Talk:Waterboarding

See also: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?

See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.

---

Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here

No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture, so far, based on the mini-rfc above. Let's get a collection here of all sources that assert waterboarding is torture, just a collection of links and sources. This is the -the- main bone of contention basically. At the same time, lets also do the same thing with sources that say it isn't torture/isn't considered torture, in the interests of NPOV, and to see what turns up. Anyone who considers it not torture, this is your time to demonstrate that with evidence. • Lawrence Cohen 16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Updating to ensure this is not archived yet. Lawrence Cohen 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture". Except for the government of the United States. Although this article attempts to be diverse and multi-cultural, no attempt is made to distinguish Cambodian waterboarding from any other type. What about dunking a common form of torture used in Europe? Is that waterboarding? if not than how do you justify the inclusion of the Spanish Inquisition rack? This articles is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue.

As for a "human rights group" Who the hell elected them and what jurisdiction do they have??Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to believe that the references here to the Spanish Inquisition are referring to their use of the rack, however, this belief is mistaken - the references here are to the Tormento di Toca, a form of waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is torture

From Innertia Tensor

• 100 U.S. law professors. 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.

What do law professors know about waterboarding? And how are these "100 law professors" more valid than the 1000s who did NOT sign this statement? Did JAG officers sign it? Matt Sanchez (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about sources that do not exist, is why they are more important as sources than people who did not sign this statement. Lawrence Cohen 14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The defininition of torture is largely a legal one, on both the domestic and international levels. Therefore, I believe law professors' views are relevant. -Lciaccio (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

False and somewhat naive. The definition of torture is political. If the American government has not defined waterboarding as torture, what right does Wikipedia have to take that step?Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Completely wrong. Firstly, torture is defined by a physical process. Politicians try to hide the truth of torture for political reasons. Secondly, Wikipedia is not an organ of the US government. Thirdly, waterboarding has been defined as torture by medical practitoners, torturers, victims, law enforcement officers, and - yes - politicians including those of the US government and even - gasp - in a moment of enlightenment, the US government itself. docboat (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Well, the definition of torture we are concerned with is a linguistic issue. Legal definitions often try to clearly delineate semantic categories for purposes of clarity and consistency. Politics has nothing to do with the definition per se, although some people bend over backwards to avoid calling something by unpleasant terms. And it may be surprising to "NG", but the US government does not yet have the exclusive right to determine reality. I don't think they have an official position on gravity, and yet I dare to stay on Earth. And even if they ever claim it has been abolished, I will continue to attract other masses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Please stay focussed. There is a legal definition of torture as applied under US and International law. Establishing whether waterboarding meets the legal requirements to fall under that definition evidently is a legal matter and not a political one. Of course, politics are relevant to why a straight forward determination is impossible without a very small group of individuals attempting to create a dispute. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• John McCain. 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. [1]

reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remember (talk • contribs) 14:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."

Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• 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, U.S. Department of State (2005). "Tunisia". Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help). (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))

Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340

On two counts in plain English.

(1) “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 (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore it permits some acts suffered incidental to lawful sanctions.

• UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004

• For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

• Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff
• Jimmy Carter. 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

Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Mississippi Supreme Court. [2]In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
• International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8

  The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging.

• Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge [3] states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture."

Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

From Lawrence Cohen

• Washington Post, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.".
• CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
• Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
• Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
• Galloway, famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam, "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes."
• Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."

I found these tonight. That's 15 notable views sourced. I think I can find more yet. This was just a casual and fairly lazy search. Lawrence Cohen 08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from Hypnosadist, on these three. NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.

Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.

"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

More sources yet on this. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Badagnani

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

Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Attorney Andrew Williams, on resigning from Navy Judge Advocate General corps [4] (Knight Ridder pres wire service, Dec 27, 2007.) called it torture. Williams in his resignation letter said waterboarding was used as a form of torture by the Inquisition, and by the Gestapo and the Japanese Kempietai. He cites the post-WW2 conviction of Japanese Officer Yukio Asano for waterboarding resulting in a 15 year sentence. Edison (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.

Not Relevant - whether a form of torture is acceptable or not has more to do with the ethics of a government. This still does not deny that waterboarding is torture.Nospam150 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just about everyone on Fox News, including both the right and left pundits on The Beltway Boys. See, both sides agree. Obviously, it must be fair and balanced to say that people in the US believe it isn't torture it is torture it's acceptable if it gets results, whatever it's called. Thompsontough (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that say it is unclear whether waterboarding is torture or not

Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen 17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

FOUND ACCEPTABLE is OBFUSCATION. That is a different question altogether. Is it acceptable to euthanize the whitehouse, probably these days; is it legal, no. Big difference. Therefore we do not do it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat here for the sake of continuity: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."

And for those who doubt that the CIA would take this seriously, they've been known to rule against other important operations.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This of course is nonsense. See above for links to articles that better explain why. In short, UNCAT does not specify which acts constitute torture, nevertheless you will have great difficulty explaining to a judge that pulling out fingernails and applying electricity to the genitals is not torture. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And additionally, it would be a violation of WP:SYN for us to use this, in this way. Lawrence Cohen 15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure which element of my post you're pointing to wrt WP:SYN. If you mean my link to the the "other important ops" then, sure, but I was only using that preemtively. There are those who aren't willing to accept that the CIA's lawyers are serious lawyers.

Or, were you referring to Nomen's reply to me? That does seem to be something akin to synthesis. After all, much of the "is-torture" POV rests upon a group aggreement about what opponents merely believe to be torture.

UNCAT provides an interesting item that says of the European court, "the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture." If it's possible that beatings aren't necessarily torture then who's to say that properly controlled waterboarding is? I'm not sure I understand that yet but it may be worth looking into.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm basically saying, it's not our place to analyze whether it is or isn't torture, at all, ever. Wikipedia is a teritiary source, only. We aren't going to analyze and conceive of research over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. We don't care. We only care what sources say. If the overwhelming weight of the sources say, "It's torture," we report as a fact in the article that its torture, full stop. If a minority fringe viewpoint exists that goes contrary to accepted society consensus, which says its not torture on that line, then we can report that, "But such-and-such person considers it not torture." If the weight of sources we reversed, the situation would be reversed, and we'd say "Its not torture, but such and such says it is." A good comparison might be articles on Intellegient design. They say that ID is not accepted as valid science (because its not, based on the overwhelming volume of sources) but the articles fairly make clear who considers it to be valid. That's all we can do. We will not under any circumstances advance a particular minority viewpoint or the viewpoint of any government over everything else in the article. Lawrence Cohen 17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you just hit on why you have that wrong. For example, what you're saying would be perfectly true if the question was merely about whether it's intended for water to go into the lungs. It either does or it doesn't. The answer (which I won't argue here) should be an objective fact based on medical science and observation.

I don't see any of your sources that are factual like that. They are all opinions. Some are better than others, but they're still opinions. Add up all the opinions and then you might have a consensus of opinion but that doesn't make it into scientific truth. In fact, this is exactly why intelligent design meets the fringe category. Just imagine if somebody found 100 lawyers and politicians to assert that ID is valid science, and see how far that flies.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That was a contrasting example, and nothing more. Irregardless of anything else, Wikipedia does not report anything that is not sourced, full stop. If all we have are opinions--which isn't the case, and false for you to say, as we also have court decisions listed here, then we go with the overwhelming weight of notable views and opinions. Please provide a weight of sources that indicate waterboarding is not torture, from reliable sources, or else we're just spinning in circles that won't change the fact that per policy we're only going to be saying "waterboarding is torture". I suspect some people have some sort of personal reasoning or external to Wikipedia reasons to want this, but that doesn't have any value for us and thankfully never will. Lawrence Cohen 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

When have I ever asked for something to be included that it not sourced? I've disputed the relevance of some sources we have here. I may have also disputed items or suggested a view without mentioning a source but I never thought about adding something for which a source couldn't conceivably be found.

I'm sorry if you have something that's not an opinion but I don't see it. As I understand it, court decisions are legal opinions. For example, the case for evolution lost in the Scopes Trial. That was merely a legal opinion. It didn't change the facts of the science of evolution.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire runaway thread is based on a false premise, it is OBFUSCATION. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding,". There is a big difference between acceptable (in some cases) and is or is not torture. Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).

There are some interesting points in all this text such touching on the fact that EUCOJ putting the brits use of sensory deprivation on Irish Republicans under "cruel and unusual" as opposed to "torture" however, there is nothing in all this block about a source saying waterboarding is not torture. This thread is as relevant to it's cat "Sources that say it is not torture" as the Uncylopedia entry I have below on Waterboarding in the Gaza Strip, or Santa. This is not a source, it is a debate over nothing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ding! I've never once talked about whether it's acceptable, just whether it is/isn't torture based on the sources. And Randy, actually, I'm quite aware of what an opinion versus a fact is. However, unless you're prepared to counter every single source listed with evidence and analysis of why the views expressed are not valid for us to use to state that waterboarding is torture, there's nothing else to be done. It is not our decision. We can only report what sources say. If we have essentially one pundit/ex-United States prosecutor saying, "Waterboarding isn't torture," and volumes of other other sources and experts saying it is, where do you suspect that leaves us? Lawrence Cohen 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with every source. I'm merely saying that every source appears to represent an opinion. (If I'm wrong then please point to one that isn't.) The cumulative weight of all these opinions doesn't turn them into a fact.

It would be factual to say something like "waterboarding is considered torture by most legal experts.". It is merely expressing an opinion to say "waterboarding is torture." That could even be a good opinion -- an opinion held for 500 years -- but it's still an opinion.

I suggest we look here for guidance: WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - It is also, then, by this reasoning, an opinion to state that macaroni is a type of noodle, or that Easter is a type of holiday. Again, you should probably try to change the title of Rack (torture) if you want to so radically redefine the term "torture" Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Waterboarding is a type of controlled drowning, that has been long considered a form of torture by numerous experts." ? Lawrence Cohen 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. I wouldn't even argue if you used "most experts" but I would prefer we found another term for expert.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a SOURCES discussion on two VERY NARROW issues. Sources that say that WB (or a reasonably read torture definition that would cover it) IS, or IS NOT torture. Not a debate, Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White do not go there at all - they are seeking to cast possible doubt or questions on whether it is not torture - but nothing more. It's all part of the same deliberate US obfuscation tactics I mention above. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture

Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah, notable conservative pundits; Congressman Ted Poe, a licensed attorney. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Do Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity count? Thompsontough (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

• Uncyclopedia. Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. [[5]] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
• Santa Claus. Though he has not stated it is not torture, there is no record anywhere of him saying waterboarding is torture, on monday, when the trees grow, or when the sun is low. We are still checking whether he said it at other times, and until we can confirm, we should not say waterboarding is torture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary to mock the process. I share your opinion that waterboarding is torture, but I think Lawrence is making sincere efforts to find a consensus and we should respect that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I believe this is not mocking the process, but (some of) its participants... What Lawrence is doing here is really exemplary. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Exactly. Anyway, if this gets resolved, I will be calling on all participants to push an RfA for Lawrence. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, this arguement clearly deserves mocking. Simple logic leads to the direct conclusion that waterboarding is torture. Some group of people WHO ARE USING IT say its not torture. That reeks of bias. We can rely on the US government for laws, but we can't rely on them for facts.--Can Not (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
          • And a group who are not using it are saying that it is; more bias! Relying on the US (or any) government for facts is usually not indicated. htom (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie's proposal

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)

• Strongly support. Factually accurate and NPOV. Please replace "Whenever" with "the Spanish Inquisition." Neutral Good (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Reject Weaselly to an incredible degree. As has been pointed out many times, there has not been enough dispute and it's minor inclusion in the article in no way warrants a mention in any article summary. This is giving undue weight to a fringe theory based on your personal POV. --neonwhite user page talk 18:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Strongly oppose - The substitution of the euphemism "interrogation technique" for "form of torture" is unacceptable. This is an encyclopedia written in English, not Newspeak. Editor is allowing current political bias in a single nation to override the actual English-language definition of this practice; again unacceptable at Wikipedia. Badagnani (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It is a fact. Look up the defintion [6] --neonwhite user page talk 19:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment - All of the sources state that waterboarding is not a form of torture? You are clearly mistaken. In fact, only approximately four opinions (all very recent, from conservative/Republican politicians or opinion columnists, all from a single nation, made in an attempt to deform the English language in Newspeak-like manner for political reasons) do this. Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Reluctantly support. Same reason as that expressed for Shibuni's proposal. Harry Lives! (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. For at least two major reasons. (a) This lead deletes the descriptive sentences that are in the current lead, which make it clear that waterboarding induces choking and gagging, and explain that water enters the breathing passages. This information is important for understanding the procedure and I don't see why it should be deleted. (b) The phrase "this has been disputed or questioned" is not properly qualified, and thus misrepresents the dispute. We only have evidence of a recent dispute in the United States, so it is an exaggeration for the article to suggest that the dispute is of general scope. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Support. 69.204.119.171 (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support. 70.9.150.106 (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. First, there is no indication that waterboarding is only being used as a means of interrogation - it can also e.g. be used as punishment. Given the overabundance of sources, "torture" is certainly the most suitable term. "restrict breathing or to to evoke the instinctive fear of drowning" is also a rather clinical description, not to mention that the "or" is also misleading. The "water cure" is an aside that has no place in the lead. The next sentence "Evidence of..." has twice as many words as it needs. I can see Strunk and White spinning... Why not simply "Waterboarding has been used since **Whenever**"? The extreme fringe opinion that it is not torture is given much to much weight. At least strike the "disputed" part and leave the simple statement (although "widely considered" would already be to weak in my opinion). The "International law" sentence is completely pointless, not to mention unsourced. Also, please show me a country where waterboarding is legal (as opposed to being used clandestinely and not prosecuted). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. I have just been through the above. Torture should be in the summary. --BozMo talk 11:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but only with a number of qualifiers, which should not be there. --BozMo talk 13:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Mediation probably needed

These discussions are getting nowhere. We probably need mediation. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How about informal mediation rather than formal mediation, first? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We just had an RfC with a clear result. What exactly do you want to mediate? Based on reliable sources, the community agrees that waterboarding is torture, except for a few tendentious editors who seem to be bringing a political dispute onto Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I see no clear result from the RfC. None. Second, the RfC was badly constructed and even a clear result would not have cleared up the issue because of the poor construction. Third, it is policy that consensus on a page cannot trump generally agreed upon widely held policies. See WP:CON. Fourth, it appears to me that several things are happening:

A. Some folks insist on certain wording that it is torture and they are using sources to validate their view.

B. Other folks insist that it is NOT torture and are using sources to validate their view.

C. The folks in group A, claim that they have the majority view and so their view should prevail.

D. I (alone) am insisting that this is not a question wikipedia can decide and it must only report. I rest all of my views in wikipedia policy and some sources that support that view. I particularly believe that my position is the most neutral, the most consistent with wikipedia standards, and yet is is never given any consideration by either side.

I do not think that there is any consensus and there is a need to bring the article to consensus. I have tried a few different ideas. In particular, convinced that if we work on the article and then summarize it in the lead, we could achieve consensus, I proposed that we drop our concerns for the lead and work in the article. This is not acceptable. People WANT to fight over the lead -- and both sides have a specific outside pov that they bring to the discussion.

I do not think that things will end without outside intervention. In particular, I do not believe that I should step aside and let pov on both sides triumph over wikipedia policies. And I feel very strongly that if these policies were followed it would result in a greater cohesion and consensus on the article.

So, I would want mediation over the use of policy to guide this page content. So far this has been ignored except to attempt to steamroll one side or the other. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation works when two editors disagree about content and are willing to mediate. Here we have multiple parties, some of them clearly acting in bad faith, as evidenced by the sock puppetry that has occurred. This situation will either be resolved by the community, or if the behavioral problems continue, go to arbitration. One way or another the troublesome editors will either shape up, or be banned from editing this article. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppet issue can be handled. Most editors are acting in good faith. I do not see a huge number of troublesome editors. But in specific reply, mediation is a method for the community to help resolve the issue. The problem that I suspect is more likely is not that there are troublesome editors in the sense of sockpuppets but rather that editors are not willing to assume good faith. In some cases they have pretty much said so. When there is no assumption of good faith, it presents a problem.

