Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 1

message: Here's a link to a story demonstrating water boarding: Video of a volunteer being waterboarded
Msandersen 06:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video link 

message: In WWII, the Japanese who were convicted were not just convicted for waterboarding, but serious beatings. In comparison, some Japanese soldiers who didn't waterboard, were sentenced much harsher penalties.
<a href="http://disturbinglyyellow.org/2006/10/05/i-was-duped-by-kennedy/">http://disturbinglyyellow.org/2006/10/05/i-was-duped-by-kennedy/</a>
Further, it was on American civilians, not combatants. Shouldn't we reflect this?
The Congressional Record (9/28/06) comments included many forms of torture for which Japanese soldiers were prosecuted. Whether this was on POW's or civilians did not seem to create any distinction. 
I am convinced to remove the final sentence of this excerpt as a subjectively political comment by Edward Kennedy which is intentionally misleading. Since Asano is mentioned outside this quote, the reader should be sufficiently informed that the water boarding was "among" the types of torture used (burning with cigarettes and severe beatings were others). Water boarding should not be singled out without support.  Dfoofnik 00:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sen. Kennedy's Claim referenced here from the Washington Post is wrong

message: I removed the following, since it is not sourced, and rather extrodinary to believe:
In some cases the stomach of the victim would be hit with an object or the interrogator's fist causing the stomach to explode or severe damage to the stomach. In most cases, the urethra of the victim would be closed off and massive amounts of water forced down their throat into their stomach. During the inquisition, one case records a man actually "exploding" causing his belly to be ripped open and him to die in a matter of seconds. Please source the info, using ref tags
Travb (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section deleted

message: I question the title of this article. The "Modern waterboaring" section describes waterboarding. The two prededing sections deal with other, earlier forms of water torture, but they are not waterboaring: they don't use a board. Also, many of the linked terms relating to water torture techniques and devices are largely duplicative of one another, in whole or in part. Some of the links are to redirect pages. Does anyone want to try to clean up this area? Finell (Talk) 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the "Medieval waterboarding" technique, as described, does indeed involve using a board.  I don't see a little duplication in the content at the destinations of some links or the inclusion of some redirects as a major problem.  However, the article could probably use some improvement. –Wookipedian 06:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Several of the references in the Waterboarding in Popular Culture section also allude to non-waterboarding water-torture techniques.  The Pirates of the Caribbean and A Clockwork Orange references are the only two I know of personally, but the others should be reviewed by folks with first-hand knowledge.  I'm not going to delete them at this point as I expect this article will probably split into a general 'Water Torture' article and a Waterboarding article with actual references to waterboarding. 68.169.200.61 17:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title for article? 

message: An anon added this, I added a fact tag, then another user removed it:
:Khalid Sheik Mohammed revealed imminent terrorist attacks on the U.S. after the CIA obtained valuable information from using the water boarding technique. Those attacks were then thwarted by U.S. authorities. 
Please add source to add back to article. Travb (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed text

message: In regards to this deletion:  
As per discussion with anon:
Anon wrote: 
I do not understand.  The material I am deleting is not relevant.  It says nothing.  Why am I not allowed to delete it?  I thought this was a community effort, you seem to imply that your view of this topic is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.120.186.133 (talk • contribs) 
 I agreed with anon that it is not relevant, and deleted the info.
Actually, looking over the quote a second time, it is relevant, Matt Lauer specifically asked Bush about waterboarding, and Bush refused to answer.  I added the comment back....Travb (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree.  Bush's refusal to answer does not validate Lauer's comment.  Bush explained his reason for not answering the question, but the author fails to include it.  Adding this section demonstrates bias on the part of the author and adds no additional knowledge about waterboarding. Mossy64 03:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bush speech removed

message: This cite was moved down to the Legality section, but it was also the source for the 1968 use in Vietnam, so I moved it up there and used the name= function to include it in the Legality section. Otherwise the 1968 use was attributed to sources which do not support it to my knowledge. The hazards or reorganizing where text is in an article: later editors may find unsupported claims whose support got moved.Edison 20:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pincus in Wash Post=

