Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

message: *Congressman Tom Tancredo, Congressman Ted Poe, conservative commentator Glenn Beck, and conservative pundit Jim Meyers have all stated unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture. Neutral Good (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you think it's a good idea to start adding general commentators and pundits to the lists? If you do, I'm sure both sides can find many thousands of citations. What do you think the advantages and disadvantages of this are? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point of order:  please list reliable sources, not pundits. Jehochman  Talk 05:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it say that pundits are not reliable sources? Not that I particularly like them as sources but I do not think that the policy says that they are unreliable.--Blue Tie (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Waterboarding is not torture (4)

message: I am not arguing that the article should say that waterboarding is not torture.  I am arguing that the article should not conclude that it is torture. It should say that the sense of its being torture is disputed.
:Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:
::1.   BBC] outlined, basically the same arguments that have been used on the talk page and ended its news story with the title: :"Debate goes on".  It asserts that the debate is not over.  I allege that debate and dispute are co-equivalent terms for our purposes here and so we have a reliable source that describes the dispute -- specifically with the intent of not deciding whether waterboarding is torture but to examine whether there is a dispute.
::2. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed). 
 
::3. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture."  This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.
::4. A 'Tortured' Debate  The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."  The important thing here is not whether it is or is not torture but that the Wall Street Journal directly DISPUTES with those who say it is.
::5. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas.  Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here.  This outlines a new unsettled dispute: Legal decisions in the US Courts which have not yet visited this issue.
::6.  Republican candidates dispute waterboarding  Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES?  This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.
::7. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture:   Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't."  This does not mean that we should accept his word that it is not torture, but we can certainly acknowledge that he disputes it.
::8.  Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture.  That's just two I found.  There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more.  Again, this is dispute.
::9. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain."  Again, the issue here is not that someone is claiming it is not torture, but that they are DIRECTLY DISPUTING with those who say it is torture.
::10. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time."  Again, a direct disputation to those who claim it is torture.
Other Issues below:
::11. Perhaps it is not always torture... maybe it depends on some circumstances. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important.  If that is true, can we assert that Waterboarding is torture or must it be less certain?
::12. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. "  I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point:  The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed. Point:  Again, Maybe waterboarding is not always actually torture.  If there are instances where it is not, or where substantial people would not seriously consider it torture (and there really might be such instances) then we should not conclude that it is always certainly torture.
:::The argument against training experiences being considered torture is that the "victims" have previously volunteered for the training, knew that such things would be demonstrated on either themselves or other class members, and consented to such.  A person who requests to be branded can't then complain that they were tortured by that branding (well, they can, but really!) htom (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats fine.  Its not important to my main point. I do have a source that was forced into waterboarding though at the hands of an enemy who probably would say it was torture but, remarkably, said it was painless.  Just terrifying. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Torture or not Torture -- it is Disputed

message: Moved to Talk:Waterboarding#New_Lawrence_Cohen_proposed_compromise_lead. Lawrence Cohen 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't clear why you are proposing this. I don't see any problem with the current lead, and I don't see how this one differs. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would anyone object to this wording 

message: I'm new to the debate, but from what I can tell, this basically boils down to a question of whether the opinions of those saying it might not be /isn't torture raise the debate to the level of a true dispute.  In other words, do they meet the threshhold for putting the "waterboarding is torture" claim out of the realm of fact and into the realm of opinion?  Obviously not all opposing will meet this threshhold, such as fringe positions.
Yet it appears to me that some of the opinions cited seem to stem from a defintion of torture itself that contradicts what Wikipedia and international law have apparently accepted, namely the inclusion of mental anguish.  At least one of the sources cited above claiming a dispute use a limited definition of only physical torture.  Does this invalidate these opinions, and remove them from counter-examples  If so, do we need to check whether the other sources stem from corrrect definitions?
Especially if this limited definition is operating widely in the US, this seems to me a point that must be settled before a consensus can be reached as to whether the threshhold for dispute is met. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Threshhold Question