And my concerns about neutrality and using policy to help arrive at consensus still need to be addressed.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration might be premature but the obstinate refusal to let sourced material be used is troubling. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie, you said, "D. I (alone) am insisting that this is not a question wikipedia can decide and it must only report." You're not alone. Also, I agree that the RfC was poorly constructed. The "209" IP editor offered a far better proposal for the RfC but, as usual, he was steamrollered. Due to the constant steamrolling by the usual suspects in violation of policy, I agree that arbitration is appropriate. There is a related issue about the banning of Shibumi2 which can be addressed at the same time. My attempt to raise that question through community channels has not only been ignored, but deleted. Fast. I think this is inappropriate. Neutral Good (talk) 16:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting arbitration. I am looking at 1) informal mediation, 2) formal mediation with 3) Arbitration as a last resort.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is unecessary, we have here are a handful of editors disrupting the consensus to prove a point, habitually misrepresenting policy, ignoring and refusing to accept obvious facts, claiming that reliable sources are simply 'wrong' because they don't agree with them, making straw man arguements and generally gaming the system to promote a personal point of view that is unverifiable and has little basis in fact. I think this kind of bad faith editing just needs to go on the ANI. --neonwhite user page talk 16:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not need sockpuppetry and tendentious editing on these pages. The blocking of Shibumi2 for two weeks was entirely appropriate (even lenient) given his sockpuppetry. Those who wish to participate in these discussions must abide by a certain conduct conducive to collaborative writing. henrik•talk 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that the evidence supporting the banning of Shibumi2 wasn't as solid as you may think. Lawrence Cohen claimed that the Sprint wireless IP address, shared by all three accounts that were banned, was uniquely assigned to a single wireless device - which would support a claim of sock puppetry or meatpuppetry. I wasn't even notified that the case was proceeding, even though I was one of the editors named in the case (for the second time in a week). After the case was concluded and the bans enforced, "Bob" demonstrated that Sprint wireless IP addresses are extremely dynamic and are assigned to cell phone base towers and shared by all users in the area, rather than being uniquely assigned to a single device. That undercuts the finding of sock puppetry. Shibumi2 might have been in the same county as the other two accounts but in a different city, rather than in the same body or the same room. But any mention of this new evidence is quickly deleted. Nobody wants to talk about it. And a good editor named Shibumi2, with an abundance of high-quality work to his credit, is being driven away from the Wikipedia project. Neutral Good (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true - that entire counties are NATed through the same IP address, consider this: there are about eight editors consistently contributing to this talk page who are geographically dispersed around the world, including ones from non-native English speaking countries. What is the probability that several new editors, contributing only to this page, would all come from the same county in the U.S., and all be using Sprint wireless to access the internet? Vanishingly small, I would imagine.

Ah, you managed to pique my interest; would Sprint really do that? Wouldn't it interfere with instant messaging and UDP transport? So I googled.. first hit for "Sprint wireless nat" says: "Note that Sprint also gives you a (dynamic) public IP address, where the rest of the wireless phone connections I've tried have been NAT translated". So, no, it looks like a Sprint IP address is unique to a particular device at a particular time. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"What is the probability that several new editors, contributing only to this page, would all come from the same county in the U.S., and all be using Sprint wireless to access the internet?" Pretty damn good, if a Penn State university professor assigned it as a class project. "Note that Sprint also gives you a (dynamic) public IP address ..." I don't see the word "unique" in there anywhere, Chris. Would you point it out for me please? A shared IP address doesn't necessarily involve NAT. You seem to be tech savvy enough to understand that. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, IP addresses have to be unique within their local network for routing to function correctly. And if the "local network" is actually the internet, then an IP address has to be globally unique across the whole internet. Sprint hands out IP addresses to wireless devices, these may be static or dynamic, and are either globally unique across the whole internet, or locally unique to Sprint and then NAT translated to a Sprint internet facing IP address. Bottom line: a shared IP is either multiple users on the same device, an application level proxy, or some form of NAT. Apparently Sprint does not require use of a web proxy, so it's either the same device, or NAT. And the Google quote says it isn't NAT. So we come to the conclusion that it is the same device. Your hypothesis that this is not the case isn't technically plausible. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the Sprint pdf, it appears that the address may be either fixed or dynamic, with fixed being an option not always available even if purchased. So depending on it for proof or disproof is probably not a good plan.

http://www.sprint.com/business/resources/ratesandterms/Mobile_Access_Product_Annex.pdf

htom (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. The IP address is being taken as proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shibumi2 is an evil puppet master. And every time anyone tries to raise this question about these dynamic, shared Sprint IP addresses, the question gets deleted. Fast. What's going on? Neutral Good (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the Checkuser behavior here, the proper place to raise it is at WP:AN. In fact, I've raised your concerns there for you, in case you needed that done: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Allegations of Checkuser errors and administrative coverups. Lawrence Cohen 00:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What's going on is that you are violating WP:POINT repeatedly. A checkuser has made a determination. It's not foolproof, but you have presented no reason whatsoever to challenge the result. Checkuser doesn't rely on IP address alone. There are other factors considered, but the technical details are not explained, specifically to prevent bad faith users from gaming the system. There is a correct way to appeal a block, for instance, by emailing the unblock mailing list or emailing ArbCom. Going around to all these pages shopping this same complaint is disruption pure and simple. Please stop now or you will be blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The checkuser evidence was the proof - Alison is experienced enough to have recognized any dynamic or shared addresses. And as far as I can tell, your talk of a supposed professor assignment is without a shred of evidence that it is anything but speculation. What is your relationship with Shibumi2 anyway - You first nominated that account for RFA and then have been arguing vigorously for its unblock? You are obviously connected in some manner. henrik•talk 01:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It still hasn't been explained why so many of the new single-purpose IP editors (usually first appearing at this talk page to vote in various straw polls) all used the identical, strange formatting (which none of us had ever seen before in any page on Wikipedia before). Something improper appears to be going on beyond those IP that have been conclusively associated with Shibumi2. Badagnani (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Leaving the lead alone and developing the rest of the article

If we can get a consensus for following idea: To leave the lead alone for now and develop the rest of the article I'll unprotect it. Once the rest of the article is well developed (hopefully within a few weeks) we can revisit the issue of hammering out a lead that summarizes the article. This would mean leaving the lead as it is now, but allowing the editors to work on the rest of the article. Please add your name below. henrik•talk 17:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure my proposal was accurately relayed and this may sway votes.

My proposal did not say that the lead should remain the same... but that it should be drastically shortened (horribly shortened) and then ignored until we can flesh it out from a summary of the article. But, I feel even a brief place holder must be consistent with NPOV Policy. The current lead is not.

I would not even have a problem with a lead as short as: "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique". Or "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique often described as torture." These are inadequate because they do not fully cover the subject, but they do not violate NPOV policy. I like the first one best because it is the most empty and relies ENTIRELY on a second article, thus eliminating disputes here. I like the second one less because I think it will just be dispute war again -- but if everyone can agree on it, I think it is neutral. But I am open to any UNSATISFACTORILY SHORT Lead that is NEUTRAL. The more unsatisfactory as a summary, the better so we can me motivated to do a good job in the article and fix the lead later.

Incidentally on my talk page I am working on a re-write. Not so good yet, but all are encouraged to read and comment, especially after I finish. I find that I am shortening it alot but also that I feel some areas are not well enough cited YET. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this proposal would leave the lead unchanged (one should note that the lead will remain unchanged while the article is protected in any case). henrik•talk 20:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

henrik, you are wrong. Re-read what Blue Tie says just above: "My proposal did not say that the lead should remain the same... but that it should be drastically shortened (horribly shortened)." Badagnani (talk) 20:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I consider this now to be Henrik's proposal, not mine. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It was my mistake in formulating the original text. I have clarified that this is a different proposal than Blue Tie's. This proposal is to keep the current lead and unlock the remaining article. You can think of it as a partial unprotection. I wanted to give credit to Blue Tie's original (and quite correct) thought that the article consists of more than the lead and that fixing it will be easier when the rest of the article is fully developed. henrik•talk 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that view and will take that much credit. I would even be satisfied with leaving the current lead if there were some sort of tag or notice on the article stating that the lead is disputed but on hold. Because I do believe it will be easier to get a lead right if we work to get the article correct and then summarize the article -- meaning we do not even need references for the lead.--Blue Tie (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If your proposal is different, you should have used a second-level heading rather than a third-level heading. Things have been confused so much at this point, the results of this poll cannot be valid and we would need to start over. Badagnani (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree

• Jehochman ^Talk 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC) per Henrik's original proposal.
• User:Neon White Agree on principle with concerns that some editors may see unprotection as a green light to change the lead. --neonwhite user page talk 17:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, the lead should stay, and we should work on developing the article, particularly to present a balanced and proportional discussion of the minority "not torture" position, but I think we've gone beyond voting now: see the sockpuppeting discussion above, which makes it difficult to count votes in any sensible way. -- The Anome (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Blue Tie If the lead is to be shortened as described above.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• The lead is fine now as it stands. ➪HiDrNick! 19:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, because it is disputed on a variety of points. I am hoping that we can get something very short (the shorter the better) that we can ignore and then go to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral Good. As clarified by Blue Tie above, I support this proposal. It includes an interim modification of the lead sentence to, "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique". I can fully support this. Neutral Good (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support only if the current NPOV lead that encompasses world history and discards POV pushing of fringe viewpoints that are filling the global concern and tone that Wikipedia requires. Reject anything including weasel terms such as Enhanced interrogation technique. There is no consensus for that in any way, if sockpuppetry is excluded. Lawrence Cohen 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Bob. Very short NPOV lead, then we can work on the article. 68.29.253.87 (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC) -
• If the current lead is modified to NPOV status such as "Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique that is generally considered a form of torture," I can live with it. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• That's pushing the Bush Administration POV. Wikipedia is not to be used to justify political arguments. An example of the opposite POV would be "Waterboarding is a war crime authorized by the Bush Administration." NPOV is "Waterboarding is a form of torture." Jehochman ^Talk 15:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I do not think its exactly pushing the Bush Admin POV, but it is defective in that it is only labeling it by that one term. Randy also objects to using that link. Upon reflection, I think that it should not be considered in that term. On the other hand, it is not NPOV to say that "Waterboarding is a form of torture". That statement violates NPOV. I have an alternative:

"Waterboarding, involves restraining individuals in a prone position and pouring water over the head and generally into the mouth and nose. It is often described as torture."

I acknowledge: This is insufficient. It may not include all the things people want. But I am just looking at something that can be left alone while the rest of the article is edited for a while while remaining npov. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It will never be NPOV if it is downplays the fact that waterboarding is torture, because history has demonstrated (sourced!) that waterboarding is torture, the overwhelming weight of sources say its torture, consensus of Wikipedia editors based on the sourcing say its torture, and that is that. Your obstitance, and interference, and are you becoming frankly disruptive by aggressively replying to and challenging everything said on this page that disagrees with your narrow interpretations, and demonstrates that you seem to feel ownership of this article. I think you're pushing a fringe viewpoint, and a POV pusher. That is not a good thing to be, unfortunately. Lawrence Cohen 14:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit above is a personal attack. I am doing nothing wrong. You are getting way too upset and making statements that are awful. I request that you redact this comment and then take some time to cool off. You can remove this comment of mine too, when you do.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith, Lawrence. Blue Tie has strong views which he argues for, but that hasn't crossed the line into disruption. henrik•talk 12:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree

• Neutral Good. We have a halfway decent proposal for a lead and the current one is a blatant NPOV violation. I believe we should accept Ka-Ping Yee's lead as an interim solution, then start working on the body of the article and see where that leads us. Neutral Good (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing there is not neutral, stop misrepresenting this policy. --neonwhite user page talk 22:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Blue Tie if the lead is to be kept the same.--Blue Tie (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lead should remain the same, but not according to Blue tie's criteria: which are as follows (as stated just above): "My proposal did not say that the lead should remain the same... but that it should be drastically shortened (horribly shortened)." I don't believe this proposal originally said this. All editors, please read Blue Tie's new text just above before giving your opinion. Further, the euphemistic neologism "enhanced interrogation technique" must not be substituted for "a form of torture" in the lead. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Badagnani is correct. For the record, this was my original proposal. Same basic idea. Short neutral insufficient lead and then ignore it. This may not have come through the way it has been presented. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• User:Randy2063 -- I appreciate the thought but this amounts to kicking the can into an even dirtier yard. -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

New, fully clarified proposal

Blue Tie, half of us are a little confused and the other half are completely lost. Please start over. Right here, this spot here, is a perfect place to start. Compose your proposal carefully. Make it clear from the beginning. Short, strictly neutral lead to serve for interim purposes only.

Waterboarding is an Enhanced interrogation technique that consists of of restraining a person and pouring water over the mouth and nose to induce a fear of drowning. It is generally considered to be a form of torture.

Then we work on the body of the article. Then we compose a permanent lead that accurately reflects the body of the article. Is this what you have in mind? Neutral Good (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Euphemism don't belong here. They are not encyclopedic and distort articles. After September 11, a coterie of officials in the Bush administration sought to sanction highly aggressive measures under the euphemistic label "enhanced interrogation techniques." [7]--neonwhite user page talk 22:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If you continue pushing this fringe, US-centric, recentist argument that goes against the community discussion results, you could end up blocked for tendentious editing and disruption. Waterboarding covers a practice that has existed for 500 years, and is described by virtually all reliable sources as a form of torture. Repeating the same rejected arguments that waterboarding might not be torture, over and over again, is a form of disruption. It appears that you are carrying a political dispute onto Wikipedia. That must stop immediately. We are not here to take sides in political controversies. Our articles must reflect the plain meaning of what reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this sort of threat. The talk page is specifically the place to make proposals regarding the editing of the article. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this proposal as an idea to editing the article. Furthermore, some of your conclusions above are not substantiated by a review of the facts -- yet you insist on them. It is possible that you too are bringing your political views to the picture. Or perhaps a personal animosity and failure to assume good faith regarding one editor. I am concerned that you are allowing your personal views to affect your decisions as an admin. I ask you to recuse yourself from actions on this page or toward that editor as an admin. I do not mean to insult you and apologize for any hurt feelings, but on the other hand, this warning seemed completely wrong to me. I cannot imagine any justification by which it should have been given. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"I cannot imagine any justification by which it should have been given."

Possibly because Neutral Good is a single purpose attack that has been incivil, engaged in harassment, pushed fringe POVs onto articles, and engaged in extreme nationalism? Take your pick, I think people have been permanently banned for any of the above individually, as all of them are 100% inappropriate on Wikipedia. Lawrence Cohen 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia rule against single purpose accounts is there? I have not seen NG be uncivil. I have seen what you called harassment and considered that accusation to be nonsense. I have not seen any pushing of fringe pov into articles nor extreme nationalism. However, even if ALL of those things were true all at once, the threat should be proportionate to the injury and what NG did above was absolutely innocent. Now, I suspect that NG is not a new user here, but the account is new and with policies of assume good faith I would suggest that WP:BITE could apply here. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Support (and state your reasons)

• Support Yeah Blue Tie, that sounds like a great idea. It includes the word "generally" that Randy and Ping like. And it's even NPOV. I like it. Neutral Good (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
• Something like that. Its ok. But I do not believe that these votes are helping matters. People do not trust you or assume good faith toward you. I am not one of those, but there seems to be a lot of animosity toward you. We probably need mediation. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose (and state your reasons)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. This incessant poll taking is stonewalling and disruptive. I agree with Jehochman that it has gone on too long. --neonwhite user page talk 22:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The basic fact is that according to NPOV policy Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. There has been nothing produced so far that categorizes the disputed meaning of this as anymore than a tiny-minority view. In my opinion it is lucky to be included in the article at all and likely is only there due to recentist and american bias. --neonwhite user page talk 22:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would be silly to place the minority view first. Waterboarding has been used around the world for 500 years. Why do we entertain spinning the meaning to suit one puny US administration that is relatively insignificant compared to 500 years of world history?Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

If a handful of politicians decide to start describing the thumbscrew using a euphemism for obvious political reasons, it wouldn't change the article, i fail to see why this should be treated any differently. --neonwhite user page talk 22:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. Using Wikipedia as a political tool for the current electoral process is grossly offensive, and needs to be stopped as the height of damage to NPOV. Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm ... maybe because it's been the most powerful country in the world for the past 65 years? Neutral Good (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And still only one footnote in history. Wikipedia is not designed to favor a view that is favorable to one nation's leadership, as that would also violate NPOV. The US view is no more important that any other view, as waterboarding is a world wide practice that predates the US's existence by 500 years. Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have a reliable source that declares that previously "it" (water torture) was not considered any more out of the ordinary that a cross examination at court is today. So it may not have always been considered torture in times past. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how our own torture article doesn't even mention waterboarding, if the belief that it is torture is so universal. Neutral Good (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Try List of torture methods and devices which has many tortures not mentioned in the main article, including that now famous torture WATERBOARDING. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 02:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What are the views in other countries? I haven't seen any yet, except one French journalist from the 1950s. Has it occurred to you that of the 138 "sources" you cite in the RfC, nearly all of those are also American - including all 115 of the law professors you claim as 115 separate sources? And the US has existed for 231 years. Has waterboarding been practiced for 731 years? Neutral Good (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Spanish Inquisition?

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)

You do realise the quote you just cited says nothing about capital punishment, right? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Editors here have erred

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)

• Nobody denies that. But just as in Intelligent Design the notable minority does not get to hijack what the notable majority consensus is. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Lots of people like to believe the story fringe nonsense that the Bush administration ordered a hit on the World Trade Center, that Castro had Kennedy killed, that man never walked on the moon, that global warming doesn't exist (nevermind another thousand odd scientists per year saying, yes its real) and that intellegient design is accepted by the scientific community as valid. Whats your point? It doesn't change what we have to report per NPOV, WEIGHT, and FRINGE on each of those. Lawrence Cohen 14:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Like your friend Mr. Nescio, you're comparing apples and oranges. There is no one serving in a position of power or authority, like Michael Mukasey, who claims that "the Bush administration ordered a hit on the World Trade Center" or "that man never walked on the moon," or that "the earth is made of taffy." Rudolph Giuliani, for example, may very well become president of the United States; Mukasey is currently serving as attorney general. Furthermore, their opinions are representative of 29 percent of the American people and that cannot be dismissed as a lunatic fringe element. I'm with Blue Tie on this. Let's just report the facts in a neutral way, obeying WP:NPOV. The lead sentence is a clear-cut violation of WP:NPOV, which is a policy that reflects a consensus of all 1 million Wikipedia editors. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Now you're comparing apples and land mines. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? They're both round... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Today there are caucuses in Iowa; next Tuesday, there's a primary in New Hampshire. The peculiarities of the American presidential election process give these two states undue weight in determining who the next president will be. I think we'll know in about six days whether Giuliani overshadows all previously cited American opinions on the matter. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

• Comment - A large percentage of Americans believe that humans are not descended from earlier species of primates, but were instead "created" approximately six thousand years ago. This phenomenon is deserving of mention in Wikipedia, but, as a fringe opinion (with all due respect to the individuals and religions believing this), does not get to alter the first sentence of the article about Homo sapiens. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluemarine (talk • contribs)

From the fringe noticeboard

I came here from the fringe noticeboard and have read a bit about this issue. I'd like to make a few comments:

1. That waterboarding is considered torture by multiple independent reliable sources is not up for debate. Using euphemisms for torture or nitpicking technical definitions is not something Wikipedia should do.
2. That there are a vocal minority who believe that waterboarding is not torture is fact. These people have had a high profile in certain policy/media/legal debates within the U.S., tend to be of a particular political persuasion, and are certainly in the minority.

