Talk:Torture/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

POV, 7 March 2007

"It is particularly dangerous to military organizations. The deliberate infliction of pain on a helpless person is fundamentally a cowardly act and its perpetrators must necessarily be of suspect reliability on the battlefield. Cowardice is known to be contagious in deadly combat situations but the acceptable threshold for numbers of combatants who might break and run in any given fight is virtually unknowable. Hence, the deliberate acceptance of any practitioners of torture in a military culture is problematic indeed."

While hardly any of this article is neutral, this is a particularly bad passage. What reason is there for believing torturers are more likely to run on the battlefield? There's no source, it's just an unsubstantiated claim that happens to flatter everyone's world view. Isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia? Even when we all agree on an issue, an encylcopedic article should at least make a pretense of impartiality. 72.26.64.68 15:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


I find the statement about a "philosophical consensus" somewhat loaded. A consensus among all philosophers today? I mean come on, some clarity would be called for here, regardless of how we might feel about the issue. I know there are legal as well as ethical concerns surrounding this article, but there is certainly nothing illegal, nor, I would say, immoral, about a neutral encyclopedia article being more inclusive of all possible views and shades of views. As an example, more should be included about the ticking time-bomb scenario, and other situations when it might arguably make ethical sense to use torture ... Sorry about a long-winded and hasty post, I haven't contributed as much to this thing as I would like and this is my first post in awhile. Black Lab 20:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article is against torture, which in some ways is understandable but I would certainly love to see some arguements in favor of it included to make this article more complete. KenBest 18:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Torture has victims. Those victims (such as Jews who survived the shoah) would most certainly object to the promotion of torture. Suggesting that torture should be done, in their minds, is tantamount to reviving Nazism. Clearly, there are some modern Nazis who would want to justify Hitler's actions. While discussions should be evenhanded, it is possible, in certain cases, for one side to be dangerous. User:Improve 20 April 2007

See the section Ethical arguments regarding torture --Philip Baird Shearer 13:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand your viewpoint, but it may be a little difficult, considering the subject matter. I doubt that if we tried it, it would last very long before someone edited it. Arguments in favour of torture are extremely hard to justify and would probably do more harm than good. We'd probably just set off an edit war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.131.199 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to the original request: Arguments pro and con would likely be argumentative–—and not factually illuminated. People on both sides of such an argument are typically unwilling, on "moral" grounds, that their argument lose, so the heat level increases and the clarity level decreases proportionally. What people on neither side would probably find uncomfortable would be a careful objective inquiry into actual instances of torture including their total costs (e.g., how is the tortured person doing 10 years and 50 years after torture ceased, and, how is the torturer faring at more and more remote times?), their total benefits (Was something learned that saved numerous people from pain and/or death? Was nothing learned? What were the results in the middle?) It's easy to think of examples that could justify the creation of some level of discomfort for the perpetrator of a crime, e.g., if you know where the bomb is and I put an aikido hold on you that causes excruciating pain that totally disappears after you tell where the bomb can be found and how to disable it, but determined terrorists do not give up information so easily and the information they give up may not be worth that much.

Knowing that (1) torture almost never gives good results no matter how severe, or (2) torture frequently yields saving information without needing to be severe enough to leave lasting traces would still not determine what things are moral and what things are immoral, but at least the judges of the torture policy would not be working on their own personal and subjective guesswork.

Unfortunately, such information does not exist in any very well organized format as far as I know. I have been hearing things lately about long-term consequences of torture in North Ireland coming to light, especially as relate to the harm torturers do to themselves. People may find themselves coerced into torturing others, and they may be the ones who still writhe internally decades later despite the fact that the people they tortured may have gotten over it. If the information did exist, it would make sense to include the main results in this article. P0M 04:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the politically-charged nature of the Abu Graib picture distracts from an objective description of the subject matter. I think it shoudl be changed to something like an old inquisition woodcut or babmoo or water torture, or the like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.176.98 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture offloaded

I'd offloaded all popular culture references to leaf article References to torture in popular culture. This is quite standard way to deal with this kind of information. Pavel Vozenilek 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Quality of the text