message: The paragraph from the Congressional Record by Senator Kennedy does relevantly apply to "Waterboarding",  its application, and its listing as an offense subject to prosecution. However, the final sentence did not meet objective review and was intentionally misleading. That waterboarding was considered torture is undeniable, but to attribute a prison sentence to THAT act, exclusive of the (soldier's?) other severe criminal inflictions of harm, is purely subjective and justifies the editing of that quote. Had a Japanese torturer used ONLY waterboarding, we might have had an indication of how serious the court regarded it, in comparison to other criminal acts.
(also appended to "Senator Kenney", -5- above)Dfoofnik 01:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, it was Ted Kennedy 

message: I removed the text added by 69.247.105.32, "In October of 2006, Vice President Dick Cheney confirmed in a radio interview that U.S. interrogators subjected captured suspects to the controversial interrogation technique.[2]" Despite the conclusions of the reference given (^ "Cheney confirms that detainees were subjected to water-boarding" by Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy Newspapers, October 25, 2006, http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/columnists/jonathan_s_landay/15847918.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_jonathan_s_landay), from the official transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061024-7.html), no absolute admission of use of the technique was given. If we are to include such a definitive statement, we must have better sources than a reporter's (possibly mistaken) interpretation of the interview. -- 128.104.112.58 14:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the discussion in a separate section quoting what Cheney actually said, along with a report of the WH denial that he had confirmed its use. Readers can form their own conclusion. --agr 20:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney Interview October 2006 

message: I added this into the US section of Talk, however it looks like it is shaping up to be a good COPYRIGHTED research history of waterboarding as it applies to the US. Google is your friend, this can be used to give us leads to check sources and further remove the hearsay from the article, vital in such a politicized issue.
Drop by Drop: Forgetting the history of water torture in U.S. courts, still draft. Rcnet 01:22, 04 Nov 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research and sources to reduce hearsay 

message: I just reverted some vandalism here - by 214.13.114.254 , I find it funny that he/she said "We can fight them in ther back yard or fiht them at home.", but the kicker is their IP trace: 214.13.114.254 = Department of Defense Network Information Center 
I rest my case.
Putting in for an check on whether this poster corresponds to a contributing user ID Rcnet 08:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems I also accidentally zapped the NPOV tag when pulling the rant out, sorry Nathan - though I strongly disagree with this tag, by definition I can't remove it, others will have to. Rcnet 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You reverted a well-reasoned comment on a talk page. WTF? Maybe you don't agree with him, but enforcing NPOV on talk pages is news to me. The worst he did was misspell lots of words and forget to sign. Unless he also did other stuff to the article (which you failed to mention), banning him was surely an abuse of admin privs. AlbertCahalan 07:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Department of Defense User 

message: This has been nagging me for a while... Has anyone addressed this? Is the correct english langauge phrase a construction "Water boarding"? and if so - we should shift this article to it's correct usage, aliasing the common - but probally WRONG usage "waterboarding". My background is Experiemntal Physics, I have no business with this question - literates please weigh in! Rcnet 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Waterboarding a word? 

message: I have removed the [Fox link], here's my reasoning: The Fox link is portraying DUNKING, not waterboarding. Given Fox's impartiality issues I can only surmise the purpose of this video is to mislead people as to what constitutes waterboarding so as to further sanitize it for domestic consumption. Dunking is not waterboarding, we've already had that discussion with the witches - it would not inflict the same psychological damage and physical pain. Being dunked will lead to the build up of CO2 and some level of panic, and minor chest pains. Being waterboarded is a very different thing - As the body knows there is air there, it will breathe, thus causing inhalation to the lungs of small quantities of water - leading the body to believe and feel that it is drowning. This will not occur in dunking, or if it does - the quantites involved would cause death. Waterboarding is not "dunking" and should not be portrayed as such.
If waterboarding was dunking, as illustrated in this Fox video, it would not be torture, or at least it would be far too grey an area to make such a definition here on Wikipedia.
A major issue with waterboarding is psychological - the victim believes death is near - AND FEELS IT, this is a mock execution. On this basis alone as the volunteer knew this was not the case, yet afterwards did not describe the difference, I would consider this to be biased political spin a-la Mr. Snow, and not suitable here. Misleading.
There's also the fact that we were linking pirated content on the article itself. Rcnet 10:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was shown in the video pretty much matches how waterboarding has been described in the press, particularly the third iteration.Where did you get the notion that the victim is supposed to aspirate some water? Everything I've seen is to the contrary. Also I think it is all the more notable given that it is from Fox since the reporter-subject clearly states that it is torture. Finally, as to whether the content is pirated, that is between Fox and Google. Fox can have the clip taken down if they are concerned. I would like the link restored. --agr 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've restored it until this can be better analyzed by others. I'll do some more digging myself later, but initially I'd point to the image being used at the top - Cambodia, which IMHO is an accurate portrayal of the technique and to the first external link which is a portrayal of the same method, this would cause water aspirate as breath holding would be very unnatural in such a non-submerged scenario. Fox's torture comment is pertinent yes, but the method shown contradicts everything I've ever heard about waterboarding - it looks like plain dunking. That's IMHO, I'll try to back it up later when I have time. Rcnet 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted the Fox YouTube link 