message: The original request called for legitimate sources presenting evidence of a valid dispute.  It appears to me as if this section contains several sources that qualify.  I therefore think that a changed wording to "Waterboarding is an extreme interrogation technique generally considered to be torture." is justified based on the non-fringe opinions evincing a genuine dispute.  Opinions? -Lciaccio (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's like asking "is it NPOV to state 'The 9/11 attacks consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda' in the lead sentence of the article when several demolition and munition experts state that the attacks may have been carried out by, or with the complicity of, the US government?" Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Or even "is it NPOV to state 'The Holocaust is.. the killing of approximately six million European Jews' in the lead sentence of The Holocaust when some historians say it didn't happen? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This page is NOT a class project.  It's a live Wikipedia page.  Several editors came here as a class assignment, but that matter has been discussed and resolved. You, and any other editors are welcome to express your opinions. Jehochman  Talk 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Extreme interrogation technique" is a euphemistic political term for torture --  legal doublespeak, you know, to soften the blow as to make an act appear not as bad as it really is, in order to instill doubt. Lawyers/politicians do it all the time. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. ;p → GeeAlice ♥ 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Attempt at Consensus

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: This was somewhat paranoid and shameful.  Actions initiated way too fast without talking to the people about it. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Because of conflict of interest concerns, I obviously I will not edit the title of this section.  However, I ask interested editors to follow the above links and read the defenses of the involved individuals (a group that includes me), particularly those written by LCiaccio, to the effect that the involved individuals were neither pre-selected for their views in violation of WP:CANVASS, nor did anyone express views that were not their own individually sincerely-held beliefs in violation of WP:MEAT.  I hope that these unbiased editors will recognize that the issue is murky at best, and that the "confirmed meatpuppetry" title of this section is wholly inappropriate.  Again, owing to my obvious conflict of interest, I realize that perhaps my hoped-for response of unbiased readers is incorrect.  However, I do not believe it to be so.  Theokrat (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty clear from the evidence what was going on (see Talk:Waterboarding/Definition#Another Attempt at Consensus). This page has seen a disproportionately large amount of "gaming" of our system, this simply being the most recent example. Transparency was nowhere to be found in the off-Wiki discussions. Kindly spend more energy showing full transparency rather than defending this behavior. Badagnani (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree that anything is inherently clear from several users voicing general agreement.  However, to avoid cluttering this page any further, I invite comment on my talk page (I don't know if there's a more appropriate location; I obviously haven't been around long) rather than here.  I do, however, ask again that the title of this section be changed, either now or at the end of some further discussion. Theokrat (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I was very clear when I said "transparency was nowhere to be found in the off-Wiki discussions." Some of those discussions may be found here. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, but that seems unresponsive to my concern, as a lack of transparency does not a meat-puppet make, and as the Wiki policy there listed makes clear, "meatpuppet" is "derogatory and should be used only with care."  Again, I'd like to move this discussion to a more appropriate location, wherever that might be, but so long as this heading remains, I feel obliged to at least make some efforts to clear my name and the names of the other involved individuals. Theokrat (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: No problem, you are forgiven. Please do not do something similar again without full transparency, as per our community norms, thanks. Please don't move this discussion anywhere, thanks. Badagnani (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand, and thank you.  Unfortunately, this section of the talk page continues to have a title that I believe to be inaccurate, but which I will not myself edit for reasons of conflict of interest concerns.  If someone else would please change it, my issue would be entirely resolved. Theokrat (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are entirely correct, the section title was inaccurate now that the matter has been fully explained and resolved. Apologies for the harsh welcome, I hope you may still consider sticking around. henrik•talk 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd actually love to stay and keep working on this, although it looks like it might have gone to ArbCom and I am not familiar enough with this process to know whether and how I might still be able to participate.  I have participated in Wikipedia for several years, although this is my first foray into such a contentious matter.  Although I at first shied from staying involved, further reflection has convinced me that I was allowing the reactions of a few Wikipedians scare me away from something I am nonetheless entitled to do.  Although I did chose my initial participation based on a (completed) assignment, I do not see my lack of strong opinions on the matter as a hindrance, but a help, to the appropriateness of my contributions. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Welcome back! ArbCom generally has no problems with the editors trying to resolve the issue themselves even after a case has been filed. Au contraire, if we manage to resolve the problem before they have to, saving them some work, they'll probably appreciate it. henrik•talk 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You are talking about an entirely different thing. Mediating disputes is not the same as editing a general article. There are editors involved in this article from all over the world, and who have been participating for weeks or even months. Whilst fresh opinions are welcome, a small group of new editors deciding offline what position to represent is not a good example of the transparency a collaborative endeavour like Wikipedia requires. Other editors need to understand why they came to their positions, not just what that final position is. Other editors also need to be able to present their own positions to them. An offline consensus is not going to automatically translate into an online consensus. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mischaracterizing what was done in several ways.  I have already posted ad nauseum what actually happened, so I will not repeat myself here, but suffice it to say I suggest you read the accounts more thoroughly before drawing such conclusions -Lciaccio (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lciaccio this "closed discussion" is another hot topic you've landed yourself in accidently (you can pick them :-) ), first just ignore the people "shouting" at you as you did nothing wrong. Second if you want to know why this topic is so hot read on, some very Badpeople(tm) have created forums just to disrupt wikipedia and harass editors. On these forums they have "closed discussion" designed to push a POV against concensus or policy, even just flat out trolling, NONE OF THIS YOU DID! But this is why your innocent off-wiki work caused you to cop flakk, good luck out there and come to my user page if you or your classmates need any help. (Hypnosadist) 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Lciaccio (and the others from Harvard) -- I, too, would welcome your return to Wikipedia, anywhere you would care to contribute. Thank you for your efforts at waterboarding, even if we did blow up at you; I am sorry that I bit newcomers. You may find it interesting to watch the ArbCom case, if it proceeds. htom (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I would also like to say welcome to all those from Harvard, you just chose a hot LZ. We do need minds of your quality to help push wikipedia to the next level. (Hypnosadist) 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvard student group discussion 