I see no problem with relegating the current visibility of this "controversy" to a single section called "U.S. debate on torture and definitions" for example. I do think that littering the article with references to this singular perspective is not appropriate. The article should describe the activities, the history, and the relevant opinions (on the worldwide stage) as the main context of the article.

Just my $0.02.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider confounding opinions about appendectomy, nephrectomy, and cholecystectomy into an article about bariatric surgery to be nit-picking? htom (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If medical literature would do such a thing who are we to disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nescio (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The scientists whose specialty this is are not publicly publishing. If the politicians, lawyers, activists, and NPR do it, it's ok with you? (The surgeons, psychiatrists, and anesthesiologists who specialize in interrogations probably have journals, letters, societies, and even publications -- all of which are classified and not available -- and are legally, if not morally, restrained by the same classification problems, so they're not going to be available to inform us.) Since politicians, lawyers, activists, and NPR are what we have, it behooves us to pay a great deal of attention to what they say, don't say, and mix up, because we know that they're speaking out of the areas of their expertise. When they confound things, we can't stop them, but we can stop ourselves from leaping to follow them. htom (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V and WP:TRUTH regarding our ability to correct mistakes made by WP:RS. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read wp:nor et all again, I urge you do do the same, keeping in mind who is being quoted about harsh interrogation. There are lots of lawyers and politicians, and few doctors or interrogators. Some (many?) of the articles are confounding waterboarding and watercure and proceed to attribute to the former characteristics of the latter.

Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s). Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references are cited in context and on topic.

...Sources should directly support the information...

I read this as meaning that sources that are confounding things are doing synthesis, and should not be relied upon.

and

make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.

It's true, I suppose, that the politicians and lawyers are not the primary sources for interrogation technique (that would be the doctors and interrogators), but am I the only one who thinks that their statements about what those primaries are doing should be taken as reliable and not analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative?

It appears to me that there is great ignorance about waterboarding (this is probably a good thing) but it's not our job as editors to substitute the analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative POV opinions of lawyers and politicians for the scant real information available. htom (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - We do have numerous sources from those with direct experience of waterboarding: those who have conducted it, those who have been subjected to it, records of those who have been prosecuted for it, etc. The politically motivated opinions of the two U.S. Republican politicians and the two U.S. conservative opinion columnists, if considered notable, should be evaluated for inclusion in the article, but, as a fringe viewpoint, they do not get to redefine this well understood and well described practice. Badagnani (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Regarding "confounding" of definitions, an examination of pre-2006 sources shows that some sources describe waterboarding as forcing the inhalation/ingestion of more water, while other sources describe the forcing of the inhalation/ingestion of less water. The forced suffocation of a prisoner, whether using more water or less, represents a form of torture, and has for hundreds if not thousands of years. Badagnani (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

If I understand it correctly, the issue is about whether or not to refer to waterboarding as torture in the lead. Please correct me if I'm mistaken about this. It took me roughly an hour to skip through the accumulated discussion here and at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition and I'm still not entirely sure, but I base my suggestion on this assumption:

How about shortening the lead and simply describing what waterboarding consists of, entails, and has historically been used for (as is currently the case, but it could be worded even more concisely) and completely avoiding any assertion with regard to it being or not being torture in the lead? As much as I usually despise "criticism" or "controversy" sections, this may be a good way for an interim resolution of the issue.

The prospect of referring this to ArbCom is not very promising in my opinion; this has to be resolved in situ by all involved editors.

My suggestion is to expand on the most relevant current aspect within the dedicated section Waterboarding#Contemporary use and the United States. In order to avoid POV and FRINGE as far as possible, efforts should be directed towards objectively qualifying each statement by including meta sources discussing the reliablity of each source as far as available. E.g., a statement stemming from Rudy Guiliani can neither be simply ignored nor can it be viewed as being professional level and free of any conflict of interest; but all of those qualifications are meta-statements about the source which in turn require a source of their own.

The rest is common sense and should be treated as such. E.g., do political motivations come into play for most (if not all) public statements made after the media first reported on the issue? Certainly. All the more, it is important to carefully source all formulations that carry a qualifying connotation. The word "pundit" for example is not to be used lightly in this context since it carries negative connotations of PR, and should therefore be carefully sourced.

Ok, well, these are my 2 cents so far. Dorfklatsch 20:29, January 3, 2008

Thanks for your help, Dorf. You've proposed a very sensible solution nearly identical with a solution that a few of us have been discussing for some time. Unfortunately, we have a group of POV pushers here as well, they have the lead sentence the way they want it, and they are entrenched. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because there is no reason why the verified reliable sources should be ignored and fringe theories given undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - If you actually read through all the discussion archives (it would likely take more than 5 hours or more, not just 1 hour to do this) you would have seen that this idea was rejected because we generally say what something is in the lead of an article, then describe it. For example, we would not say "A violin consists of a rounded box of spruce and maple, glued together and strung with wire, and played with a horsehair bow." It would say, "The violin is a stringed instrument..." Badagnani (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of spending more than one hour skipping through (as I wrote above) all of the generated discussion, because there are far more interesting things to read on Wikipedia and I also have something close to a life. However, you appear simply to reject a direly needed compromise without providing any alternative suggestion. Note also that your violin example has one fatal flaw: There is no ongoing high-profile controversy with political implications as to whether or not a violin is an instrument.

I know that my 2 cents were nothing more than an idea for a compromise. Can you think of a better one that might work with the involved editors? One that doesn't require ArbCom to step in? Dorfklatsch 02:24, January 4, 2008

I disagree that is a compromise at all, its removing a defintion that has been verified because of fringe theories, it completely flies in the face of policy. --neonwhite user page talk 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Dorf said, "Note also that your violin example has one fatal flaw: There is no ongoing high-profile controversy with political implications as to whether or not a violin is an instrument." This is exactly what we've been saying about that bogus comparison with a xylophone. Blue Tie has presented a powerful case based on Wikipedia policies, and Dorf's proposal is consistent with those policies. Those who refuse to accept it are motivated by political agendas, as confirmed by their "puny," "footnote in history," "don't have the balls" remarks - not by a desire to make this a good, NPOV article. Neutral Good (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If there were controversy surrounding the defintion of a violin it would not affect the fact that it has been a musical instrument for the past how many centuries. This is no different. Blue Tie has not provided anything more than personal opinions that a fringe theory should affect the lead of an article which is cleary against core policies which you continue to misrepresent. --neonwhite user page talk 05:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I have never used personal opinion that a fringe theory should affect the lead of an article. Never. I am not referring to any fringe theory and I believe I have challenged you previously on this and you have ignored it. I assert that I have provided cites and evidence that the matter is disputed and no one has provided any cites or evidence that it is not disputed. By Wikipedia standards, my position is a fact not a fringe theory. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have made no valid points on this whatsoever, all you are doing is disrupting the consensus by continually hammering the exact same points that have been delt with many times. You can't just continually say everyone who disagrees with you is incorrect, that is not a good position to take. You have provide no evidence that there is any serious dispute that isnt fringe. Please refer to WP:FRINGE We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study --neonwhite user page talk 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For whatever reason you keep insisting that a 140+ consensus against 2-4 opposing voices constitutes a dispute. Mindboggling! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You are mischaracterizing the numbers. You are also mischaracterizing the nature of the minority -- it is significant and notable. Finally, you are also ignoring the fact that I have provide, neutral, verifiable, reliable sources saying the issue is debated. You have not provided any neutral, verifiable, reliable source that says it is not debated. I am relying on policy. You are relying upon a guideline.--Blue Tie (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You have provide nothing but a handful of similarily worded politcal sound bites, they are biased, vague and unreliable and do not represent a sizable minority. Again a recent debate should be included but does not change the defintion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The side of the "controversy" insisting that waterboarding is not a form of torture consists of four notable individuals: two U.S. Republican politicians and two conservative opinion columnists. The sheer weight of the sources stating that waterboarding is a form of torture makes it such that these four individuals cannot actually change, through sheer force of will, the meaning of a well-understood term, as they appear to be attempting to do for purely political reasons. The nature of the practice of waterboarding has been well described, and should be described as what it is (a form of torture), as in the very title of the article Rack (torture). The actual controversy in the U.S. is that the current administration wants to be able to practice waterboarding (as well as to not be prosecuted for war crimes for already having done it). Thus, any possible end run that can be made around the law (either national or international) can and will be made. Wikipedia has clearly become a battleground in this "war", but our encyclopedia must not be influenced in such a political manner as to change the very definition of a well understood and well described practice. The fringe statements of these four individuals, as well as the struggles of U.S. attorneys to redefine the term and its legality do certainly merit discussion in the article. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, they are notable, but their views are only opinions, hightly political motivated ones, and sourced only from political sound bites, most are not even clear. Some are deliberatly vague and some say it might and it might not. They are not studies or research papers. It's fine to include them in the article purely as their opinions but they cannot be used to assert a fact or the dispute of a fact that has been verified numerous times over. --neonwhite user page talk 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Please don't misrepresent our position, Badagnani. We aren't claiming that "waterboarding is not torture." Fully supported by Wikipedia policy, we are stating only that there is a substantive dispute, and that a Wikipedia article can't pretend that the dispute does not exist - particularly in the lead. Neutral Good (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Accept (conflict) Badagnani, didn't you mean "oppose"? Waterboarding is neither well-described nor well-defined in this article, and little better elsewhere. Your attempt at stating our concerns is not especially well done, either. There are forms of waterboarding that I consider to be torture; other forms I am not so sure about, to the extent that I don't like the absoluteness of "waterboarding is torture." That you have a POV that you want the article to express seems more han obvious. htom (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal POV is of no relevance to an article. Nothing on wikipedia is considered an absolute, as stated on WP:V, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. In this case we have a highly verifiable statement. --neonwhite user page talk 05:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - As stated above, the statements of the four individuals who do not consider waterboarding to be a form of torture (if considered notable) should be mentioned in the article. However, as a fringe position, these four individuals cannot be allowed to actually change the definition of a well described and well understood practice. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I agree that Wikipedia policy requires that the article can't resolve the existing dispute between the experts. Badagnani, I also share concerns about your expressions of contempt and your misrepresentations. You aren't just a POV pusher. You're a POV warrior. Thanks for the nice welcome on my Talk page though - but since my IP address jumps around so much, it won't be my Talk page in the morning. Regards, Bob 68.31.220.221 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - This personal attack appears to represent a WP:TROLL, and, as such, is impermissible at WP, where we do not call one another names; I ask respectfully that you please remove it. Regarding the issue of POV, it is quite clear that the POV being pushed is that of the four U.S. individuals (two Republican politicians and two conservative opinion columnists) who have publicly stated their belief that waterboarding--the deliberate suffocation of a prisoner through the use of water--is not a form of torture. According to this reasoning, a WP editor would be a "POV pusher" and "POV warrior" if they failed to allow the article about the Earth to state that "the Earth is either 4.54 billion years old, or approximately 6 thousand years old; the latter according to four notable individuals." The fringe POV is deserving of mention, but not in the lead or introductory section of the article. Badagnani (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering that nobody is disputing that all opinions should be included in the article, only that undue weight is not given to fringe theories. This is not POV pushing or POV warriors it is maintaining the principle of neutrality. --neonwhite user page talk 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are deliberately misrepresenting our position. We are not arguing that undue weight should be given to any theory. We are arguing that the minority opinion is not some lunatic fringe, and therefore the lead should give zero weight to any opinion, either majority or minority. What you are demanding is that the lead must serve a tyranny of the majority. Where are the official positions of foreign governments who say, "All waterboarding is torture"? Where is there anyone except provably left-wing university professors and human rights activists claiming, "All waterboarding is torture"? Neutral Good (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what you are arguing. That a handful of political sound bites should be given equal weight to the multiple verified sources in complete breach of NPOV policy. The lead is a summary of the principle points of the article and the article is principally about torture. Yet again you seem to think this is an article about the US controversy, it is not Your obviously political biases have no business affecting this discussion. NPOV policy says that majority positions should be given proportional weight. --neonwhite user page talk 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

John McCain, Lindsey Graham (who says it's illegal and a war crime) [8].--agr (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But I thought someone said that Republicans are politically biased, so they shouldn't count. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead doesn't say "All waterboarding is torture." It says "Waterboarding is a form of torture." Somewhere in the article we might say that "Bush Administration supporters have claimed that waterboarding isn't torture. Opponents claim that the Administration has been complicit in torture. The Administration has refused to confirm or deny whether waterboarding has actually been used, as of January 2008. In fact, the CIA has destroyed interrogation tapes, and the Department of Justice has opened an investigation into possible obstruction of justice." That statement, properly referenced, would serve the reader well by placing the entire situation into context. If the CIA is willing to destroy tapes, and Administration supporters are willing to opine to the national media about whether waterboarding is torture or not, then I feel pretty confident that Administration supporters are willing to bring this dispute onto Wikipedia. That lead sentence is positioned prominently in Google. Fortunately, Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we will have none of that. Instead, we will eventually ban editors who tendentiously spin the article for political purposes. Jehochman ^Talk 12:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead says "Waterboarding is a form of torture". It does not make ANY exceptions and thus implies "ALL". Further, it states it as a fact, when it is not a fact but an opinion. This is in violation of NPOV. Since it is becoming popular on this page to raise the temperature and to threaten people with bans, perhaps you should add that editors who tendentiously refuse to follow NPOV policies will also be banned. Or perhaps you should stop saying such inflammatory things altogether. You are not an unbiased editor here and should not be pushing your admin powers around in the dispute and threatening other editors with whom you disagree. Its just wrong. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is well verified so according to policy it is fact as much as wikipedia publishes fact. Read WP:V. --neonwhite user page talk 18:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, like any editor I am welcome to express my views, and I have not used admin powers in any way with respect to this article or any editor here, nor do I plan to do so. My statement is a simple explanation of how things work. "We will eventually ban editors who tendentiously spin the article for political purposes" applies to editors on both sides. Any editor can call for a ban by starting a community discussion or bringing the matter to ArbCom. One does not need to be an administrator to do that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. As you said you are WELCOME to express your views. Yet when others do, you repeatedly say that they will be banned. They are evidently NOT WELCOME. You say you do not plan to use admin powers yet you threaten to do so in the very statement just above. And you have done so a few times before. You have already chased one editor from this page. You need to stop that. It is unbecoming and wrong. I would not be so eager to go before Arbcom if I were you. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Banning editors who tendentiously spin articles for political purposes is entirely appropriate, even necessary. Those who can not work constructively in a collaborative environment should find other pursuits. But one should note that it is usually a lengthy process over several months, often involving arbcom. henrik•talk 13:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of the new powers that Jhochman was seeking or perhaps claiming? There is a pattern here that is troubling to me. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Given the charged atmosphere, a more structured form of debate and zero tolerance on unconstructive behavior may be needed. Article probation has worked well in other conflicted areas. We'll see once the protection expires, but I'm now hoping it won't be needed. henrik•talk 13:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia must be neutral. It cannot appear to take sides in an active debate. This is the English language Wikipedia and more than half of the world's native speakers of the English language live in the United States. Here in the United States, the question of whether all forms of waterboarding are torture is far from settled. So the lead sentence cannot state that the question has been resolved. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

US opinion does not dictate the content of wikipedia. --neonwhite user page talk 18:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the opinion from the rest of the world? Aside from human rights activists, who will routinely take the "What wine would you like served with your filet mignon" approach to an interrogation of even the most vicious criminal, as Neutral Good has colorfully described, who has spoken out about this interrogation technique from other countries besides the United States? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The sources are already in the article. --neonwhite user page talk 16:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Snore - The lead is fine, and circular discussion won't alter my opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support For "waterboarding is torture" editors please do not be angry. I only want NPOV article. This seems best way for Wikipedia to me. Release your anger. Please work with me in constructive spirit. We can make this Good Article but it must be absolutely neutral. Thank you. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Shibumi2. I was completely confident that you were innocent. One look at your Talk page should tell everybody what really went on. The admin who blocked you actually apologized. Neutral Good (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I missed the apology, where was it? Link please? Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I saw it Shibumi2's talk page, it was posted after the question from Alison asking why a new account had been created after the Shibumi2 account was blocked. I was looking at an old revision. The apology was here. Sorry! Welcome back, Shibumi2. Lawrence Cohen 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shibumi2's problem is that he has a shared IP address. He has no control over what other people do with that IP address. His answers to Alison must have convinced her that he's playing it straight, and that he was not using the new account (or, if it's his, that he wasn't using it for block evasion). She did a second Checkuser so there's no way in hell that he's lying. It's really none of my business, except to the extent that the "waterboarding is torture" advocates have tried to use false accusations to WP:OWN the article, and have targeted me twice with the same strategy. It doesn't work. Thanks to Alison once again for not letting it work. Neutral Good (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Support. This is a showing of consensus. I believe Dorf should be commissioned to write the lead. Regards, Bob 68.31.166.239 (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me have a go at this, maybe a fresh look would be useful.