message: This is tagged as a controversial subject matter - as such we have requested "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.", unfortunately, there are those who have been unwilling to do the work and cite sources etc., and instead have resorted to anonymous slow moving edit wars - with fundamental content revisions lacking any sources, references or citations. As such this article should be placed into protected status until we can sort this out.
I would recommend Semi-Protected status (no anons or <4 day users), as we have also had numerous instances of vandalism (long-dong 67,000 dead, DOD IP ranting etc). I had hoped that this would die down following the US elections, however it has not.
:In some cases Anons are revising with no sources. This is not grounds for protection by itself of course.
:Anons then will get frustrated and instead revert, or vandalise this article. This is cause for Semi-Protection.
* During protection, we should work to make this article better, and well referenced/cited.
* We should also internationalise it as discussed above, there are MANY nations practising these techniques, we should add - which will reduce the non-existent, but perceived Anti-American bias in this article, which is causing high emotions leading to vandalism and edit wars.
* On completion we should then remove protection
Rcnet 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for improving the article, but I'm not sure we nee any special protections at the moment. Things have quieted down a lot since the U.S. elections. I'd rather save that measure for when we really need it.--agr 16:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection request 

message: I have reverted the POV Check tag inserted by anonymous user 68.57.162.192. The reason is that this tag said Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page., yet the author, anonymous user 68.57.162.192 did not actually make any contribution, or argument on this article. Drive by edit. Talk says this is controversial, of that there is no doubt, there are a lot of important people who would like to practice some revisionism with this definition. The Talk tag says cite sources, and discuss. If this is not done it will become a pointless edit war waged on personal political views - this is not what Wikipedia is meant to be about. Everyone should get involved and try and trash out a solution in Talk, and achieve a consensus edit. Rcnet 02:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RV POV Check 

message: In 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. Rcnet 02:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new source | 100 U.S. law professors defining as torture 

message: I am reverting series of edits by user:67.14.215.240 that insert the term "unproven" in several places and also delete well sourced information. Existing language makes clear these are reports, not proof. Sourced material should not be deleted without discussion here. --agr 23:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "unproven" edits

message: These 3 articles are very related but they are not properly connected to each other: water cure - water torture - Waterboarding. There is need to either merge them or interconnect them.Farmanesh 21:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  water cure - water torture - Waterboarding  

