Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music torture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Davewild (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music torture

Music torture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is original research. Or at least the title is original research (according to Google it should be redirected to Achy Breaky Heart, which seems reasonable); the sole source doesn't use this term. The event is well enough covered elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Should anyone want to source-and-expand this (I don't have time) Jon Ronson's The Men Who Stare at Goats includes a chapter on the subject. — iridescent

Keep - I am certain that there are sources to be found, this is a stub, it can be expanded. There were also reports of music torture from Guatanamo Bay for example. The term can also be found to describe other situations as well. Sfacets 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete What little can be said about this phenomenom seems containable in articles such as Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, say. Possibly, a note could be written in the main article on torture. But it's far from clear that "music torture" is in any way the default term for such (resists comment about Phil Collins). --The Brown Bottle 23:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The concept of using unlikeable music for its psychological effect is noteworthy, although I'm not sure that it's ever been described under any particular name. It's not new. In 1989, heavy metal music was played outside of the headquarters of General Noriega in Panama [1], and there have been businesses that played "elevator music", easy listening or even classical to drive away loiterers [2]. I would imagine that somebody has taken note of that in the world of psychology, and perhaps given it a name. I've seen it referred to as "acoustical weapons technology" [3] but I'm not sure that's a common term. Ideas? Mandsford (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Technically, I would say that sonic weaponry is a technology, just as (say) a cattle prod is technology. It isn't the same thing as an interrogation technique. --Dhartung | Talk 07:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & nonsense. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This and other psychological techniques are becoming preferred by governments who prefer to leave no marks on their prisoners (unfortunately, that includes the U.S.). There are numerous sources including this award-winning Nation article and several books which devote significant sections to the topic. There does not seem to be a standard term of art; if anything torture music is found as often. It overlaps closely with torture using loud noises such as machinery and irregular air horn blasts, so could be treated alongside. This is not a joke, it is a serious human rights abuse, and we should not treat it as one. It is just as "valid" a technique -- that is, found in the field -- as waterboarding. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete.I nominated once before.Sambure (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • If you nominated it once before, how come this isn't reflected in the article name? How come there is no record of a previous {{afd}} in the talk page? Ah. Checking the history, you nominated it for speedy deletion.
    • Can we count on you explaining why you don't regard the existing BBC link a reliable source? Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject is unfortunately very notable, with many discussions in news sources worldwide. Its a straightforward descriptive term for it, and if someone has an alternative title, it can be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment isn't this related to how the US blasted music to get Manuel Noriega out of his asylum, or what they did in A Clockwork Orange ? 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rescue per DGG. Well-known device. Good sources can be found easily. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 00:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep', BBC News report is one reliable source, and I guess there are others.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, with possible rename, a more generic title would also allow for the audiotapes of rabbits being slaughtered played at the Waco siege, in addition to its already-necessary expansion to include Noriega. I swear I came across a Gitmo reference to using th eMeow-Meow-Meow cat food commercial ditty as well :) Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • As DGG has noted, the correct venue for alternate names is the article's talk page.
    • I am afraid this nomination is an example of a phenomenon I find very frustrating in the deletion fora. The nomination states: "The event is well enough covered elsewhere." To my way of thinking this wording strongly suggests the nomination arises from a underlying philosophical judgment I have not subscribed to.
    • There are competing camps of underlying design philosophy here on the wikipedia. However, the wikipedia has no fora where the strengths and weaknesses of those underlying design philosophies can be explored in a collegial, civil manner.
    • I specifically except our nominator. I think we interacted a year or two ago and I think I found him then to be a fair, civil helpful person, who was quite generous with his time. But, in my experience, many regular patrolers of the deletion fora aren't civil, aren't willing to engage in meaningful civil dialogue, or offer meaningful civil explanations when they leave their "votes". Rather, they use the deletion fora as a means to shave the wikipedia into their preferred form, by shaving off articles that don't fit with their philosophy.
    • Concerning whether "music torture" is "well enough covered elsewhere" -- this is a design philosophy issue. To someone who favors merging smaller articles that cover only one single topic into a fewer number of larger, omnibus articles, that try to cover multiple related topics, it may seem obvious that this topic belongs in an omnibus article. But it isn't obvious to me. Deleting smaller articles, than can stand on their own, makes it harder for independently minded readers to navigate their own path through the multidimension universe of human knowledge.
    • It seems to me that the main place where this phenomenon should be discussed is here. Those other discussions, elsewhere, should mention as many details as necessary, and then say, {{see|music torture}} -- or whatever name we decide on for this article.
    • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.