This article was recently brought to my attention by User:Blue Tie. I do not know whether this is an ongoing dispute, although, judging by the protection, I would assume, that it is. From what I can see, I agree with what he has said: that there are three views, being that waterboarding is, isn't and is disputed as a form of torture.

The problem with this is that whether it is or isn't a form of torture is a matter of opinion. It is all subjective, just as a teenager can say that cleaning his/her room is torture, or a parent can say that it is torture trying to get the child to sleep. It is all a matter of circumstance, context and personal beliefs and morals.

Having said that, it is not our place to pass judgement on whether it is a form of torture or not. Therefore, where there are sourced disputes about a statement, each significant view should be mentioned in the article. If there are notable groups who claim that waterboarding is not torture and a perfectly safe means of interrogation, they may be mentioned, along with their rationale for such an opinion. However, the overwhelming majority of sources (which are opinions) will say that waterboarding is torture.

As it says here, simply cite the scientific sources which state the physical and psychological effects of waterboarding. There should be sufficient medical sources, for anyone who wants to find them. They should be able to let the reader make up his/her own mind, about whether waterboarding is torture or not, by letting them know fo the effects of it.

I hope, that somewhere in the above text, is something original; or at least, something helpful._Jame§^ugrono 12:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly, you have made a statement that I suspect everyone can agree with.

To other editors NOTE: this is NOT intended to be a dispute resolution thing but just another set of eyes on the issues. --Blue Tie (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks more like canvassing to bring in editors who agree with you in order to stack the debate. Please don't do that. Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Baloney. You and Lawrence go and post on several boards for people to come here and have a look and that's ok but I do it on the NPOV board and its canvassing? You need to check yourself. Hold yourself to the same standards you hold me.

I am very concerned that your recent edits cross the line of appropriate statements for admins. I am interested in NOT escalating this matter -- I am looking for lesser means of dispute resolution. But your actions have already had a strong chilling effect and if they continue in this manner I will feel I have no choice but to open an arbitration case.. something I am loathe to do. I urge you to cease this.--Blue Tie (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

We posted on the Administrator's noticeboards, which is entirely appropriate given the nature of the conflict here. A requests for comments was conducted, and the overwhelming majority of sources state that waterboarding is torture. Several editors refuse to accept this result, and continue to argue the point. Wikipedia is not a debating society. At some point editors who disrupt the project through endless argumentation have their editing privileges restricted so that the project can go about its business. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure and I posted on the NPOV board which is entirely appropriate given the nature of the conflict here. Did you bother to see the actual question I asked? I did an entirely appropriate thing and your reaction is to make a personal thing and criticize me when I was looking for the good of the article. Awful. Lack of WP:AGF.

As far as the RfC, it is not closed yet. Despite this, you have presumed that you are the ruler of what its consensus is. Amazing. And in any case WP:CON says that consensus on a page cannot overrule policy. Wikipedia may not be a debating society but the talk page is where issues are ironed out and seeking wider opinions is not a bad thing... Didn't you notice [theories/Noticeboard#Waterboarding this?] You did not condemn it. Why is that? Is it because when someone agrees with you does it ... its fine, but when someone who disagrees does it it is time to trot out the "We will have their editing privileges restricted" threat? Good grief look at what you are doing! Do you really think you are helping matters with that approach? Think about it. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not. You're taking sides, and backing it up with threats to use your administrative powers against the "other side" while ignoring the same conduct by "your side." That's what Blue Tie is complaining about and he has a very valid point. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that treating this similarly to Global warming or Evolution (both of which are politically charged in the US with prominent critics) is appropriate. The dispute should be noted, but that doesn't mean the current lead is against our NPOV policies, or that the dispute should be the very first thing in the article. henrik•talk 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not like disputes to be the first thing in an article and when reasonable should not even be in the lead at all. I hate lots of dispute stuff in articles. The articles should be written in as active a voice as possible and with as much confidence as possible. But the reality is that this is not always reasonable. In this case, the dispute should be clearly mentioned near the end of the lead. But never mind that. I do not think that is the issue. The real issue for me is that the first sentence is in violation of NPOV, as I have said before. I do not think the fix has to be severe but I do not think the current wording is right at all. You evidently disagree. I am not sure what to do about that. I think I am a reasonable and logical person and that I have good supportable reasons for my views. So far, even though I have asked several times, I have not had anyone clearly explain how my views are out of line with policy or evidence.

I also think that comparison to science related articles like Global Warming or Evolution is a bit of apples to oranges.

Thank you for your considerate approach. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"I do not like disputes to be the first thing in an article and when reasonable should not even be in the lead at all." Please look at Intelligent Design, Holocaust denial for ideas as to how to treat non-dispute controversies. Oddly enough, they do exactly that. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's look at them. First, Intelligent Design. In looking at that page and this one, let's ask:

1) "Are the subjects comparable?" Is "Waterboarding" an "assertion" - a "concept" or is it an "act"? Does this intrinsic difference in the nature of the subjects have any bearing on how they are treated? I would say the nature is important in differences in how the two terms are treated.

2) The article opens with the statement: Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Was there any group who contests this statement about Intelligent design? Or is it in fact a statement that everyone agrees upon? In short, is the first statement a "Fact" per wikipedia standards or is it an "opinion" of what intelligent design is per wikipedia standards? As far as I can tell, this statement is a fact according to wikipedia policies. But in this article, the first few words are NOT a fact. So the comparison breaks down.

Now, Holocaust Denial

1). Are the subjects comparable? Is Holocaust Denial an overt act? Or is it a viewpoint or opinion? Looks like the two subjects are not exactly comparable. One is an article on an act, the other is an article on an opinion.

2). The article opens with the statement: "Holocaust denial is the claim that the genocide of Jews during World War II—usually referred to as the Holocaust—did not occur in the manner and to the extent described by current scholarship." Is there a dispute over the term "Holocaust denial"? From what I can tell, Yes. So now, I would go further, "Has that dispute been handled correctly?" From what I can tell, No. Now, I do not know what else to call that article. Nothing comes to mind at all, but if the people who object to the title could come up with a different title I would seriously entertain it. Because this looks like a clever way to objectionably label some folk -- rather like having an article Melatonin-Deficient Skin Color for Caucasian. Consequently, I do not consider this article to be a good analog, especially when then combined with the answer to item #1.

So, I have done as you asked. But notice that you did not do what I have asked of you directly -- twice now as I recall. Let me repeat what I said above: So far, even though I have asked several times, I have not had anyone clearly explain how my views are out of line with policy or evidence. Your response is to show pages that are not analogous to this article and that may not be in line with policy or evidence anyway.

I have several times described the policy issues and so far, these issues have not been answered.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the controversy should be noted in the article. Given the fact that most people coming to the article today are looking for information about the controversy, this makes sense. However, the lead should remain factually accurate: "Waterboarding is a form of torture" as has been established by a preponderance of reliable sources.Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

But, per wikipedia policy it is not a fact. It is an opinion. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is your apparent misunderstanding. Wikipedia does not provide truth. We provide a compilation of information available from reliable sources. In this case the reliable sources say that waterboarding is a form of torture. What you or I, or 300 million American feel as our personal opinions does not matter. To continue arguing your case, you should find independent sources (e.g. not Bush Administration officials or others with a stake in the outcome) who say waterboarding may not be torture. To be really convincing, you should find sources before 2001. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you take some time to read what I actually say? At no point have I tried to get this to point to truth. Wikipedia is not about truth. I am talking about fact vs opinion. Wikipedia has a policy about that. I an the ONLY one on this discussion page to have actually found ANY references or citations to back up my position on this. THE ONLY ONE. I do not think you are paying sufficient attention to what I am actually saying.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that it is a misunderstanding, it has been pointed out countless numbers of times during this discussion that wikipedia publishes verified opinion not facts. This is a refusal to 'get the point' in my opinion. [[WP:V}} is very clear on it. The first line says The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --neonwhite user page talk 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Actually, I appreciate your efforts in that regard.--Blue Tie (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Just an FYI, posting on a public noticeboard like AN or ANI, or RS, is never canvassing. Posting to someone's talk page, or to some Wikiproject, or to some semi-private out of the way noticeboard somewhere on Wikipedia may be. Anyone who thinks that posting to on AN, ANI, or RS to draw more attention here is canvassing is simply wrong. There is no such thing as too much overall attention on an article. The more people that arrive to work and weigh in, the more likely the right solution as allowed under policy will come to light. Everyone should be in favor of far more exposure. The only reason anyone could conceivably have a problem with that is that if they don't want people to be aware of or available to widely challenge their positions. Those with nothing to worry about would welcome a hundred times more eyes. :) Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-Proposal

I mentioned this idea above and in the RFC, but I thought I would get a formal vote on this since many people did not actually debate it or voice their opinion. How would everyone feel about changing the lead to state "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture)..." The advantages of this approach is that it allows those to quickly access the debate about this issue if they want to find it (as I think many of the internet traffic does), it does not push any POV and simply links to later in the page, and it links to the area that provides full support as well as details the intricacies related to the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture". Remember (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes to support

1. Remember (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I would agree. This links to the place in the article where more information and references can be found. That helps. The intricacies can be explained at that location. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
3. A good lead should be non-weaselly and non-inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is possible at all, but this is the closest one so far, IMO. GregorB (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Not a bad proposal. henrik•talk 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Support. Factually accurate, and can be used to draw attention to limited in scope domestic US controversy. Lawrence Cohen 15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Support: seems like a reasonable compromise. Personally, I'd also want to link the first use of torture in that sentence, but I think that is very much a second-order thing. -- The Anome (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
7. I think this is a fine proposal. The main issue with regard to the term torture is that it carries the connotation that "the current US administration used methods of torture". It automatically does so, and we cannot totally avoid this. But qualifying the use of the term with regard to the ongoing media controversy is probably our best shot at avoiding POV. Dorfklatsch 22:03, January 4, 2008
8. Support: We are not here to adopt doublespeak and newspeak, even when advanced by the US. Clearly experts overwhelmingly agree it is torture so to ignore that merely because public opinion within the US is influenced by its administration is a logical fallacy. Nowhere does public opinion trump expert opinion! Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes to oppose

1. I oppose this because it continues to push a POV. Adding a link does nothing to remove or mitigate the POV-pushing. The first six words of the article are vitally important. They cannot show even the slightest sign of bias. In America, the place where more than half of the world's native speakers of English reside, this entry in Wikipedia will be perceived as biased. This affects the credibility of the entire project. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   So do you object to the addition or just feel that the addition doesn't do anything to allay your concerns about the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture" as the intro to the article? If it is the later, then isn't your vote neutral to the addition I proposed but an objection to the whole lead sentence? Remember (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   To be fair, only three of the first six words are critical. :) _Jame§^ugrono 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   The section linked to (entitled "Classification as torture") should logically describe the historical definition of this practice as torture, not simply one vague introductory sentence about pre-2001 definitions, then the rest of the entire section about the views of a single administration of a single nation. Badagnani (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   So do you oppose the addition of the link in the lead or are you just suggesting that the linked section should be more informative regarding the classification of waterboarding as torture? If you just object to the informative nature of the linked section, could you please change your vote to neutral on link for lead and oppose the current status of the Classification as torture section (which currently cannot be improved due to the article protection). I think this would more accurately describe your vote. Remember (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   The rest of the article could definitely use improvement, that is true, and this could let us focus on something other than the lead for a change. Why not give it a chance? henrik•talk 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Because the first six words of the article are an "in your face" violation of WP:NPOV. This violation cannot and must not be ignored. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

   But this isn't a debate about the first six words. This is a debate about adding the link. How do you feel about adding the link? Remember (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

   Any reason?Remember (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Oppose. The real problem is not addressed. Neutral Good (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

   Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the article that need fixing? The question is do you specifically object to the addition of a link in the lead and if so why? Remember (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

4. Oppose. I do not see this as particularly different than the current lead. The problem of flagrant violations of WP:NPOV remain (or are even worse) and I do not believe wikipedia should express opinions as facts. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

   Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the lead that need fixing? I'm not asking you to support the current lead. I asking you for your opinion on the minor addition of the link to the lead. If you object to this please state so and why? Remember (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but No. I consider the addition to increase the intensity of the already bad NPOV problem by further reinforcing the impression that it is a fact that the Waterboarding is Torture, when in fact that is disputed. That is the way I see it. Furthermore you did not ask just about the addition but about the whole lead -- which is what I responded to. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Reply to 209.221.240.193: Local politics, and feeling related to them, are not Wikipedia's concerns. Our mission is our own, and we don't take into account political implications or national feelings based on reporting information from outside sources. Lawrence Cohen 15:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolution

I am going to add the link to the lead right now. There is roughly 2-to-1 votes to support the proposal and most of the opposition votes oppose the use of the words "Waterboarding is a form of torture" rather than really opposing the link. If people feel adverse to this, please feel free to voice your opinions below. Please do not revert without some discussion first. I am not intent on pushing this without consensus, but I feel that we have as much consensus for this proposal as we will for anything else on this page at the moment. Remember (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another failed attempt to boot the opposition

I feel very conflicted about this. It's terrible that Shibumi2 has to be tormented like this for staying strong for an NPOV article. So I feel sadness and not a small amount of anger over what has happened to him. He's a good editor, much better than me at keeping his cool and not taking the bait. It's really tough watching him become a target. But there's also pride in the resilience he has displayed, joy at seeing him return with his head held high rather than walk away like Randy, and optimism that something good can come of this. I ask the "waterboarding is torture" POV pushers to stand down. Give it up. Stop trying to own this article, and obey WP:NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The willfully revisionist account presented above unfortunately seems indicative of this user's editing practice in general. I do not wish to belabor the point, but these are the facts, as you know and I know: editor Shibumi2 was concurrently using multiple registered usernames to edit the same article. This is a serious abuse of our system and the editors who chose to only block him/her for two weeks were quite lenient regarding this. If s/he had not chosen to "play" our system in such a manner, and had not editors here noted the pattern in his/her edits that led to the checkuser finding against him/her, we would likely still have had multiple "users" giving commentary, voting in straw polls, etc., giving the illusions of greater numbers to his/her position. These sorts of games are anathema to Wikipedia and neither Shibumi2 nor any other editor should ever conduct similar activities in the future, at this or any other article. Badagnani (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Alison doesn't think the same way because she unblocked him after less than six days, and Lucasfbr doesn't think the same way because he apologized. Neutral Good (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The blocked usernames edited from the same computer as Shibumi2, editing the same article Shibumi2 has been active on (namely Waterboarding), primarily to vote in straw polls on that article's discussion page. That is what we call a WP:Sockpuppet or WP:Meatpuppet. See User:PennState21 and User:Harry_Lives!. Badagnani (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That can occur with complete innocence on the part of Shibumi2. Read the explanation on his Talk page. There was indeed a Penn State professor who gave out the Wikipedia Waterboarding article as a class assignment. The computer was in an apartment building occupied by Penn State students. Both the blocking admin and the Checkuser admin were willing to AGF. Badagnani, I urge you to do so as well. It's time to bury the hatchet and reach a compromise. Neutral Good (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the absolutely positively last warning you will get not to disrupt this page. You are welcome to constructively discuss the article, and suggest improvements to it. You are welcome to civilly express your opinion. You are not welcome to question the motivation of editors with other views, assuming their bad faith, impede progress and accusing others of misconduct. If you wish to lodge a complaint about the actions of other editors, there are other venues. This is a page for discussing the article, nothing else. Any further disruption will result in a lengthy block. henrik•talk 01:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who was that addressed to, Henrik? To Badagnani, or to me? Neutral Good (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the edit summary. Dorfklatsch 11:20, January 5, 2008

That's a very interesting explanation. Which professor was that? Final exams at Penn State University for the fall semester 2007 ended on December 21, 2007, while the two sock- or meatpuppets began editing for their putative class assignments on December 24 and 30, 2007, respectively. Badagnani (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think there might be a course syllabus for the spring semester posted or distributed somewhere? Is that a possibility? Neutral Good (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That semester does not start until January 14, 2008. The two sock- or meatpuppets began editing for their putative class assignments on December 24 and 30, 2007, respectively. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer the question. Do you think there's a possibility that there might be a course syllabus for the spring semester posted or distributed somewhere? Neutral Good (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The two sock- or meatpuppets began editing for their putative class assignments on December 24 and 30, 2007, respectively--3 and 9 days after the last day of final exams, respectively. The spring semester does not begin until January 14, 2008.[9] Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are going to keep on dodging the question. Let me tell you how it was when I was in college. The course syllabus for most academic courses was distributed, or posted on a cork bulletin board outside the professor's office, at least a month before the start of the semester. Some students, particularly honors students, were extremely competitive and would buy the texts and get started on the assignments immediately. What was it like for you? Neutral Good (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically, the syllabus is handed out by the professor on the first day of class. In any case, it would be rather unusual for students in the U.S. to immerse themselves in future classroom assignments between Christmas Eve and just before New Year's Eve. Badagnani (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Immersed"? Who said anything about "immersed"? Look at their edits. Each one made about a half-dozen of them. And none of their edits resembles War and Peace, or even a complete sentence, does it? They weren't "immersed." Then there's a bunch of IP addresses that made one post apiece. Is that "immersed"? Neutral Good (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of the professor? Badagnani (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. You'll have to ask PennState21. That's the only one that Shibumi2 has clearly identified as one of the students. ... Oh wait, hold on. It appears that one of them really was "immersed." The Harry Potter fan made some extensive edits to Harry Potter-related articles here at Wikipedia. But do you really think that was part of the Penn State curriculum? Neutral Good (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Four edits is extensive? I have an article I've done 250+ edits to. Does that make me Superman? Lawrence Cohen 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Note to Neutral Good: before you start accusing the "waterboarding is torture" people of POV pushing, please remember that whitewashing is POV too. GregorB (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who's whitewashing? I just don't want the first six words of the article to pretend that a dispute over "waterboarding is torture" does not exist. Feel free to cite and quote each and every one of the "waterboarding is torture" sources in the body of the article, feel free to mention that a majority of experts believes waterboarding is torture, and allow the readers to make up their own minds. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do when a dispute exists. But don't write a lead sentence that pretends the "waterboarding may not be torture" sources don't exist. Neutral Good (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody says that there is no dispute. We've been through this: there are sources that say that Moon landing was a hoax. Compared to the "waterboarding is not torture" camp, their arguments even appear quite compelling. GregorB (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Nobody says that there is no dispute." The first sentence says there is no dispute. Only by reading the entire article will the reader realize that there's a dispute. As you know, most people don't get past the first paragraph. Neutral Good (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