Quality of the text at this time is awful - first half of the text covers information about Geneva conventions and UN treaties which are only of minor relevance to the topic. Torture had been with the humankind throughout the whole history and couple of modern agreements few care about deserve few lines or paragraph, the rest should be in leaf article(s). I added {{cleanup-rewrite}}. Pavel Vozenilek 16:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreements? Do you mean arguments? P0M 05:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
In your opinion they are only of minor relevance. I disagree and think that they are central to understanding the position of torture in contemporary society. How would you for example define torture? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The definition should be IMHO more like from Websters [1] or from Britannica, less concentrated on modern era.
The article would get better by splitting up and in some parts expanding:
  • History of use of the torture is now covered in single, rather short section ignoring everything outside Europe.
  • Historical laws covering torture do deserve leaf article (possibly list). There's huge amount of material that will be added into WP at some time.
  • Torture devices and methods section grew into hard to orient list and may be offloaded.
  • The text about Geneva conventions, UN resolutions, etc should be offloaded into stable leaf articles.
  • The accumulated recent use of torture should be all moved into the leaf article.
Pavel Vozenilek 11:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The definition of what is torture changes over time. The UNCAT is the foundation of all modern legal defintions. How are the definition of Websters or Britannica different apart from less detail from that of UNCAT? Details of UNCAT explain actions like those of the USA's use of stress postions etc and their use of Extraordinary rendition, both of which are topical issues about the use of torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the definition of torture doesn't change. What changes are laws against torture. These laws might include extra things in their purview, but that doesn't change the primary definition of the word.
For example, check out "racism". The general definition is "discrimination or prejudice based on race". That is a timeless formulation.
Politically or ethically, however, some people dispute whether a particular type of discrimination or prejudice is justified. So they may contend, "It's not racism if we apply (this policy) or endorse (this theory)". Some scholars have claimed that black people are inherently 'less smart' than Asians or Whites. Whether they are "pre-judging" is a matter of no small controversy. There is also a political dispute over whether affirmative action is a valid remedy or a type of "reverse discrimination".
Wikipedia articles cannot settle such questions. We can only quote what 'secondary sources' say about them.
It will help our readers if we distinguish between general concepts and specific legal formulations. --Uncle Ed 14:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken on this issue. During the time in England that HDQ was the common way to execute traitors,few thought it a cruel or unusual punishment, but today few in the English speaking world would think it as anything but cruel and unusual punishment. The meanings of words particularly those used in treaties have a legal definition which defines what they are. The interpretation of these may change over time and that needs to be taken into account, but that is what court judgements do. When the ECHR (Court) ruled that the five techniques as used by the British Government in Ireland in the 1970s were not torture under ECHR (Convention), this helped to clarify what torture was and what was mealy degrading treatment. Using international treaty definitions and backing those up with International court rulings and commentaries is a much more precise way of defining what a word means than using dictionary definitions which might or might not stand up to an analysis as detailed as those presented in a court case.
Uncle Ed on a slightly tangential note you wrote in the edit history of this article "It's not neutral to open with a quotation from such a recent political document (19 March 2007)" in the article on the unlawful combatants you have recently added a quote to the lead section (See "nonprivileged or unlawful combatants cannot claim the same protections under interrogation as POWs (9 February 2007)"). Please explain what the difference is in the use of quotes in the introduction of this article and in the unlawful combatants article. Given that the UNCAT has near universal support from the member states of the UN how is it not neutral to open with a quotation from such a treaty? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Philip, if I'm wrong you have put it so politely and clearly that it was practically painless to find this out. --Uncle Ed 00:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The definition of torture does not change. Someone who's tall in China may not be tall in the US, but that doesn't mean the definition of tall has changed. Only its relative application. 66.167.145.86 08:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether the degree of pain is important

Section 1: torture is defined as severe pain or suffering, which means there exist levels of pain and suffering which are not severe enough to be called torture.

This needs attribution, because it is a point which is hotly disputed (if only in the Western world). The split is roughly even, with US Liberals saying there is no distinction (i.e., rough interrogation is torture) and US Liberals saying there is a significant differenc.

Based on their different views, liberals and conservatives sharply disgree on matters of policy and legislation. I recall some sort of resolution in one of the houses of Congress on this, in the form: (blank) is torture and Bush has to make Rumsfield stop it. --Uncle Ed 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think this is covered by the international accepted definition, i.e. UNCAT. Making even psychological pain part of torture. Admittedly the US seeks to redefine torture as those practices resulting in physical identifiable marks or even what results in death. This clearly is more narrowly defined than what the rest of the world says. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 14:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly defined in the ECHR judgement in the "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" (Case No. 5310/71). See Uses of torture in recent times#United Kingdom and five techniques --Philip Baird Shearer 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


But what fun would torture be if their was no pain? All you want is a confession - any intelligence would be unreliable at best - but judging from the photos from Iraq and what you hear about the torturers, fun must be a major motive.159.105.80.141 11:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion of UNCAT is horribly POV and appears to have been written by someone who was mulling over reasons why they can still use torture. Torture is like getting someone pregnant, there is no such thing as being a little bit pregnant, and there is no such thing as a threshold to torture that isn't quite torture. 199.125.109.125 19:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The most significant aspect of torture might not be pain per se, but the prospect of permanent maiming and disability. For instance, American treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo with loud noise is presumably intended to damage their hearing, causing permanent ear ringing and/or deafness. Similarly, Asian practices of whipping the bottoms of the feet or European use of the "boot" were intended to cause the prisoner pain in walking long after the torture session was ended. 70.15.116.59 03:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethical arguments regarding torture

