Content deleted Content added
Line 174:
:::::::: I've already pointed out that Waterboarding has been used for many purposes other than interrogation and that [[WP:Dictionaries as sources]] says we can't rely on the absolute precision of definitions. We have many articles that state facts that some political groups find controversial, including [[Age of the Earth]], [[Evolution]], [[Armenian Genocide]], and [[Tiananmen Square Massacre]]. Even the infamous [[torture memos]] were not discussing torture in its ordinary meaning but instead were only discussing whether waterboarding is covered under what they claimed were more exacting standards in the federal anti-torture law (18 USC 2340) and the International Convention on Torture, the later with reservations supposedly raised during its ratification by the US Senate. And those memos were later withdrawn.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 17:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
::::::::You're missing an important point: none of those dictionaries is saying or even suggesting that waterboarding is not a form of torture. (a) Dictionary.com is not even a dictionary per se, let alone a "highly reputable" one as you seem to think. Besides, it gives two definitions, one of which describes waterboarding as a "form of torture". (b) The 2013 Oxford English Mini Dictionary describes waterboarding as "torture".[https://books.google.com/books?id=poacAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA638] (c) Merriam-Webster is owned by Britannica, an encyclopaedia (just like WP) that describes waterboarding as a "method of torture".[https://www.britannica.com/topic/waterboarding] [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 00:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
:::::::::Again, these are dictionaries published in the UK, or in the case of Merriam-Webster, owned by a British publisher (Britannica) which controls content. [[User:Westwind273|Westwind273]] has identified a left-wing bias at Wikipedia and it extends to many, many articles. In the past I've compared the [[George W. Bush]] biography, which is packed chock full of criticism from left-wing groups, and the [[Barack Obama]] biography, where any criticism by any conservative is instantly reverted. There is a light sprinkling of criticism from left-wing sources for being inadequately left-wing. To this left-wing bias, I would add that there's obviously an anti-American bias. Any English language source that contradicts the American government's position, or the current state of the law in the U.S., is treated as if it's gospel. [[User:Phoenix and Winslow|Phoenix and Winslow]] ([[User talk:Phoenix and Winslow|talk]]) 03:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' Torture has been used for interrogation since ancient times. The phrase "[[enhanced interrogation technique]]" was introduced as a euphemism by U.S. officials who wanted to skirt international treaties and U.S. law banning torture, as throughly documented in that article. The G W Bush administration later rescinded the legal opinions that they attempted to use to support the notion that waterboarding was not torture. The current U.S president has indicated he does not care whether it is torture, saying "I would bring back waterboarding, and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.” So there is no justification for our article to mince words on somethings so obvious as waterboarding being torture.--[[User:ArnoldReinhold|agr]] ([[User talk:ArnoldReinhold|talk]]) 23:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
*'''Yes''' This is a no-brainer, IMO. The deliberate causation of severe suffering is what torture means in the English language. Legally, international law defines waterboarding as torture. U.S. law (possibly, the Uniform Code of Military Justice) treats it as torture, as judged in cases from WWII (if I remember correctly). The claim that it can't be called torture until U.S. waterboarders (from the CIA, as if that mattered) are convicted of "torture" under U.S. law is a misunderstanding of the difference between language and legal language. WP has no legal authority and is not bound in any way to follow (as opposed to reporting) the legal opinions of any body; it is just the opposite: WP's job is to present the facts. Reporting that some persons wish to say waterboarding is not torture is reporting facts. Accepting their claim as a valid interpretation of English meaning is too much like refusing to say in the beginning of article on the planet Earth that the Earth is spherical. [[User:Zaslav|Zaslav]] ([[User talk:Zaslav|talk]]) 04:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
| |||