message: Since I have been told it is appropriate to keep trying on the issue while the ArbCom request is pending, I thought I would give it another shot.
As stated before, my view of the sources above lead me to the conclusion that there had been sufficient reliable sources cited in favor of a dispute on the issue.  However, after reading these sources more thoroughly, I realize that a closer examination of the sources themselves might prove helpful in determining their weight. 
Here is my idea: post the best sources that state either that there is a dispute, or that waterboarding is not torture.  Underneath each cited source, people may weigh in on their opinion of its weight.  For example, it is my view that an opinion poll might not be as useful as it appears on first glance, since many of those responding are operating under an incorrect definition of torture, specifically one that excludes mental anguish.  Or, some may be presenting opposition only from those with political reason to dispute its status as torture, such as from an administration who has used the technique, and is thus entitled to less weight.
Similarly, I would argue that statements that waterboarding is sometimes "acceptable" are not completely on-point, as it is possible to hold a view that torture is justified in some cases.  Ergo, it is possible for someone to approve of waterboarding while still believing it is torture.  These are just some examples of reasons why a listed source may be discredited, I am posting this because I would find it useful to have others' views on the matter for the sources that have been listed.
Please do not post sources stating that waterboarding is torture.  I do not think it is being contested that there are many reliable sources that state as such.  (Please let me know if I am wrong on this) Therefore, if we can concede that they exist and that many have weight, we can focus on what many have stated to be the real question here: whether the other references meet the threshhold that lies between "fringe views" and those views that present enough evidence of a dispute to move the conclusion out of the realm of fact.
Thanks. -Lciaccio (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problme is that this isn't how we evaluate consensus for contentious content, because it will devalue the weight of the number of sources, and by selecting the "best" it disregards sources, and rewards minority viewpoints to have a fake weight they are never entitled to. This isn't a tenable way to do it. Its a clever outside the box way to go about it, but not appropriate for Wikipedia or supported by policy. Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree - it is a useful way to move the debate to concrete issues that can be discussed. Lciaccio isn't suggesting that the article be based on that single source, only that we discuss its claims. For what it's worth, I'll throw this BBC Q&A out there as a candidate. henrik•talk 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I misunderstood. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Sources & Commentary 

message: In the story today  here about the U.S. appeals court decisions about Guantanamo torture suit being dismissed, the closing paragraph is
"...
In New York's Times Square, activists marked the sixth Guantanamo anniversary by staging a demonstration of waterboarding in the middle of a rainstorm. The interrogation practice has been at the center of a bitter dispute about what constitutes torture."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Global warming has also been called a "bitter dispute". Again, this is another straw man citation, as, like global warming, nobody has denied that there's a political dispute in the U.S. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reuters