message: This article, especially the lead, is way too suggestive of waterboarding being a form of torture. I've tried to establish a more neutral term of "enhanced interrogation technique" but it was reverted. I agree with the editor who reverted my edit because that edit, which neutralized the begininning of the article, was inconsistant with the rest. In short, the whole article should probably be looked at again with the hopes of making it more neutral. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree with the phrase "enhanced interrogation technique;" it's meaningless doublespeak. --Eyrian 21:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well to play devil's advocate, torture is not appropriate either. So there's the problem. Enhanced interrogation technique is the word used by the United States for this practice, so why not use it. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because other people (such as the referenced law professors) use another term. --Eyrian 22:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a better reason that that. The U.S. Government has never acknowledged that is uses waterboarding or that it calls it "enhanced interrogation technique." It has prosecuted others for using the technique as war criminals. And it has banned U.S. military personal from using waterboarding. If it's merely an "enhanced interrogation technique," why would the U.S. deprive its soldiers in harms way from using it? And waterboarding clearly meets the definition of torture under U.S. law. Absent some notable source that says waterboarding isn't torture on the record, there is no reason to use weasel words in the article.--agr 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But there also isn't reason to make a political statement through using "torture" rather than a more politically neutral word choice. I'm putting  on the main page until this can be worked out. └Jared┘┌t┐  15:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was worked out long ago, read up the page. 71.204.133.75 04:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not a political statement, that would have no place in the article. It is simply a factual and cited definition, and one with the most widespread acceptablity to English langauge speakers. Now, the definition does have political consequences, but that does not make it a political statement. If some government somewhere wanted to rename say rape to "enhanced sexual suggestion" to make it less legally dangerous for the perpetrators, would that be ok? The phrase "enhanced interrogation technique" is nothing more than an spin to reduce the risks of future prosecution for war crimes, and an ICC warrant. If you feel torture is not the appropriate definition, please find an acceptable source that says so, and preferably not a perpetrator saying so; else leave it alone. Wiki is not meant to be politically correct, it is meant to be accurate and sourced. 71.204.133.75 04:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  You have arrived very late to this issue Jared, and use of administration spin, such as the more politically palatable non-phrase "enhanced interrogation technique" is not suitable, it is nonsensical phrase created by people who would wish the truth, and the popularly accepted definition were otherwise, so as to reduce the prospects of a retirement in the Hague. Revisionism. This is well cited, well explained, and was settled long before you discovered this article. 71.204.133.75 04:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, the talk about the problems may have died down, but the issues in this article have certainly not been taken care of. (On a side note, I had always heard that Wikipedia was a very liberal encyclopedia but I had never noticed this in any articles until I saw this one.) So, I don't think that anything that I do here would be of any help, so I'll leave it up to you to hash out and if I ever stumble upon a more appropriate definition, then I will be glad to provide it in the body of the article. └Jared┘┌t┐  00:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia is not about one country's political slants of Liberal or Conservative, its about fact - regardless of which side's arguments it supports. In this case I can see how this could be uncomfortable in certain quarters, but the recent revisionism "professional technique", or "enhanced interrogation technique" is pure spin, and meaningless anyway, given that the United States has prosecuted people for torture as a result of water boarding, and has criticised other countries for using waterboarding , describing it as a torture. Sorry but Do as I say, not as I do from the US regime isn't going be able to revise and delete long precedent on this definition. It is very clear, and well cited that the United States has long legally considered waterboarding a form of torture, and the vast majority in the civilized world also holds to this understanding, so I see no reason to offer a special accommodation to one political view point, in just one country, which would rather this subject went away - that would be a very slippery slope for an encyclopaedia to go down. 71.204.133.75 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Just as a linguistic sidenote: The "meaningless doublespeak" term "enhanced interrogation technique" is a free translation of the German phrase "verschärfte Vernehmung"--a euphemism for "torture" used by the Gestapo.  Details here: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html PeterLinn 23:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could find one hundred U.S. attorneys who believe that abortion is murder. Using it as a citiation to state it as fact, however, would be ludicrous. Instead, let's focus more on stating the actual facts which is that it is an interrogation technique that many people believe to be torture. Becuase only then will the 100 attorneys be a proper citation. User:Bellowed||3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |)]] 20:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think it more to the converse - A method of torture method that some consider to be an interrogation technique.71.204.133.75 03:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And you could find a hundred people to tell you that the dragons exist and astrology can tell your future. It's a wide world, filled with the misinformed and gullible. Misrepresenting a minority view is against Wikipedia's policies. --Eyrian 21:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Misrepresenting a minority view is against Wikipedia's policies. Exactly. A minority view, held almost exclusively by supporters of one particular wing, of one particular country is a Minority View. Spin.71.204.133.75 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is not an issue of representing a minority viewpoint; Many prominent people do not believe waterboarding to be torture. Let's keep that in mind. Waterboarding is a controversial topic still; so let's err to the side of caution and not come to conclusions for everyone here.