cohen. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding]] 

message: Guilty until proven innocent. The Request for Arbitration page is protected so I can't even attempt to prove myself innocent. Randy could see this one coming and I am following him out the door. Your Wikiweaseling is destroying this encyclopedia. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to post a statement here, I'll copy it over for you. Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See my Talk page, Mr. Cohen. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm done here

message: I don't know who is allowed to edit this page, but "manifested by tachycardia, rapid heart beat and gasping for breath" should be fixed, as tachycardia is rapid heart beat.  Perhaps just change it to "tachycardia (rapid heart beat) and gasping for breath". G'day. Raven Morris (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one has any objections within the next day, I'll rephrase that according to your suggestion. henrik•talk 13:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree; I'd use tachycardia (rapid heart beat) or just tachycardia but both are quibbles. htom (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is obviously not part of the dispute, so I changed it to "tachycardia (rapid heart beat)".   Jehochman  Talk 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been almost two hours. I'm going to take a breath now, and urge others to. htom (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor update 

message: Declined. The renaming of that section title and the change isn't so gross that it amounts to an NPOV violation so severe it must be immediately changed. The protection policy is quite clear, there is no clear consensus and no clear breach of content policies. henrik•talk 20:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The section text is largely about the dispute rather than about it's classification. What is your reasoning here? Section titles should reflect the text within the section. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * The US court system only gets to make this distinction in legal terms, which has no bearing on us, as we're not a legal guide. The US government is only the supreme arbiter of itself, and not much else. Lawrence Cohen 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *But the proposed title - "Classification as torture in the United States" - implies an official classification. No such classification exists, and it is, in fact, disputed. "Disputed" is not the same as "widely disputed" (which I agree would be POV and weaselly in this context); it's simply stating the fact that some commentators don't classify it as torture. WaltonOne 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the record, I too would have opposed this edit. Furthermore, such a "vote" appears to have lasted only 15 minutes. Not a good sample size. — BQZip01 — talk 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request - NPOV violation 

message: * Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *Oppose. "Disputed" isn't a strong claim; it means simply that someone has disagreed with it. Since no US legal authority (e.g. the Supreme Court) has yet issued a definitive ruling as to whether waterboarding is classified as torture under US law, we should accept that its classification as torture in the US is disputed. Plus, the point of that particular section is to describe the conflict and controversy. WaltonOne 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * The US court system only gets to make this distinction in legal terms, which has no bearing on us, as we're not a legal guide. The US government is only the supreme arbiter of itself, and not much else. Lawrence Cohen 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *But the proposed title - "Classification as torture in the United States" - implies an official classification. No such classification exists, and it is, in fact, disputed. "Disputed" is not the same as "widely disputed" (which I agree would be POV and weaselly in this context); it's simply stating the fact that some commentators don't classify it as torture. WaltonOne 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: For the record, I too would have opposed this edit. Furthermore, such a "vote" appears to have lasted only 15 minutes. Not a good sample size. — BQZip01 — talk 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: It may be worth trying to figure out the first use of the term waterboarding. I have set up this section to help document all possible candidates.  Please cite each candidate.  (Someone may want to check OED because they might have already figured this out). Remember (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use 

message: FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding has now opened. Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding]] 

message: Maybe if we overtly recognize the ambiguity in this process in the writing, it would make things easier.  Like "Waterboarding is a term that, depending upon the source, refers to a variety of practices involving water being poured on the face or into the nose or mouth.".  I don't really like that answer but maybe it fixes a great many problems.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the historical examples described as waterboarding are very unlike what the CIA is accused of engaging in.  It seems to me that this can easily lead to someone not familiar with the issue to think that the CIA is/was doing these things.  I'd like to see a section devoted specifically to what the CIA is accused of.  Frotz (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody knows what the CIA is doing. It has been described as waterboarding, that's all. --neonwhite  user page talk 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The descriptions I've heard all describe being tied face up and being tilted into water.  None of them involve forcing the subject to ingest large amounts of water or covering the breathing passages.  Most of the listed historical uses include it.  Frotz (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The descriptions you've read are of waterboarding in general. Nobody knows what technique the CIA actually uses. You are also wrong about "Most of the listed historical uses include it". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, then is it meaningful to say that the CIA uses waterboarding in the first place?  Perhaps then the correct line is "The CIA has been accused of waterboarding, but no substantive proof of exactly what it entails or if it is being done at all."?  Let's keep in mind that the Al Qaeda operatives, including those upon whom waterboarding has supposedly been used, are quite willing to tell whatever tall tales are necessary to enrage Islamists and are sloppy when covering up for these tales. Frotz (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, p.45: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." Also see "The Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women and children, and millions of others, by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question." 
 
Notice how that formulation doesn't mention "murder", "war crimes", "evil", "genocide" or any other judgmental words. Jehochman  Talk 20:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: * We could simply use "practice" and then describe it per the sources.  Show, don't tell.  I assure you,  an NPOV, sourced statement that explains all the details of the treatment will make the word "torture" seem mild by comparison.  "Broken bones", "asphixiation", "can't last more than 14 seconds" and things like that get the point across very well, and they cannot be attacked because we have sources to back them up, verbatim.  We don't have any reliable sources saying, "waterboarding is fun!" or "waterboarding isn't so bad".  Jehochman  Talk 21:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognize the amiguity?