PLease read artificial controversy. For some reason you think that public discourse represents what experts think of a certain topic. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence says there is no serious dispute - and indeed there isn't. Serious dispute would also have to involve neutrality (those who say WB is not torture do not have a vested interest in doing so) and arguments (those who say WB is not torture raise at least remotely plausible counter-arguments supporting their position). However, there is hardly any neutrality, and the objections are absolutely arbitrary. In fact - and this has been discussed before - many of the minority sources do not say outright WB is not torture, but attempt to raise doubts - without any rationale for said doubt. This is why sources, which are probably 20-1 in favor of the majority view, become effectively 50-1 or 100-1, and the minority view becomes a fringe view. GregorB (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

GregorB, both Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White have no vested interest in claiming anything except "waterboarding is torture." They were both appointed as Justice Department prosecutors by Bill Clinton, a Democrat. If these two were trying to gain political advantage in this dispute, they'd be saying, "Waterboarding is torture" in an effort to besmirch the Bush Administration and gain advantage for the Democratic Party. But they are saying that in some cases, waterboarding is not torture. There's the neutrality you're seeking, and they have both stated their rationale for their position. This is what's required for a serious dispute to exist. Artificial controversy is not Wikipedia policy, nor is it even a guideline. I don't believe that people like Rudolph Giuliani, Andrew C. McCarthy and Michael Mukasey can be dismissed as a "fringe view."

Of the 115 law professors whose published articles have been investigated by Neutral Good during the RfC, all are clearly well to the left of center. Therefore, according to your arguments, they aren't neutral and should be disregarded. It would be reasonable to conclude that they are a representative sample of all 115 law professors, therefore all 115 lawe professors should be disregarded, according to your arguments. Most of the other "waterboarding is torture" sources, such as Jimmy Carter, are just as partisan and should be disregarded for the same reason, according to your arguments. That would even things up considerably. Instead of 20-1, 50-1 or 100-1, it might be 2-1. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the politics of the said professors was anything other than your personal opinion, it wouldn't matter as the personal politcs of sources is completely irrelevant to their reliability (unless they are extremist which is not the case here). NPOV says that all opinion is represented proportionally. --neonwhite user page talk 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White hold positions in American government - enough said. McCarthy's Wikipedia arcticle says that "[h]e has advocated of the legal use of torture in some situations to prosecute the war on terror." - also quite clear. I don't see why he would say WB is not torture, because, according to him (if the previous sentence is correct), it should be used even if it is. Still, I find his line of "argumentation" ("it's not torture unless we overdo it") completely inane.

Yes, I think one should disregard those law professors should it be demonstrated they are biased. But are you saying that Jimmy Carter is an America-hater? The Jimmy Carter, former US president, the one who organized demonstrations in support of Lt. William Calley back when he was governor of Georgia? I don't find it convincing. And even if one could explain away Carter, how does one explain away John McCain? So, yes: remove those with vested interests and see what's left. It's not better for the minority view; it is in fact much worse. GregorB (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White hold positions in American government ..." No, they don't They used to hold positions when the opposing party was in power.

"McCarthy's Wikipedia arcticle says that '[h]e has advocated of the legal use of torture in some situations to prosecute the war on terror.' - also quite clear." It's inaccurate. You should know better than to claim that a Wikipedia article is a reliable source. McCarthy never "advocated the legal use of torture."

"Yes, I think one should disregard those law professors should it be demonstrated they are biased." I demonstrated that on RfC. I checked the online publications of the first eight professors on the list. Seven were provably left-wing, generally hostile to the investigative and interrogative process, and hostile to police powers. The eighth didn't have anything published online.

"But are you saying that Jimmy Carter is an America-hater?" No, I'm saying that he's a partisan Democrat. If we should disregard people who say "waterboarding may not be torture" for being Republicans (such as Michael Mukasey and Rudolph Giuliani), then we should disregard people who say "waterboarding is torture" for being Democrats, or provably left-wing. Neutral Good (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Still, I have a reservation about your method of proving that someone is biased merely by identifying them as "left wing". By the same analysis, ACLU would be thoroughly left wing. Virtually all civil liberty activists and organizations are left wing; not only now but in the entire 20th century, not only in the US but in Europe and elsewhere too. It appears that conservatives are traditionally not interested in civil liberty issues - nothing new, really. By removing the "left wing" from the picture, you're effectively removing the bulk of human rights organizations out there - and who is going to oppose torture if not HR organizations? GregorB (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GregorB, I think the point that Neutral is trying to make is that sources are generally members of one political party or the other and shouldn't be ignored on that basis alone. After all, we have Republicans like Lindsay Graham and John McCain saying "waterboarding is torture," and Democrats like Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White saying "waterboarding may not be torture," so it's not purely a partisan divide here. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

All that matters is whether the holder of the opinion is a reliable source; according to that guideline, we only dismiss sources that are "widely acknowledged as being extremist." Beyond that, it is not our job to judge the political positions of its sources and dismiss them on the basis of being left-wing, right-wing, or anything else. "Partisan" is not sufficient. I do not claim, for example, that Yoo should be rejected as an extremist source; I only claim that he does not bear on the question of whether waterboarding is torture because he has not clearly stated a position on the topic. Since a heavy preponderance of our sources have declared that waterboarding is torture, it is appropriate for the article to (a) say that waterboarding is torture and mention that certain notable people in the U. S. hold otherwise; (b) say that waterboarding is widely considered torture and mention that certain notable people in the U. S. hold otherwise. As I have indicated before, I am willing to accept either option. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but there is a slight difference: while being "partisan" does not disqualify someone it terms of WP:RS, it adversely affects WP:WEIGHT of his views, and it is precisely the weight of opposing views that is contentious here.

For the record: I'd support the "widely considered torture" formulation as factually true (if borderline weaselly), but it is stylistically difficult to put it in the intro; it is a description rather than definition. GregorB (talk) 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also support the "widely considered torture" formulation, as long as it isn't in the lead paragraph. Leave the lead paragraph for a description of the techniques: how it's done and how it works. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I proposed here as a compromise, and that proposal met with quite a lot of support. I proposed it again here, but not many people commented on it. I still believe this is an approach that can work to settle this (now quite prolonged) discussion so that attention can be turned to improving the rest of the article. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Good

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)

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)

Waterboarding 101.01

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) htom (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

This technique is not related to the dripping water torture; it acts within seconds. htom (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

If the breathing passages are filled with water, it matters little whether the head is immersed or not: drowning is drowning, and has the same results, regardless of the means of induction. As for the "body trick": inducing asphyxia via laryngospasm is still, in my opinion, torture: it's equivalent to any other means of suffocation. Again, do you have any references for any of this? -- The Anome (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

I like the work done here, but it needs sources.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

How many different waterboarding techniques are there? How many could there be? Let's figure it out. Numbering these from "1" to whatever, with increasingly harsh methods from left to right.

A. Immersion. The options are (1) pouring or splashing water on the face, or (2) immersion (submersion) of the head.

B. The board. The options are (1) no board, (2) a level board, or (3) an inclined board.

C. Amount of water. The options are (1) a small amount of water, or (2) a tremendous amount of water.

D. Cloth on face. The options are (1) no cloth, (2) cloth covering face, (3) cloth stuffed in the mouth, or (4) cloth both covering the face and stuffed in the mouth.

E. Plastic on face. The options are (1) no plastic or cellophane covering face, or (2) plastic or cellophane covering face.

There are therefore a total number of 96 possible waterboarding techniques. (2 x 3 x 2 x 4 x 2) According to John Kiriakou, only one technique was used by the CIA. It was far from the most awful or terrible technique available. (A1 B3 C1 D1 E2) Are we sure that all of the experts who say "waterboarding is torture" were talking about ALL waterboarding techniques? Are we sure they they were even aware of all the different techniques? How do we know? Neutral Good (talk) 23:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda irrelevant to this page though. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?

See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.

• Of course. The extremely few dissenting voices barely qualify even as a fringe. Claiming anything else is simply politically motivated dissembling. That we have to have this discussion reflects bad on "western civilization" (ref. Gandhi)--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Politically motivated dissembling" is exactly right. There needs to be some way that we can bring this to an end, because it seems like on hot-potato articles like this, there is a (perhaps unconscious) tactic of extending discussion to an interminable length until people stop watching, and then a "consensus" is established in favor of a decidedly non-encyclopedic characterization of the subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Tricks have been tried. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou. Wikipedia needs an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC, and then Wikipedia needs to eject any editors who persist in disrupting the article with argumentum ad nauseum. Jehochman ^Talk 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Eject them based upon what policy? --Blue Tie (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• (ec) Is water wet? Do planes fly? Agree with the above comments by Stephan, Akhilleus and Jehochman. Briefly, R. Baley (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Based on the extensive sourcing research and discussion, unless you have a watery bag over your head, I can't imagine not seeing it as torture. No pun intended, and I mean this in all seriousness. Functionally speaking, based on sourcing, only individuals who are somewhat politically conservative in the American sense are actually arguing against the torture definition in their extremely minority sourcing. The political views of less than 50% of the registered political population of one nation out of hundreds in the world should not be used to discount historical evidence, and all other wider accepted consensus views of what something is: Waterboarding is a form of torture. Lawrence Cohen 22:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can do considerably more than conceive of it being torture even without a bag over my head, and have no problems considering it perhaps not to be torture with or without a bag. Are you really reading the discussion? htom (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect that he isn't. The charge of "politically motivated dissembling" doesn't stick. Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White are Democrats, both of them say "waterboarding may not be torture," they would be saying "waterboarding is torture" to gain an advantage for the democratic Party if they were politically motivated, and this is about the fourth time that fact has been pointed out for the "waterboarding is torture" crowd. Please stop misrepresenting the evidence. Neutral Good (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. They may believe that showing toughness is good for their party ("the softies are voting democratic anyways"), they may believe it's good for their political career (and damn the party line), they may put what they think is their county's interest above what you think is their party's interest, they may think "protecting our guys in the field is more important than party politics", they may think that appearing to protect "our guys in the field" is good politics. Anyways, they are part of a marginal fringe group and have no significant weight of opinion compared to all the other sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Also, do you have a source for the claim that Andrew C. McCarthy is a Democrat? Likewise, I cannot find any party affiliation for White - and neither of them is a career politician, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Both were appointed to their Justice department positions by Democrat Bill Clinton. We are known by the company we keep. Neutral Good (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not evidence that McCarthy and White are Democrats. Believe it or not, a President can select people of the opposite party for appointed positions. As for "the company we keep", McCarthy's Wikipedia article says that he "has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary." Do many Democrats write for those publications? Oh, and why do your recent edits pertaining to McCarthy's position leave out the quote "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture", found in the Wikipedia article about him? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You say his Wikipedia article says that? Are you aware that even Jimmy Wales admits that Wikipedia articles aren't necessarily reliable? Neutral Good (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the answer of a person who's engaging in reasonable discussion. You already know that Andrew C. McCarthy has written for National Review--you did bother to read the articles you're citing in this article, right? You can also easily determine whether Andrew C. McCarthy has written for Commentary and worked for Giuliani--shall I point out that you are the one who started talking about his employment history? And, once again, why did you leave out the quote where McCarthy says "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring points when proven wrong is a hallmark of trying to prolong a losing debate, or one with no factual standing. Lawrence Cohen 03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's torture. Based on the references, I can't believe it's even up for debate. This seems like a classic example of undue weight, and it seems there's something going on to keep this page at an impasse. Snowfire51 (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• It was considered torture up until 2001. I see no new medical or scientific evidence since then that would overturn the consensus, only political bickering. Having said that, I'm also happy to go with some wording similar to my suggested lead[10] which points out the historic classification as torture (looking back, I would also add the Khmer Rouge) but avoids saying it is actually torture, since that has been the main point of contention here. I would also be happy to go with only historical or peer-reviewed papers for the definition itself, in which case it would be described as torture. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard student group discussion

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)

To Instructor: We're all volunteers here. Your project needlessly consumed time & effort on the part of our editorial and administrative body. El_C 22:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Please do. Give us all a week to think about what's going on here. htom (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

To the instructor: ignore the above comments, as Wikipedia is ran by it's community at large, and not the short term reactions of some worried Wikipedians. So far, the disruption has been caused by the experienced Wikipedians freaking out, rather than by your students. They mean well, and they do have some reasonable concerns, but they don't have the right to ask anyone to leave. Wikipedia is open, and yourself and your students are already apart of our community. -- Ned Scott 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh look. A course syllabus has been distributed online, assigning students to work on the Waterboarding article. Who could have imagined that such an event would come to pass? And long before the end of 2007, too. What will Badagnani say? Lawrence, it looks like your punitive viewpoint is in the minority over at WP:ANI. Some of the admins are saying that the Harvard Law students had some good ideas. And I wonder how many of these "meatpuppets" were supporting you? Neutral Good (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

A similarly titled section on that page has been renamed toHarvard student group discussion, based on arguments presented there. Although I also have a COI as a member of the class group, I would like to put in a suggestion that this section be remaned as well. As Theokrat stated, and others there agreed, this is indeed not a case of "Confirmed Sockpuppetry" but merely charges of such that were *never* confirmed, and which I and all the accused dispute vigorously. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So done. henrik•talk 20:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected for 10 days

OK folks, enough is enough. I've re-protected the article for 10 days. For goodness' sake, please discuss amongst yourselves and come to a solution to whatever the problem is here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely on the wrong version--we've got a heading that says "Disputed classification as torture in the United States". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to note I was careful not to look at the article before protecting. Let me know if there's obvious vandalism or something like that lingering in the article that needs to be fixed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest to use this link in such cases to provide some background information. Kosebamse (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The aforementioned new heading, for which no consensus was developed, is more than a little POV and inappropriate in tone, as it attempts to "teach the controversy." Badagnani (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no denying that there's a dispute in the United States, Badagnani. And if your sources are "authorities," then our sources are "authorities" as well. You were trying to describe our expert sources as average schmucks off the street. Hey, since I've got your attention, what do you think of that Harvard Law professor, assigning this article to his class and distributing a syllabus online, well in advance of the New Year? Do you think the same thing might have happened at Penn State? Is that possible? We only know about the Harvard Law course syllabus because Jehochman happened to stumble across it. Neutral Good (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no denying that among experts the consensus is it is torture. Also, invoking public opinion does not alter the fact that among experts the consensus is it is torture. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As Nescio says, there is no significant controversy among experts on this matter, shown by the overwhelming consensus among expert sources. We should take exactly the same approach as in the AIDS, Holocaust, and evolution articles, where significant controversy among non-experts (HIV denialism, Holocaust denialism, creationism) is reported on as a notable tangential issue, but not allowed to cloud the core issue that there is no significant controversy among experts, which is Wikipedia's gold standard for facts. -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Objectively and per wikipedia standards, both you and Nescio are wrong. I have shown this repeatedly and never have either of you effectively replied to the objections I raise. Repeating "there is no significant controversy" does not make the evidence go away -- but it does violate WP:OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire section that I've put a "disputed" header on consists of the segregated area where you people have corraled all of the experts who say "waterboarding may not be torture." I am reminded of the "free speech zones" where anti-war protesters are corraled whenever George W. Bush makes a public appearance. The entire section is about the dispute. You've got the article lead the way you want it. Now you're trying to purge the rest of the article of anything resembling NPOV, unless the reader goes over every line with a fine-toothed comb. You know most readers don't get past the first paragraph, and most of the rest just skim the section headers. Neutral Good (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Also: Neutral Good, you appear to be implying above, without, as far as I can see, any evidence whatsoever that this is so, that the two law professors you mention above dispute that waterboarding is torture. Could you please either produce reliable, independent sources for this, or withdraw it? -- The Anome (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Anome, you say that I "appear to be implying." Perhaps you need a new pair of glasses. I've said nothing that needs to be withdrawn. You're seeing an implication that just isn't there. Neutral Good (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand?

Apparently some editors have missed the numerous rebuttals of the there is a dispute-fallacy. Unfortunately they are also unable to find them on this page and the RFC. till trying to abide by WP:AGF I post a summary of that discussion here.