message: :: I observe that Reuters calls waterboarding an "interrogation practice".  Perhaps this controversy could be reduced if we changed the first sentence to substitute "interrogation practice" for "torture".  We already have a very specific description of the practice that leaves no doubt as to its nature.  The bitter dispute is whether the US should have performed waterboarding on detainees, and whether those who authorized this should be considered war criminals.  The dispute can be summarized in the article, though I do not think it should be in the lead.  We could probably create a daughter article to cover the dispute in detail because it has received widespread news coverage. Jehochman  Talk 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Something similar has been proposed several times. It's unfortunate that it has taken this long for some of us to realize that the statement, "Waterboarding is torture," does not belong in the lead. This article must be NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my proposed lead  I was careful not to say it was just an "interrogation practice", since that suggests it is just about questioning and answering. My wording "been popularly used as a covert third degree interrogation technique" left open the possibility that it could be used for other things, and made clear that it was "third degree" ie. involving a lot more than just talking. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead never said "waterboarding is torture," as you most likely know. It describes it as "a form of torture," the way the Piano article describes that item as a musical instrument. As a form of suffocation with water being practiced on a bound prisoner, it has been regarded as a form of torture since the 15th century, as the sources (147 of them) clearly bear out. Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguing that there's a significant difference between "waterboarding is torture" and "waterboarding is a form of torture" is really splitting the hairs, don't you think? Neutral Good (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I was just responding to Jehochman's query as to whether any kind of compromise wording is possible. I would be happy to use the US Army language of "almost certainly an act of torture". However, as with the Holocaust, if >95% of experts say it happened, then I'm happy for Wikipedia to report it as reality, even though it is not a fact, and is disputed by some. As for weighting, I note that the Holocaust article doesn't even mention the debate, let alone priviledge it by mentioning it in the lead. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would argue that the Holocaust article SHOULD mention it.  Other articles are not necessarily good indicators of how this article should be done. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep saying that, but criticising the Holocaust and global warming articles, when most editors think that they're pretty good, puts your viewpoint in a small minority. Other controversial articles have gone through exactly these debates, and those who ignore the precedents that these articles set for Wikipedia are bound to be disappointed by the outcome of current process. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the Global Warming article was put up for Featured Article Review and garnered either exactly or one vote less than 50% support.  But it was favored so it remains feature.  But 50% is not a small minority as you assert.  Also, Global Warming is more scientific.  This article is not scientific.  The Holocaust, is not an article I am familiar with and do not know the details, but if it is handled wrong, that is not an excuse for us to go against policy here.  Do you realize that your position on this is a logical fallacy? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And before anyone says, "We don't have to do on this article what happened elsewhere on Wikipedia," you're wrong. That's not how it works. Precedent is precedent is policy. Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the policy that says this?  According to approved policy, it is the policies that govern.  Particularly NPOV. But maybe there is a policy that says precedent trumps all.  I have not seen it.  Can you cite it?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Exactly so! I agree with what you have said. But still very hard to do -- because of source problems and the strong temptation to go into OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think Mr. Bainbridge's proposal (now buried in the archives) is the best we've seen in that direction. I rather like the idea of dispassionately describing the act. henrik•talk 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated here earlier, waterboarding is not used only for interrogation, but also for punishment and other purposes. It would be good if you would read all the discussion archives before contributing here. Badagnani (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this type of approach you're suggesting (describing the procedure and its effects dispassionately, but in enough detail that any reader with a similar perspective to ours will immediately see that it is torture) is all right.  I proposed something along those lines myself a little while ago, and it was fairly well liked among the participants in this discussion.  I avoided "interrogation technique" because waterboarding is not about asking questions, instead skipping straight to the mechanical description of the procedure.  While it would be my preference for the article to simply say that waterboarding is a form of torture, I am willing to take this approach in order to find an acceptable compromise.  I proposed it specifically for these pragmatic reasons: in the hope that it would last longer, even if it is not ideal in my personal opinion. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am -- or rather I should say, I WAS strongly pushing for this approach all along. THAT view... describe it and let the reader decide has been my position ALL ALONG.  However, I have become concerned that we do not have a good definition or valid descriptions.  This is a concern to me.  In about 10 days, I will be in a position where I can do some serious research (I hope). --Blue Tie (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: An "interrogation practice"

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: President Obama on his second day of office has banned waterboarding and has clearly named it as torture.
Peggyanne  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.241.232 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Obama