|3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 21:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eyrian, I like your edit for the most part; however, I don't think that the cited source supports the word "typically" whereas I do believe that it does support the words "many believe". |3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 21:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many prominent people believed the world is flat, and currently don't believe in evolution. That doesn't change the massive consensus of independent experts. --Eyrian 21:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference here is that no prominent people today believe the world is flat. Today, however, it is hotly debated among prominent people today as to whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture. So stating, unequivocally, that waterboarding is torture is the wrong thing to do. It taints the rest of the article and makes it un-neutral. I will say that I think part of the problem is that the word torture is a very broad term. Waterboarding is a psychological form of torture that, by design, does not cause physical harm. Yet it is lumped into the same category with thumb-screwing and crucifixion. This is the real reason that people debate it's status. Anyways, I think we need to come up with a better phrase than "typically considered" because a letter w/ 100 signatures does not warrant the status of "typically considered." Any ideas?|3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, the definition of torture under U.S. law includes both physical and psychological pain: "'torture' means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering..." So there is nothing inappropriate in lumping waterboarding with thumb-screwing and crucifixion. Second, just who are these "prominent people" who argue on the record that waterboarding isn't torture? Provide some reliable sources that quote these prominent people (not bloggers, talk show hosts and the like) and we certainly should include their viewpoint in the article. --agr 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Today, however, it is hotly debated among prominent people today as to whether or not waterboarding is a form of torture.. Hotly debated by just who exactly? If this is so, why are they not being cited, as that could change the consensus already achieved as to what it is. See the top of TALK's tag, needs citation. There is no shortage of people who think it is justified (generally only Amercians though), but I have yet to hear of one prominent person who does not consider it torture. Plenty of editors have initially thought in the past that the treatment and definition was inaccurate - both views then went looking for references and backup so as not to engage in Original Research. No one found ONE CASE of anyone of any prominence stating that waterboarding was not torture - in actuality, in the case of the United States, the entire matter is denied.71.204.133.75 03:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Cheney and Giuliani are just two prominent individuals who don't believe that it is torture. Now, Giuliani of course believes that it should only be used in very unique cases, but nonetheless doesn't believe that it is torture. Let me remind everyone also that the letter signed by 100 attorneys does not constitute stating, unequivocally, that waterboarding is torture. |3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the fact that if it is torture Cheney is in deep trouble under the command responsibility, for promoting, defending and justifying war crimes, make his view on the matter not suspicious?Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 05:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Put that aside. Where is a citable source that says Cheney and Giuliani believe waterboarding isn't torture? Cheney's remarks during the radio interview are cover in detail in the article. But the White House denies he was talking about waterboarding. Giuliani's answer during the South Carolina debates could be interpreted as meaning he does not believe waterboarding is torture, but they could also mean he opposes torture in general, but in the extreme circumstance posed by the moderator, a terrorist who knows where an atomic bomb is hidden, it would be ok. To accuse them of denying that waterboarding is torture, we need a clear, citable statement. (And it's not just the 100 law profs. It's John McCain, the only US Senator who has been tortured, the plain language of US law and international treaty, past US prosecution, dictionary definitions, etc., against ambiguous answers, rumor and speculation.)--agr 11:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I think that may be important, later. Should Cheney ever admit its existence, and claim it was not torture - it would be very notable for article inclusion, but it would not be usable as a reference to change the first line casting doubt on its status as a form of torture - as his voiced opinion would be highly suspect given the prospect of a retirement in The Hague.71.204.133.75 18:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Where?, When? Link please. Cheney has made no such claims - he won't even admit to its existence, and Giuliani has not stated it is not torture, though there is a dispute as to whether he may approve of it regardless of its status as a form of torture. 71.204.133.75 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This is called undue weight. Although the Bush administration and its supporters might disagree the rest of the world, including the UN, considers it torture. No need to mention any fringe opinion, even if it is by one would-be President. When the majority of Congress thinks like that we may mention it.