1. A 140+ eperts say it is torture, 2 experts say it is not, 2 are unable/unwilling to make any determination. AFAIK nobody disagrees with this.
2. The following has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" confronted with a dissenting voice, even if it is just only one lone wolf, we effectively have a dispute. This, of course, is nonsens. If the existence of any opposition could negate consensus among experts they would still be debating the way our earth is shaped, what causes AIDS, is evolution real, did the Holocaust happen, are aliens experimenting on us, et cetera. Clearly that is not the case. Therefore, opposition by a very small group of experts does not a dispute make.
3. Within the US 1/3 think it nis not torture and 2/3 think it is. AFAIK nobody disputes this.
4. The following has been advanced as argument for the existence of a "controversy:" since US public opinion is split 2:1 this evidently constitutes a dispute. Although very interesting and certainly notable public opinion is irrelevant to what experts think on this. Public opinion has brought us such notable and successful concepts as superstition, quackery, witchhunt, mucoid plaque, holocaust denial, scam, et cetera. Confronted with the evident unreliability the world developed a new concept in an attempt to better explain the world in a more unbiased and unlikely to be manipulated manner. Soon it was discovered this new way of explaining things was far superior than the frequently incorrect gut feeling that was used before. With that knowledge relying on public opinion became a logical fallacy. So, using public opinion as argument is not a valid rebuttal. Some more examples of the reliability of public opinion: antisemitism, facism, McCarthyism.added last sentence Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Then people argue that the sources themselves are wrong, i.e. conflating definitions. Surely everybody is aware that it is not up to us to evaluate and correct sources. Please remember, it is not whether information is correct but can we verify it?
6. Others claim that even if waterboarding is torture the technique used by the CIA is entirely different.Unless we can substantiate this with outside sources it is inadmissable as speculation by a WP-editor.

Hope this clarifies the reasons why any opposition to it is torture is insufficiently substantiated with WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and common sense in mind. Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But what do you define as an "expert" in this context? I am arguing that there is no such thing as an "expert" on torture. Unlike evolution or the shape of the earth, it isn't a clearly defined scientific concept. It doesn't have an objective meaning.

The problem with your examples of holocaust denial, mucoid plaque, what causes AIDS, etc., is that these are all ultimately questions of fact. Experts disagree about what the fact is, but there is still a truth out there to be discovered. In contrast, saying "X is torture" or "Y is not torture" is in the same vein as statements like "X is oppressive", or "Y is undemocratic", or "Z will restrict liberty". The word "torture" is a political label with no objective meaning. Therefore, politicians and the general public are as qualified to comment about it as anyone else. Walton^One 15:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being insufficiently clear. The word "torture" is a political label with no objective meaning. So, to help you here are some legal definitions

• United Nations Convention Against Torture: "Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

• Torture is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 2340 and defines torture as:

1. "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 (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
2. "severe mental pain or suffering" means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from - (A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality;

We have here two laws defining torture. Who would be qualified to tell us how to read the law? Personally I think legal experts are more than able to tell us whether waterboarding meets the definitions put down in these laws.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WaltonOne: But what do you define as an "expert" in this context? I am arguing that there is no such thing as an "expert" on torture. -- There are clearly experts in this area, both medical and legally speaking. Unless you are claiming that the judges of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East weren't legal experts? Or that the judges who prosecuted any other case that has actually gone to court weren't experts? (See Judge Wallach, The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, for more [11]. If, as you claim, there are no experts in the world on torture, then how did these courts cite expert witness? If you want to discuss academic experts, then see "The torture debate in America" (Cambridge University Press), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, or one of the many texts on the Spanish Inquisition (although, understandably, those are mostly written by historians, they do refer to first hand reports classifying the Tormento di Toca as "torture". In contrast, I have not seen a single academic journal or university published text, or historical book, which states that waterboarding is either not torture, or that its status is debated. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

In anticipation of the obvious response regarding the book title; the book itself refers and references waterboarding as torture; and goes on to analyse the "debate in America". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We stand without a rebuttal to date

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)

• It doesn't need a rebuttal because it doesn't have the weight of reliable expert sources to support it. And I'm sorry, but #2 is simply a ludicrous premise. We should give the idea undue weight because 29% of Americans think it's not torture? And they are experts in which areas exactly? As soon as we start writing articles on that basis we may as well give up and become Conservapedia. At the moment, there is no reason whatsoever in the article which justifies mentioning this "controversy" except in passing - and it certainly shouldn't be in the lead. BLACKKITE 19:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Comment - Someone has, in fact, added that poll to the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

Here is a link to a 2005 ABC News/Washington Post poll that says 35% of Americans say torture is acceptable in some cases.[12] 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 [13] 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)

Outside view on this long-running debate

I haven't participated here before, but I need to point out that it is not NPOV to assert in the lead section that "waterboarding is a form of torture", considering that this is disputed.

Since the term "torture" is a politically charged term, its use is inevitably political. Experts, and published secondary sources, disagree over what constitutes torture. Speaking for myself, I have no opinion on whether or not waterboarding is torture, nor am I qualified to have such an opinion. But I am strongly of the opinion that we should not present one point of view, even one held by the majority of sources, as fact. The lead section needs to include some form of balance and needs to be totally rewritten, with sources from both sides.

I am aware of the inevitable difficulty in summarising such conflicts in a lead section, which is the threat of weasel words; we tend to get sentences such as "the majority of experts believe that X is Y,[source][source] but some others have questioned this.[source][source]" But this is better than saying "waterboarding is a form of torture" as if it were unchallengeable fact; furthermore, we have the rest of the article in which to name individual sources on both sides of the debate.

I note that some of the comments in earlier threads have quoted dictionary definitions of torture, and claimed that waterboarding fits the description, and therefore constitutes torture by any reasonable definition. While this may be true, it is original research. It's not for us, as Wikipedians, to say that waterboarding falls within the ordinary English meaning of the word "torture". It is for us, as Wikipedians, to make clear that there is a considerable disagreement on this issue. Nor is it for us to dismiss certain views as "politically biased" while accepting others as "expert" views. Walton^One 14:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The serious mistake you have made there is that wikipedia does not publish 'unchallengeable fact'. Nothing in wikipedia is ever claimed to be an absolute truth. It merely represents the verified popular views. Fringe theories are not important enough to effect the majority view. --neonwhite user page talk 18:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the debate, Walton. As you can see below, there's a large welcoming committee and they are very opinionated. But they illustrate why the lead must not take sides in the dispute about waterboarding. These are just a few people, but they are very loud, very POV and very vigilant. Notice how they're on you like white on rice. People who are strongly opinionated are the ones who speak out, like the 115 law professors who signed the form letter to Alberto Gonzalez. People who aren't strongly opinionated are just too busy with their real jobs to hover on a Talk page like this. So those 115 law professors aren't necessarily a representative sample of expert opinion on the matter. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Walton has expressed a view very close to my own. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no "considerable disagreement". Expert opinions are near unanimous. A few politicians and pundits (and in one small political corner of one small geographic corner of the world only) disagree. See WP:WEIGHT. Compare "evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next", "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature", "The Holocaust ... is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II", "In fact, the Earth is reasonably well-approximated by an oblate spheroid" - and for all but the least I can easily match you three idiots to one for the fringe viewpoint. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec-we must have mental telepathy!) Please cite a reliable source, not a political pundit, who says that waterboarding isn't torture, or that the definition is in dispute. I am surprised that you are buying this sythesis of verifiable fact and editorial. Saying that "waterboarding is torture" is disputed would be like saying that evolution is disputed. No it is not. Our article states, "In biology, evolution is a change in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. " Evolution is disputed at least as widely as waterboarding, but those disputing it are not reliable sources. They are advocacy groups. Please see wikiality. Jehochman ^Talk 14:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Our country is one nation and is not going to be entitled to disproportionate WEIGHT on this matter. I think this needs to be conveyed in some form of unified messaging from this point forward, since so many people keep showing up not understanding that this is a global in scope encyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen 14:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please also see the comment above by Nomen Nescio. henrik•talk 14:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a POV being pushed that relies on the "reliable authorities" of McCarthy, Mukasey, Giuliani and the Glenn Beck Show is a POV that under WP:WEIGHT can be mentioned briefly, but requires little other discussion. BLACKKITE 14:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We should report that several notable US politicians and pundits have disputed the idea that waterboarding is torture. This is a relevant fact, but it should not be given undue prominence. Jehochman ^Talk 14:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You all claim that "experts" generally agree that waterboarding is torture, while "political pundits" have attempted to cast doubt on this notion. But who qualifies as an "expert" on torture? Lawyers? Psychologists? Torture victims? As far as I can see, most people on both sides are acting from a political agenda. "Torture" is not a well-defined scientific term. It's a political label, in the same vein as "democracy" or "oppression" or "dictatorship". I would agree, as a general rule, that we should not try to include all points of view where one is a fringe perspective (e.g. the flat earth movement). I also understand Jehochman's point about wikiality. But like I said, this is not a scientific issue and there is no objective definition of "torture", nor is there a specific group of "experts" who are uniquely qualified to define what constitutes torture. From what I've seen above, there are reliable sources on both sides of the dispute - that is to say, published secondary sources. Just because a source has been published by someone with a political agenda does not make it unreliable; indeed, the vast majority of academics writing about topics like this have a political agenda (most often a liberal or leftist one, though this is a generalisation).

The essence of what I'm saying is this: there is no objective, scientific, exhaustive definition of torture, nor is there a special community of "experts" who are qualified to determine what constitutes torture. Evolution v creation and the shape of the earth, and the other examples cited above, are ultimately questions of fact; we (that is, humanity) may not know what the correct answer is, but we know that such an answer exists. In contrast, saying "X is torture" or "Y is not torture" is in the same vein as saying "X is oppressive" or "Y is anti-democratic". It's an expression of political opinion, not a question of fact. Walton^One 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Torture has specific common and legal meanings. It is not a nebulous word. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would the viewpoints of some members of one political party in one nation be given disproportionate weight on the article? Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out that what Andrew C. McCarthy has said about waterboarding is misrepresented on this talk page and in the article. McCarthy makes it clear that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture, but also says that "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture". That's a weaker claim than "waterboarding is not torture".

As for what Walton is saying, there are communities of experts who can give us authoritative opinions about what constitutes torture: legal experts, human rights experts, philosophers, etc. Politicians, journalists, and pundits are less authoritative on this particular subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Further note on McCarthy. What he stated was - "[Waterboarding] is not especially painful physically and causes no lasting bodily injury...Administered by someone who knows what he is doing, there is presumably no actual threat of drowning or suffocation; for the victim, though, there is clearly fear of imminent death and he could pass out from the deprivation of oxygen. The sensation is temporary, not prolonged. There shouldn’t be much debate that subjecting someone to it repeatedly would cause the type of mental anguish required for torture. But what about doing it once, twice, or some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive?" So again, it should be noted that he would state that waterboarding is definately torture in some circumstances. It should also be noted that his conclusion is based, in part, on the premises that waterboarding: (1) is not especially painful physically, (2) causes no lasting bodily injury, and (3) carries with it no actual threat of drowning or suffocation when administered correctly. I have not seen other sources that support these premises and therefore, I think his conclusion is in doubt. Remember (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have to bear in the mind the political nature of the comment, they are vague by intention. It's almost impossible for a politician to make a firm statement without political damage. --neonwhite user page talk 18:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, what McCarthy said is "waterboarding may not be torture." There are two schools of thought: absolutely certain "waterboarding is torture" sources, and people who say some variation of "waterboarding may not be torture." Your opinion doesn't matter, nor does mine. What matters is that prominent legal experts like Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White, who have no proven showing of political partisanship in favor of the Bush Administration and are in all likelihood from the opposing political party, are saying, "Waterboarding may not be torture." They cannot be ignored. Not in the body of the article, not in the section headers, and absolutely not in the first six words of the article.

I nominate Dorf and Walton to write the new lead for the article. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish people would stop saying that McCarthy and White are Democrats. There's no evidence that they are and the fact that McCarthy writes for conservative publications suggests that he isn't a Democrat. We shouldn't be projecting party affiliations on people without firm evidence; to do so is arguably a BLP violation.

Also, it's a bit silly to stridently insist that we cannot ignore McCarthy and White. As I've said, McCarthy's claim is weak--he essentially says that under some circumstances it's torture, under some circumstances it might not be, but in any case people who think that waterboarding is always torture are reasonable. OMG YOU CANNOT IGNORE THESE GUYS WHO SAY MAYBE IT'S NOT TORTURE!!

An important thing to remember is that an overwhelming number of reliable sources say that waterboarding is torture, and opinions like McCarthy's are a tiny minority of expert opinion on the subject. The sources cited on this page don't really begin to cover what's out there--I don't see anything from legal reviews or the United Nations Committee Against Torture, for instance. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As a law student who reads a lot of legal reviews, periodicals etc., I can attest that (at least in the UK) the lawyers and legal academics who write for them tend, with few exceptions, to be biased towards a liberal viewpoint and towards the views of the "human rights" lobby. Obviously this doesn't prevent their work from constituting reliable source material - and we certainly should give it appropriate weight in the article - but we shouldn't act as if the liberal academic view is the only valid one. Like I said, this is primarily a political issue, not an academic issue; there is no "right" or "wrong" view, only different political opinions. Walton^One 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your "reasonable" sources are, with virtually no exceptions, political partisans who have a vested interest in making the Bush Administration look bad. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is not to play political favorites, nor to insulate subjects from political consequences. In fact, politics have no place here. If that is a problem, editing here may not be for those who worry more about political issues than building a complete encyclopedia. Lawrence Cohen 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The role of Wikipedia is not to play political favorites, nor to insulate subjects from political consequences. - I completely agree, but that doesn't mean we can exclude the political dimension from politically controversial issues. Like it or not, the definition of "torture" is a politically contentious issue. Yes, there have been plenty of secondary sources published on the subject, many by reputable academics - but those academics' opinions can't be viewed in a vacuum, nor can we pretend that the political controversy doesn't exist. I am honestly not trying to push any kind of political agenda here; I personally have no opinion as to whether waterboarding is torture or not, and I'm not an uncritical admirer of the Bush administration. I'm just trying to inject some balance into this discussion. Walton^One 19:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A very recent small political controversy does not change the definition of a 500 hundred year old practice. This is not an article about the US political debate. Giving it anymore than a small section would be undue weight. --neonwhite user page talk 20:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Torture" is a well understood term and 144 sources (see the "Definitions" page linked at the top of this talk page) state that waterboarding (i.e., the suffocation with water of a prisoner bound to a board) is a form of torture. Those fewer than 5 individuals, all from a single nation, who disagree with this are representing a politically motivated opinion. It is not Wikipedia's duty to privilege this fringe opinion, although it may be noted, in proper context, in the article. Badagnani (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article doesn't ignore the political controversy. In fact, I think it devotes too much weight to it. But there's a difference between expert opinion--what we find in legal reviews, official statements by governmental bodies and international organizations--and remarks by congressmen, political candidates, and op-ed columnists. Expert opinion overwhelmingly says that waterboarding is torture, therefore the lead should say it's a form of torture. That doesn't prevent some mention of the political controversy in the lead--and in fact, it's already mentioned there. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• USA is not the only country in the world. Looking on at this dispute from across the pond, all I see is politicians engaging in blatant sophistry and semantic juggling, pretending that somehow physically coercive interrogation is not torture as such, honest. The controversy over here is essentially non-existent, and if Robert Mugabe were doing I'd bet some of my dwindling stock of Genuine US Dollars (buy now before it's too late) that the USA would be right at the front of the baying mob. The political controversy, such as it is, is focused, to my reading, on the appalling sight of senior members of the United States Government, self-declared enforcers of Freedom worldwide, defending a practice which they must, as for the most part declared Christians, surely view as morally repugnant. There might be a bit of noise in the far-right press about how it doesn't matter because brown people are necessarily terrorists even if they haven't been sued in a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey, but north of the Mason-Dixon and east of the Atlantic there seems to be very little dispute. The reliable, independent sources are in agreement. What the neocons think won't change that. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, no they're not. Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White are reliable, independent, expert sources. McCarthy is from north of the Mason-Dixon Line. White is from Los Angeles. Pardon me, but your bigotry is showing. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ethical objection to the use and excuse of torture and internment without trial is hardly bigotry. It's pretty mainstream these days. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Erm, I too am British not American, and I disagree completely that "the controversy over here is essentially non-existent"; yes, the debate has focused on the US, but that's because it's the US government which has been accused of using waterboarding. Your post is thoroughly imbued with political bias. It's not particularly helpful to try to discredit opposing views as "far-right" and racist, or to claim that the liberal stance on torture is the only "reliable, independent" viewpoint. Although I happen to have strong (conservative) political opinions myself, I'm trying to be objective here. Walton^One 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Your view, again, is recentist and america-centric, the technique has been used for over five hundred years by any number of countries. The US government are not the only people to have ever allegedly used the technique and the opinions of a small number of right wing politicians is not a significant minority. --neonwhite user page talk 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • Regardless of any political concerns, Guy's final point about reliable independent sources - which is after all what are required - hits the nail on the head. BLACKKITE 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request - NPOV violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{editprotected}} 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)

The section Waterboarding#Disputed_classification as torture in the United States, please rename the section to Classification as torture in the United States. The section was renamed without support by Neutral Good (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on this edit as part of his edit warring. There was no support or consensus for this, as the scope of the "disputed" nature is not supported by either weight of sources, facts, or a consensus of editors here. It is "disputed" only by an extreme minority of sources in one nation, the United States. Adding the word "Disputed" here is a gross NPOV violation. Please change. Lawrence Cohen 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Support

• Support. Lawrence Cohen 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The single-purpose account made this strongly inappropriate, POV edit repeatedly, without first building consensus, immediately after unprotection. Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. R. Baley (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. BLACKKITE 20:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support --agr (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• 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. Walton^One 20:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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. Walton^One 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose 209.221.240.193 (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the record, I would have opposed this edit. The word "Disputed" needs to be there. The entire section is about the dispute, and the section header should accurately reflect the section content. Neutral Good (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

U.S. State Department has recognized ...

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. <ref>*'''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, {{cite journal| first = | last = U.S. Department of State| year =2005 | month = | title =Tunisia | journal = Country Reports on Human Rights Practices | url =http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61700.htm}}</ref>

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)

Perhaps you're looking for Physicians for Human Rights' report, "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", Sec. 2:63--[14]. 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)

This would certainly satisfy my concern. Thanks! --Vesal (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

This is really stretching it, gentlemen. The State Department specified techniques involving immersion of the head. The only source we have saying that the United States has engaged in waterboarding, John Kiriakou, has specified that the CIA technique does not involve immersion of the head. This goes far beyond even WP:SYN. It should be removed from the article, or heavily qualified as I've just done. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

New rules for this article

We have people willing to contribute productively here to a controversial topic, however, they are being deterred by edit warring.

This situation is not acceptable, so we're going to implement some new rules for this article beginning immediately. The edit warriors on this page forfeited the right to gentleness quite some time ago, and no one really wants an arbitration case. Following precedent from Liancourt Rocks, Islam, Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), and other articles, the usual rules are going to be tightened up.

• Uncooperative editing: Uncooperative editing is not permitted. Do not make an edit that you know will be reverted. "Uncooperative" is defined as: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side.
• Instant reverting: Instant reversion without discussion will not be permitted either. If you simply have to revert, please wait until the issue at hand has been fully discussed on this talk page.
• Edit summaries: All edits must be accompanied by precise, informative edit summaries. These must clearly indicate if an edit contains something potentially contentious. In particular, all reverts (complete or partial) must be clearly marked as such.
• Incivility: On this talk page, or in edit summaries, incivility will not be tolerated and will be punished heavily using blocks.
• Anyone who violates 1RR [one-revert rule] within a 24 hour period will be blocked.

Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by blocks. There are some very talented and skilled writers and editors who wish to contribute to an article on a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I have confidence in the abilities of each person to behave appropriately, make constructive edits, and engage in healthy dialogue on this talk page. This rules will be in effect for one month (until February 9). Please let users who want to edit productively, and are not fans of edit wars, do so. Thank you. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I've added a clarification to 1RR above and I also want to say that I've left this article semi-protected infinitely for the time being. Seems reasonable given the many issues with this article. We'll deal with one issue at a time. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• If "an edit that you know will be reverted" is made, but cannot be reverted, doesn't that mean that this new rule privileges the making of such edits? That is highly problematic. Badagnani (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is to not make edits that you know will be reverted, i.e., controversial or contentious edits. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• That was not the question. The question was: If "an edit that you know will be reverted" is made, but cannot be reverted, doesn't that mean that this new rule privileges the making of such edits?" It was not answered. Badagnani (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reverts aren't prohibited, but limited and slowed down. Each user can do one revert per day, but should discuss the matter first. So the answer to your question is no. henrik•talk 22:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• There is a serious flaw with this. Controversial edits, made without first building consensus (our working process here in recent months) will certainly be made, as nothing states that doing so is a blockable offense. When those controversial/no consensus/POV edits are reverted, the person reverting will then be blocked. Before reverting, the person wishing to revert must discuss the reversion of the controversial/no consensus/POV edit first, but the person making the controversial/no consensus/POV edit does not need to discuss making this edit in the first place. This entire set of rules is, thus, skewed toward the making of undiscussed/controversial/POV/no consensus edits, and is, thus, unacceptable, as our previous working process (of always generating consensus before making any edits) is greatly superior. This new set of rules focuses on punitive measures only against those attempting to remove undiscussed/controversial/POV/no consensus edits--a very serious problem. Badagnani (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• By the way, why did someone else answer this question, rather than the person who was asked? Is discussion regarding this article going on offline? I thought we had asked that that not continue to take place. Badagnani (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Making controversial/no consensus/POV edits is definitely a blockable offense under these constraints (The first line after the enumeration is "Violation of the above conditions will be rewarded by blocks.").

As for the question of me answering, these are my interpretation of the above rules. Someone else answering a question asked to someone is not something unusual on Wikipedia, as I'm sure you're aware. I've had no contact with MZMcBride about your question and if MZMcBride disagrees with my thoughts on what s/he wrote, I of course hope to be corrected. henrik•talk 23:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Making controversial/no consensus/POV edits is definitely a blockable offense under these constraints seems to fall directly into the punitive not preventive area of blocking to me. To be completely honest, the swoop in and change the game feel of this entire section has the contrarian in me boiling about. Arkon (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If you have better ideas on how to return this article to constructive editing, I think we are all willing to listen. henrik•talk 23:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The rules are already in place across the wikipedia. Dispute resolution, mediation, arbcom. The same for every other article. This is not some particularly unique article. Arkon (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but who is "we" and what on what authority do "we" impose this? And your tone sucks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said in my post above, this comes from precedent will other highly-controversial articles. Also, as an uninvolved admin, I can objectively say I don't care who's right and who's wrong; I simply want to see an end to the edit war and consensus for future changes. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So that's the royal "we"? Are you sure your not Ed Poor reincarnated? If you want consensus for editing the article, I would expect a demonstration of the same for your rules, not an arbitrary declaration of commandments right from Mount Sinai. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We can start with the "edit that you know will be reverted" of the change of a heading in the article to "Disputed classification as torture in the United States." Badagnani (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Stephan Schulz here. MZMcBride, with all due respect (and I know you're trying to help), your intervention here is not helpful. Laying down "rules", like the above, and threatening a draconian blocking regime, is only going to generate more bad feeling and hostility. I have absolutely no intention of edit warring on this article, and I trust that everyone else here is likewise too mature to behave stupidly over this. We were having a perfectly civil and reasonable discussion above, and making progress. And, as Stephan correctly asks above, who is the "we" by whose authority these new "rules" are being applied to this article? Walton^One 21:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the protection log. If something like this doesn't work, I think the only remaining option is to go to arbcom in the hope that they can impose some kind of remedies to get this article back on track. henrik•talk 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I fully support MZMcBride's idea on this one, right now this article is too contentuous to be productive. Maybe having to think and justify before edits are made will slow things down enough to make some progress. As henrik points out, it's the alternative to being locked down, so it's not that bad. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Perhaps you can ask MZMcBride to answer the question above. Badagnani (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I support this attempt to get this article working. What we where doing was failing so lets try something else and see if we can get some success. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion; do you think perhaps you can ask MZMcBride to answer the question above? Badagnani (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Arkon (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Regretful support Not a damn thing has worked since the initial unprotection in the wake of the ultra-disruptive anon vandalism and edit warring that Alison first locked down after I put in that initial page protection request, after finding this doing RC patrol. If ten carrots haven't worked, fine: let's try a stick for a short while and see how that works out. If for no other reason than I really, really don't want to a) have to comment in another Arbcom case, and b) I really don't want to have to look through a mountain of random anon IP contribs, and from folks that adamantly refuse to use edit summaries. If this doesn't work, nothing short of enforced Arbcom restrictions will. If anyone disagrees with this please bring it up on ANI. My regretful support isn't changing, so please don't try to nudge me in another direction. It won't work this time. Lawrence Cohen 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support If this doesn't work, we can try 0RR, or is it ZRR? htom (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Conditional Support. I agree with all of the restrictions except for the utterly unworkable "Uncooperative editing" restriction. It immediately fails because even if we should have agreement of every editor except one, if I suspect that this one editor might revert I am not allowed to make that edit. Or what if I make an edit that in my opinion should not be reverted and in some random way the admin thinks my judgment was flawed. Blocked, instantly just for not being able to read his mind. Terrible rule. Remove that restriction and I support fully. Leave that one restriction in and I am utterly opposed. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support but only if they're going to be enforced against the "waterboarding is torture" crowd. The first test of that is below. Let's see whether Black Kite gets blocked. Neutral Good (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

These rules are not actually new. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Violation of new rules on Waterboarding

ATTENTION ALL ADMINISTRATORS

Please see this edit: [15] and block Black Kite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 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)

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)

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)

Block Black Kite immediately. Don't even try to Wikiweasel your way out of it. Block him immediately for a meaningful length of time, or all of your little rules aren't worth a pile of beans. This Wikiweaseling is really getting on my last nerve. I refuse to insult and demean lawyers, or dignify this conduct, with the word "Wikilawyering." It is a disgrace. Love and Kisses, Bobby 68.29.181.89 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Proposal for fork of US and waterboarding

Because this article tends to get dominated by recent news regarding the United States and waterboarding, I think it would be best to split off a portion into an article that deals with waterboarding use by the United Statesin its War on Terror. Please let me know what you think. Remember (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

people who are currently supporting a split

1. Remember (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Strong Support The ammount of space devoted to the USA post 9/11 really biases the POV of the article. We have the Khmer Rouge who waterboarded tens of thousands of people in thier re-education camps, and they have one entire line! Meanwhile we have the USA who have waterboarded no more than hundred (mayby less than ten) who have two sections of thousands of words, that is the real violation of wp:weight in this article. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

people who are currently opposing split

1. Oppose - Waterboarding is sufficient for now, to cover these aspects. Badagnani (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. This seems like a POV fork. The U.S. controversy is central to the present article. As far as I know, the U.S. is the only country that is alleged to be using waterboarding currently. --agr (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Oppose, POV fork, only sufficiently notable to gain a passing mention in this article, let along be self-supporting. BLACKKITE 22:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Oppose (weak) - I think that the problem is that "waterboarding" is being treated as the name of a technique, when it has become a buzzword with much passion and little meaning. I'd split, but along the lines in the waterboarding 101 section I started. htom (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Oppose. The article proper should be sufficient, but the amount of US-specific content here should be kept under control. If that fails, Torture and the United States is perhaps the place to go (although it's a rather large article already). GregorB (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Oppose Sorry, remember. While it may appease the POV pushing that is happening, and calm things, I'd at this point rather see things done right than wrong but satisfying to some. Lawrence Cohen 23:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Why bother? How does that solve any of the problems?--Blue Tie (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested titles of split article

Proposals

• Waterboarding in War on Terrorism
• United States waterboarding controversy
• Other ideas

The actual discussion

Obvious failure. Oh well, I thought this would be non-controversial and maybe help move the article forward. But I'm fine with not splitting and it appears that everyone else prefers it this way. Remember (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you say %-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have that many controversial articles, and wikipedia guidance is only really written for noncontroversial topics. So let's have a bash at figuring out ways to deal with this. Is there any reason to believe that splitting off the united states would *not* draw a lot of controversy away from this article? Sure, it'd be a kind of fork, but on the other hand, it would reduce bias here, and at the same time, we'd have better control over the controversy. We could even transclude the US sections into here, if we like. (then we'd basically be taking several of the good ideas from Articles for deletion for the main namespace. Finally a useful application ;-) ).

Does anyone have any arguments as to why that approach would definitely fail?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The split wouldn't help that much. The basic problem is that some editors believe that the article cannot say without qualification that waterboarding is torture, while other editors believe that the overwhelming majority of expert opinion holds that waterboarding is torture, and that the lead should be based on the majority opinion--to do otherwise would be to give undue weight to a tiny minority opinion. The disagreement starts in the first sentence of the lead, and splitting the U.S. stuff off won't help with that.

What's going on here isn't all that different that what happens on articles like Global warming, where there's a strong consensus among experts but a controversy in the political/op-ed realm. And the same rhetorical tactics that are used on articles like Global warming are being used here; indeed, some of the same editors can be found at both articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus summary though it is biased in presentation. However, I do not agree with his comparison to global warming. I happen to think the global warming page is badly done, so I also consider it a bad example, but for a moment I will presume that it is a good example of how articles should run. The difference between that article and this one is -- that one, at least ostensibly -- is about a scientific matter. This one is not. This one is a political, legal, social issue. That makes a huge difference in how things are done and what evidence should be accepted. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Do we know where those editors are employed, by any chance? (or does that have nothing to do with it?) --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see how this can help unless you really tear up the wikipedia rule book. Suppose for example that you split the article. Does that mean that the non-US article cannot mention any views or opinions from US citizens or use any US cites? Only non-US? That seems so out of kilter with wikipedia standards that I cannot see how it could stand.

Then there is the problem of pov in the article lead. This pov problem does not go away just by splitting the article. But now it is in two places. Double the fun.

Finally, due in part to my own research and in part due to htom's work, I think that there are even more fundamental problems with this article. In particular, I am not convinced that we actually know what waterboarding is. I note that many many references in this article actually have a hidden WP:OR violation in that, although they do not claim to be about waterboarding they are used as evidence about waterboarding. This problem of defining waterboarding is so bad and so hard, that even if I were editing by myself, with no other editors, I might get into an edit war -- because the definition is not clear. I am starting to think that the term waterboarding may have a very specific application that is so recent it would not apply to any of the historical sections in this article. This issue is really rather difficult. But splitting the article does not make it go away. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The rulebook has been shown to Not Work often enough in this kind of case that we should at least consider writing a new one for such contingencies (we should do so while trying to work as much as possible in the spirit of the rulebook for more common kinds of article, of course! :-) ).

As a programmer, when I can't solve a big problem in one go, I've learned to apply "divide and conquer". I split the big problem into smaller problems (and those smaller problems into even smaller problems), until the problem is small enough that I can actually solve it.

So I guess what I'm saying is, how about we apply divide and conquer here? By having one article use only pre-2001 sources, and the other only post-2001 sources, we can then concentrate on bringing historical data in-line with OR in one article, and deal with the controversy in the other.

We might find that we need to split either of these 2 sub-articles yet again, but that's ok.

In the end we can put everything together again, once each set of issues has been solved.

That -to me- seems to be a way to apply a powerful problem-solving algorithm, and at the same time still stay close to how wikipedia works normally.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Also, I have some suspicions as to how wikis work, that suggest to me that splitting an article might have a yet even stronger effect than I am describing now, but that's a long story that doesn't quite fit in this margin ;-)

I thought of something like that too. I proposed having a single short, inadequate sentence as the lead, with the agreement by everyone that it was not right , but just leave it alone until the rest of the article was considered well done. Work the details of the rest of the article and then write the lead to summarize the details that were painstakingly developed. That idea was not accepted by about half of the folk.

As far as your idea, I think that instead of subdividing the problem, your solution multiplies it by spreading the problems (which are inherent in the nature of the dispute or in the nature of the subject) to as many articles as you would create. Let's take the most disputed issue: Waterboarding is torture. There is no way to split articles such that they are not discussing waterboarding, and in every one of the articles then, this dispute will arise. But now, instead of being in one article, it will be in two or three. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, and there's no way to split that particular aspect off from the rest, you think? (I do have a personal opinion on the matter myself, but let's set that aside for the moment and just see how we can handle the situation :-) ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if everyone on wikipedia were like me... all logical and reasonable and totally right, I am sure that we could all find ways to split it off and separate things, and rejoin them later harmoneously. But, trying to follow your lead and experience at mediation, how about this as splits of the article:

Origins or history of the term "waterboarding"

How waterboarding is conducted

Effectiveness of Waterboarding

Medical and psychological effects of Waterboarding

Historical examples of waterboarding

Legal status of waterboarding

U.S. Political Debate and Waterboarding

Is Waterboarding Torture?

I would think that all of them should wait until the first one is written. It may be a decisive article. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, I'm glad your bringing your dispute resolution skills to the table, but I think the solution that you're proposing is more elaborate than we need. In particular, you seem to be agreeing with Blue Tie that there's an OR problem here. I don't think that's true, at least not in any sense that I understand. The NOR policy applies to the behavior of Wikipedia editors, but Blue Tie (and some other editors) seem to be accusing secondary sources of violating the policy. An example, from earlier today, is this edit, where Blue Tie places a {{fact}} tag in a sentence that already has a citation to an article from the Washington Post, because he doesn't believe that the article talks about waterboarding (note the edit summary). What do we find in the Post article? "Twenty-one years earlier, in 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding..." which supports the Wikipedia text very well. For another example of spurious accusations of OR, look around Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_6 for discussion of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Torture, particularly Talk:Waterboarding/Archive_6#Arguments_from_Synthesis.

We don't need an elaborate split of the article, we need editors to stop tendentiously misreprenting sources. In particular, editors need to stop saying that sources don't discuss waterboarding when they plainly do. It's ridiculous that I have to even say such a thing. When I present a source that says "Torture includes such practices as searing with hot irons, ... waterboarding (continuously immersing the head in water until close to point of drowning) ..." and another editor denies the plain meaning of that quote, are we having a genuine disagreement, or is someone being disruptive? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You see evil in me where there is none. I may err, but I am not trying to do bad things. Clearly you are unable to think good about me because you cherry pick your examples and do not accept (or even seek) explanations -- you just accuse. Oh well, there is nothing that can be done about that. But... If there was ever a page that could use effective mediation, this is it. Your rejection of that effort is not helpful. On the other hand, its only me and Kim who are talking. No one else seems to care about that, so it may not matter anyway. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see. <scratches head>. I'll go away and ponder things some more then. --Kim Bruning (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to believe it Kim. Things are not quite as Akhilleus presents them. I thought it was a nice and useful attempt on your part. Unfortunately when people cannot assume good faith, mediation probably is not possible. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you also (very important) read through all the discussion archives as well--not just the past few days or weeks. Some of your commentary seems not to show a great deal of familiarity with what has transpired here over the past months. Badagnani (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Initial changes

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)

• I see one of those edits has been reverted, immediately breaking the guidelines that MZMcBride asked to be followed above. I would be pleased if the reverting editor would explain why. The opinions of a US media commentator are utterly irrelevant to this article. BLACKKITE 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

My question is who you do consider to be authorities. Arkon (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• (unindent) I would expect an "authority" to be a person or organization with extensive knowledge and experience of torture, or at the very least a legal expert (which is why McCarthy's quotes should stand). BLACKKITE 00:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Comment - I agree that Jim Meyers is not a particularly notable columnist. Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Yes it is. Considering wikipedia is about knowledge it all is. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bald assertions of nonsense are unhelpful.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok...