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And most conservatives believe it not to be torture either. That's millions of people who dissent. You make it sound like it's the Bush administration on one side, and every other person in the world on the other. This is not a weight issue; it is a very contorversial topic that many, many people disagree on. Look no further than the top of this page at the tag that says, "This is a contorversial topic."|3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 01:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Said tag also says Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles. And it is certainly a case of weight, one regime and (just some of) it's supporters do not consider it torture - this being the same regime that is believed to practice it - It is fair to state that the vast majority of people on this earth consider it torture first and foremost. To even consider it a form of interogation as a secondary is somewhat dubious and in dispute (though still mentionable) given the extremely comprehensive research, not to mention common sense, that people will often say anything to gain relief from torture be it physical or psychological.71.204.133.75 21:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Please desist from vandalizing this article to make it politically palatable to Torturers. Your views, that it is primarily an 'enhanced interrogation technique' hark back to the Nazis (see above). This is a global encyclopaedia. You are pushing a minority POV, held almost exclusively by supporters of one particular wing, of one particular country and offering absolutely no references to back up your continuous attempts to make waterboarding appear to be an acceptable thing. 71.204.133.75 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of a particular wing or a particular country? So obviously you do not believe that it is held by a tiny minority? Therefore your argument of undue weight is invalid since countries or wings do not constitute a tiny minority. And I object to your vandalism accusations. You really need to cool off.|3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 23:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bellowed is ignoring consensus, engaging in sophistry, and engaging in disruptive edits on this page, and a few others.  Admins, please watchlist his account, as it seems we're heading for an RfC. --Eleemosynary 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  A small proportion of the conservative supporters of the US Republican party, is a tiny minority - and its view has since been added today to the article for completeness, but it certainly doesn't add significant weight. The world is a much bigger place than one small clique inside one wing of one party in one country - not to mention that a defence from a practitioner is highly suspect, Should Charles Manson declare that Murder is not homicide, would you have the world take note? It might be worth mention in a comedy section - but little more. In pushing your POV, you have been vandalizing. Deleting the first line, and a large number of reference tags, to replace it with a completely unsourced piece of spin (enhanced interrogation etc) is highly disruptive. Has it occurred to you there is a reason it was removed from the US army field manual - they are hardly going to remove all legal methods available to them in pursuit of protecting US lives... 71.204.133.75 01:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far from clear that conservative supporters of the US Republican party seriously consider waterboarding not to be torture. Rather their real position is that torture is permissible when dealing with terrorists who know of imminent threats. Giuliani's final answer when asked about waterboarding was "I'd say every method they could think of." Do you really think if the moderator had asked about thumbscrews he would have said, "Well, no, not that, that's torture"? He would have been hooted off the stage. --agr 08:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed, a very small minority of this group would consider it torture. I added that line in the article to try and reduce Bellowed  vandalizing the main component, though it could easily be dumped - or clarified. I still haven't heard of one notable person stating it is not torture. 71.204.133.75 04:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And it will be reverted, as you have ignored consensus.  --Eleemosynary 05:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And your revert will be reverted as you and an anonymous editor ignore policy.|3 E |_  |_ 0 VV E |) 16:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And your ongoing vandalism WILL BE REVERTED. CIA, Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, Brownback, O'Reilly say it is NOT torture? - If you could cite that we would be very interested - and more substantial than the Giuliani answer which could go either way.  We have anonymous (and useless) (maybe from CIA) CIA claims. BTW - there is not requirement to register.69.181.32.194 21:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.  It would be nice if Bellowed employed something besides idle threats, untruths, and transparent sophistry.  But I guess that's too much to hope for. : ) --Eleemosynary 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accusations of vandalism, ignoring policy, and sophistry galore. Please have a look at what isn't vandalism. That word gets thrown around a lot.--Chaser - T 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues 

message: Is this necessary?  The first line of the article is "Waterboarding is a form of torture" so I'm not sure how it would be confused.  It seems a bit glib to have at the very top of the page. FilmFemme 20:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see where it could be helpful to someone looking for the sport. It seems harmless enough.--agr 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I took it out. It is glib and trivializes the article. If it is to be there we also need skimboarding, surfboarding, snowboarding, waterskiing, watercolouring, waterproofing etc. This was apparently some bodies idea of a bad joke.Bmedley Sutler 07:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not to be confusd with wakeboarding"