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)

Protected again

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)

So now Black Kite's controversial, POV, unsupported-by-consensus edit [16] 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)

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)

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)

• Comment - Black Kite's edit seems a quite reasonable compromise, as it appears to have been intended. Badagnani (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have acted in good faith. --neonwhite user page talk 03:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Protecting pages like this several times in a row is certain not to work. You tend to end up basically punishing the many for the missteps of the few. :-(

Perhaps we should write some guidance or documentation on this.

It makes much more sense to hand out blocks, if even for 24 hours, as that is rather less disruptive than (effectively) blocking everyone at once. (especially if/when for longer periods of time than 24 hours)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

Is it time to request a mediator for this discussion? This is my first encounter with a dispute that has gotten to this stage, so I ask those with more experience on Wikipedia for guidance. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

Protection

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)

Formal Dispute Resolution needed

It is becoming exceedingly difficult to abide by WP:AGF when confronted with the circular logic to evade conceding that torture is a legal concept and interpreting legal concepts is not done by the general public. Apparently the question does activity X constitute rape, murder, tax fraud, genocide, torture, et cetera, should be answered by having an opinion poll. Whatever experts think of this should be second to what the fair and balanced audience think, although they probably have not been trained to interpret the law. Because we all know murder is a political act, to some it is murder others see it as self-defence and some even feel they are merely exterminating vermin.

At this point it is evident that we have had some disruptive editors, tendentious editing, and without forced intervention from outside it will be impossible to get past the torture is a socio-political concept, regardless of what the law says, and we should accept the view the general public has on this as authorative. With that in mind I propose we invite formal mediation to help us resolve the deadlock. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, most of the terms you've cited (for instance, murder and genocide) do have a socio-political meaning as well as a strict legal one. Murder is defined authoritatively in the legal systems of all countries; yet it's also used as a political term (e.g. in leftist slogans such as "war is murder" and "capital punishment is murder"). Likewise, while international law lays down a fairly objective definition of what constitutes genocide, there are still disagreements over what was and wasn't a genocide in relation to certain historical events, and it's not uncommon for opponents of a regime to label its actions as "genocide" for political reasons.

However, I don't totally disagree with you - I agree that, as far as the legal definition of torture under US and international law is concerned, we should focus on expert opinions and not public opinion polls. From the sources provided, it appears that the majority of legal opinion holds that waterboarding qualifies as torture under the law of the US and other countries, but there are a few dissenting voices within the legal community. But that's only one part of the question. Since torture is not just a legal term, but also a political one with contentious political connotations, I still contend that it's POV to start the article with "Waterboarding is a form of torture".

As to your allegations of disruption and tendentious editing, I have only recently become involved here and I don't know anything about the behaviour of other editors. However, since I personally have made only one edit to this article, which consisted of adding a square bracket, I hope you are not making any allegations of inappropriate conduct on my part. I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion and acknowledge that you are acting in good faith; I hope you can do the same for me. Walton^One 14:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you felt I made a comment about you. That is not so. Clearly we differ as to how to approach the situation but that is part of any healthy debate.

Regarding your other comments I think this is what is happening:

1. The law defines certains acts, see examples above. Confronted with an individual that purportedly violated the law you agree public opinion is irrelevant, which is my position in this debate.
2. Certain laws define crimes that not many people feel are acceptable.
3. The experts from point 1 may determine, on legal grounds, that a certain individual/country violated a law described in point 2.
4. The previous point could result in this hypothetical individual/country to be compared to Pol Pot, Stalin, addam Hussein, North Korea, China, et cetera, regarding violations of human rights. Clearly genocide, massacre, torture, et cetera do not evoke many supporters.
5. It is understandable that no person/country wants such a thing to happen. To prevent this we can imagine the individual/country involved to start a socio-political movement in order to prevent the adoption of what in essence is a matter of fact legal finding.
6. The last is what you refer to, and what I consider irrelevant as it is an attempt at evading responsibility.

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but I still don't think we can view the question of what is and isn't torture as a matter of definite legal fact, or dismiss political or popular viewpoints on it as irrelevant. Yes, we should make clear in the lead that the majority legal opinion is that, as a matter of US and international law, waterboarding probably constitutes illegal torture (and "cruel and inhuman treatment" under the relevant US statute). But we still shouldn't state "waterboarding is a form of torture" as if it were undisputed fact. For one thing, there is no legal authority which establishes beyond doubt that waterboarding constitutes torture under US law; if the Supreme Court ever rules on the matter, then obviously this will change the situation.

For another, we shouldn't treat the legal definition of torture as the only one which matters. It isn't for us to dismiss an opinion given by a politician as "an attempt at evading command responsibility". In the end, however strongly we may feel that someone's opinion is invalid or an irrelevant platitude, it isn't for us as Wikipedians to make that judgment. We are neither an academic community nor a court of law.

Basically, the fact is that the question of whether waterboarding is torture under US law has not, yet, been definitively resolved; and even when it is definitively resolved, we shouldn't ignore those published secondary sources which disagree with the ruling. Most of the article is perfectly satisfactory, and gives appropriate coverage to the political controversy. But the lead should not state "waterboarding is a form of torture". It should state "waterboarding is an interrogation technique which may be a form of torture", and go on to briefly explain the controversy over whether it is or isn't torture. Weasel words are virtually inevitable here, but as long as we ascribe specific views to specific sources throughout the rest of the article, that shouldn't be a problem. Walton^One 16:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more clarification.

1. I realise words and concepts can have multiple meanings, i.e. the proverbial war on drugs. Nevertheless, this does not negate the legal definitions of war, homicide, rape, torture, et cetera. Whatever interpretation the public may use thes words are explicitly defined by US and International law.
2. Whether waterboarding is "torture under US law" has already been settled. Please see the RFC for details on individuals being prosecuted by the US for exactly this activity. Surely you agree that this constitutes an acknowlegement that it is "torture under US law ."
3. Even if US law does not apply it certainly meets the definition set forth in UNCAT. This treaty is of course legally binding to the US and as such applies also.
4. Even if there is an actual dispute today, which of course there is not, why should we iugnore the fact that the last 500 years this technique has been presumed to be torture, courts have determined it is torture? When discussing the history (>500 years) and prevalence (entire planet) why is a "debate" conducted today, by a very small group of individuals, within only one country of our planet, is that so significant we are to disallow presenting what has been a global consensus for centuries?

Respectfully Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Every single time waterboarding has been considered by US convened courts it has been found to be torture, see Judge Wallach, The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, [17] Actual legal findings hold more weight than opinion motivated by current politics. Your suggestion for the lead ignores every single source pre-2001 which says waterboarding is torture; it would be more accurate to say "waterboarding was considered torture for hundreds of years, has been prosecuted as torture under international and US law, but after 2001 some American lawyers and politicans tried to justify its use by claiming that it might not be torture."

Your argument is similar to arguing that the viewpoint "abortion is murder" should be acknowledged in the lead of the abortion article, because some people think it is, there's no scientific definition of murder, and no U.S. court has yet ruled definitively that every single abortion isn't murder. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not equivalent to that at all. If you look at the lead of the abortion article, it explains clearly and dispassionately what abortion is, and mentions the political and moral controversy. It does not express any opinion on whether or not abortion is murder. If we were to follow your line of argument, that article would have to state in the lead "abortion is not murder in the United States", on the grounds that abortion has been ruled not to be murder by the US courts (in Roe v Wade). But it doesn't do that, and for good reason. The abortion article goes on to explain that some people view abortion as the murder of a human being, that others don't, and that it is illegal in some countries but not others. Likewise, the waterboarding article should explain that some people view waterboarding as torture, that others don't, and that it is probably illegal under US and international law but this has not yet been definitively established. Walton^One 12:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

For a very good reason, we do not write about what a thing isn't, but about what it is. And whatever your stance on the torture question, I defy you to name one county in which waterboarding is not illegal (again, as opposed to "not always prosecuted"). Do you seriously believe that when you grab (say) Jenna Bush and apply it to her, you will not be prosecuted - and not only for kidnapping, but at least also for causing bodily harm? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say "equivalent"; I said "similar". Roe v Wade didn't find that abortion was not murder in all cases, which is the standard you're requiring here. Try abducting a pregnant woman and aborting her unborn baby and see how far that argument gets you. I note you apparently missed the main point: Every single time waterboarding has been considered by US convened courts it has been found to be torture. It is consistently described in pre-2001 references as torture. There is no evidence of it not being considered torture before its recent use by the CIA. Courts reach verdicts on individual cases, which sometimes set precedents; they don't tend to make the kind of absolute statement you are requiring. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, to be precise, performing a forcible abortion on someone is not murder, at least it isn't under UK law (I'm not sure about the US); there is a separate offence of performing an illegal abortion. It isn't classed as murder because the legal system doesn't view a foetus as a human being. And as to your other points, yes, I know perfectly well what the role of the courts is (being a law student myself). Since I don't know the intricacies of the US legal system, I can't comment on past cases on waterboarding, or whether they set a precedent. However, there are different types of waterboarding, and according to the article at present, Andrew McCarthy and others have suggested that waterboarding may not be torture if used in "some number of instances that were not prolonged or extensive". We can't say for definite, based on some old legal cases, that present-day US law views waterboarding as torture - there simply hasn't been enough recent case law (contrasting with the case law on issues like abortion, which is pretty well established). Walton^One 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation that it isn't illegal under UK law? If an attacker were to punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, thus killing the unborn baby, he could only be charged for assault on the woman, and not some crime against the unborn baby? Even if the woman was only a few hours from giving birth naturally? It sounds unlikely, but I guess it's possible. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that Waterboarding has ever been reviewed by a court in the U.S. I have a source that appears to say it has not been. And from what I have read, the term "Waterboarding" has not been involved in the cases that came before the court so far. It is not that I am just quibbling about labeling either. I think that the fuzziness in defintion is a problem for understanding statements like Giuliani's and the new Attorney General, as well as the previous ruling in the Bush Administration by a fellow who volunteered to be waterboarded. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wallach, The Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, [18] cites instances of U.S. prosecuting for violation of international law, court martialing of US soldiers for violating U.S. military law, a US district court which ruled that it was "a form of torture", etc. He also cites the conviction of U.S. Sheriff James Parker and his deputies in a U.S. court; the Fifth Circuit finding very clearly calls it torture, and should definitely be referenced or quoted in this article. Also note Robinson vs California where the judge talks about the use of "'water cures' (dousing, ducking and near drowning)" and their application to the early treatment of mental illness in the U.S as being an example of "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

On the second point: In some texts the various terms for these methods do seem to be used in a mixed way, and quite often are just referred to generically as "water torture". This could be discussed in the article. It is often clear from the context of the actual descriptions what was being done, but it may be difficult to classify some cases where the victim was forced to both inhale and swallow water. A good example of the definition problem is the US District Court, which wrote: "The 'water cure', where a cloth was placed over a detainee's mouth and nose and water poured over it producing a drowning sensation". Now this is clearly what we're calling "waterboarding" here, because it involves drowning and not swallowing, but they call it "water cure", and they're referring to its use in the Philippines. Another refers to the effect of the "water cure" as temporary strangulation. I think the distinction between drowning and swallowing is useful for classifying cases in the Wikipedia articles, and that they're generally two different methods, but I'm not opposed to alternative suggestions. I don't think that arguing over whether particular subtypes of the same method are technically "waterboarding" is going to be particularly productive, unless somebody proposes changing the article name to "Drowning suffocating water torture". But in general, I think it's going to be necessary to actually read the description of what was done in order to classify different methods. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This argument seems to be getting away from what I think we need to focus on: what does expert opinion say on this subject? With very few exceptions, it seems to me that expert opinion (e.g. lawyers, philosophers, human rights organizations, and so on) says that waterboarding is torture. Only two sources, McCarthy and White, have been cited as examples of lawyers who believe that waterboarding may not be torture in some circumstances; the other sources that say waterboarding isn't torture are op-ed columnists, politicians (who don't seem to have any real expertise in this area), public opinion surveys, etc. In other words, the overwhelming weight of expert opinion says that waterboarding is torture. By the way, we really haven't got an exhaustive survery of possible sources on this page. We should be looking at law reviews, for example, and when we do I think it will become even clearer that the legal community thinks that waterboarding meets the statuatory definitions of torture in the U.S. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat the evidence. But since you are asserting something that has been asserted and refuted before, I will simply say, I disagree with your assessment above. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Human rights organizations" are not neutral experts. They are, by definition, advocacy groups. Walton^One 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Human rights organizations are inherently biased towards protecting human rights, I suppose, but does that mean that they're not expert sources, or that they're not worth using for this article? Because I think we could probably level charges of bias in one direction or another at every single source people have cited so far. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we could level charges of bias at all sources cited so far - that's exactly my point. As to human rights organisations, they are biased towards a particular (and contestable) interpretation of human rights. For instance, Amnesty International campaigns against the death penalty, viewing it as a form of human rights abuse. I - and plenty of other people in the world - view the death penalty as a perfectly justifiable punishment, provided it's administered by a fair and impartial judicial system. While the death penalty debate is irrelevant here, I'm trying to illustrate the bias of most people who campaign for "human rights". Walton^One 19:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're claiming that all human rights campaigners are biased towards a "contestable interpretation of human rights", based on the position of a single organisation on a single topic? And yet you ignore the enormous amount of work done by human rights campaigners on every other topic, like being pro-democracy, anti-rape, anti-torture? You do realise that the Founding Fathers of the United States were biased in the same way, right? The whole point of the self-incrimination bit of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution was to make the act of torture useless. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

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)

• Oops, missed this as I was writing the above. Maybe we should first try formal mediation? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be traditional to close the RfC first, as "contentious", and then mediation? htom (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  If we are dealing with sock puppets of banned users as some have suggested, I believe mediation is unlikely to be successful. Mediation is a voluntary process and requires the good faith of everybody involved. Some posts here seem designed to drive other editors apart and provoke confrontation and endless argument, almost in the style of HeadleyDown. This, combined with sockpuppetry, wireless Sprint addresses, strange connections between some of the users (and Free Republic somehow lurking in the shadows). Had I believed we simply had a breakdown in communications, mediation what I would have suggested. But ArbCom might disagree, we'll see. henrik•talk 17:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think this came too fast. We don't even have the RfC closed and we have not tried mediation. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• This is not the first RfC, and numerous admin and non-admin assisted efforts at informal mediation have unravelled, I see no reason why formal mediation would prevail when numerous informal internally and externally driven attempts have failed; as such I think it is high time for Arb's consideration as it has become very cyclical. Inertia Tensor (talk) 08:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done here

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)

If you want to post a statement here, I'll copy it over for you. Lawrence Cohen 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See my Talk page, Mr. Cohen. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Earliest image?

I was wondering what the earliest image of waterboarding is? I haven't seen any tormento di toca images, but they must exist somewhere. I was reading through an academic text (Swift on the Dutch East India Merchants: The Context of 1672-73 War Literature) whose author had been to the Beinecke Library at Yale to see an original print of The Emblem of Ingratitude (London, 1672), the front cover of which is apparently decorated with an image of some English being waterboarded at Amboyna by the Dutch. If anyone's at Yale it would be interesting to get a photo of that. There's an image here from Stubbe's 1672 "A further justification of the present war against the United Netherlands."[19] It's low-res, but you can clearly see the water being poured onto the cloth around the lower face. Apparently there are more "gruesome prints" depicting waterboarding in the book. Again, if anyone is at a university with a large historical library and can get access to it, that would be good. There's also [20] from 1556, although that looks like it could be the water cure.

It might be good for the article to find an image that establishes some historical context. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The left-hand side of the image from Stubbe (V68839.jpg) looks to me like water cure; look at how his abdomen is distended. (The person on the right-hand side is being "clawed", at a guess.) The image from NPR I've seen recently but I don't remember how it was labeled there; it may be tormento de toca but that's a version (perhaps the orginal) of the torture I refered to above as "The Coin", where the victim is forced to swallow strips of cloth that are then ripped from his internals.

Maybe, or he could just be fat. Amboyna massacre says: "Torture consisted of having water poured over the head, around which a cloth was draped, bringing the interrogated repeatedly close to suffocation. This was the usual investigative torture in the Dutch Indies at the time. If the suspect did not confess after that, burning candles were held under his armpits." It sounds more like drowning than ingestion. The academic reference I was reading just refers to it as the "water torture", but given the notoriety of this event at the time (it was still being brought up in English/Dutch treaty discussions 150 years later) there are probably many more sources. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor update

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)

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)

Fine with me.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree; I'd use tachycardia (rapid heart beat) or just tachycardia but both are quibbles. htom (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)