Just so that everyone understands the different choices between allowing torture and allowing a nuclear bomb to obliterate a city, in one case we live with the fear and certainty of possibly being falsely tortured, in the second case the remaining population can continue to live without the fear of being tortured. People die every day and it is better to die peacefully than to die in fear. How many people died on Sep 11, 2001 in New York? About three thousand, and more than that died needlessly in the subsequent four years because they were afraid to fly and drove instead of flying. How many people die in the United States needlessly due to smoking and obesity every year? About half a million. Americans are worried about the wrong things. As to the nuclear bomb blowing up a city? That has only happened twice in the history of the world and both times it was done by Americans. The likelihood of it ever happening again are very slim, and of course can be reduced by eliminating all nuclear weapons, and not by doing it the American way - you go first, but the best way, I'll go first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.125.109.125 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your posts using four tildes (24.90.17.134 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)).
I doubt that I really understand what the above anonymous writer is trying to say. Apparent s/he thinks there is some calculus by which one can weigh torture and nuclear annihilation on the same scale.
"Above anonymous writer" ? Why do so many people on Wikipedia use phrases like that? Is it intended to denigrate writers for choosing to be anonymous, which is their (our) right, and which is in fact the default mode for Wikipedia, whether you like it or not? Is it intended as a kind of permission to automatically discount what the writer has to say? Anyway, it comes across as an off-putting ad hominem. --24.90.17.134 01:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
When put on the same scale it is my POV that torture is worse. And I might add I am entitled to any POV I want, as long as I keep the article NPOV, balancing my view with yours. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact that only Americans used an atomic bomb before has lots to do with a few facts, facts that have changed since the end of World War II. First, the US was tired of fighting a pair of intense wars. Germany had surrendered, but every indication was that Japan would fight to the last man as they had consistently done in the defense of every island reconquered from them. Not to approve or disapprove of the action, but the level of temptation to use these powerful new weapons was high. Second, only the US had atomic weapons as far as anyone knew, and the US had control of the airspace over the Pacific. Therefore the US did not have to worry about a nuclear counterattack. Once the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons, the US feared to use them because the result could be a counter-attack from the Soviet Union. (Remember the intense awareness of the high stakes involved the the USSR introduced nuclear-tipped ICBMs into Cuba.) More recently India and Pakistan seemed to be coming close to nuclear warfare over Kashmir. In the past, accidents have almost led to nuclear exchanges between the US and the USSR. There was one particularly close call when malfunctioning radar equipment created the appearance of an armada of bombers headed over the North Pole toward targets in the U.S. Fortunately the system was de-bugged with minutes to spare. Future accidents may not be resolved with such good fortunes.
When George Bush was seeking cart blanche to use torture, one of the obvious ploys was to present a hypothetical situation in which an American city is under nuclear threat and only the torture of a terrorist who had the bad judgment to let himself get caught can save millions of life. Former president Clinton stated at the time that should such a situation arise there were already sufficient provisions in the law to protect officials who resolved to try extraordinary measures as a last resort. The problem with the use of such a hypothetical, as I see it, is that in asking prior permission to break laws and standards of civilized behavior one can open the door to the negligent or even frivolous use of the new legal freedom to torture to serve other ends. In comparison, it is a minor matter if the FBI reads somebody's e-mail without having followed federal laws regarding such matters.
As a potential aggressor in any situation, a rational person will understand that when aggressed upon one's counterpart may take violent exception to that act. People who point weapons at policemen (or at anyone for that matter) have no real reason to complain if the police officer shoots them. When Soviet Premier Kruschev "drew on" the U.S. in the Cuba incident, the military advisers to President Kennedy wanted him to nuke the Soviets before they could get us. Fortunately Kennedy thought of another way out.
If "American people are afraid of the wrong things," then what should they be afraid of? I would count a nuclear backpack weapon smuggled into the US in a bale of marijuana something to worry about. But I would also worry about a climate in which ordinary citizens could be hauled of to be tortured because somebody decided he didn't like their looks.
If you are worried about that you are worried about the wrong things. For one thing it is much more likely that a nuclear weapon would be smuggled in with an otherwise legal shipment. For another your chances of getting hit by lightning four times are much more likely than the chances that anyone will smuggle a nuclear weapon into the United States. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As for what counts as torture, I believe the standard once proposed was that anything that was not as bad as dying, or maybe it was anything that didn't result in the prisoner dying, was not torture. Kant said that in making any law the lawmaker has to be willing that it be applied equally to all citizens of the country. In more homely terms, his moral rule can be formulated as, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander." Some of our ganders should sample the sauce. I think they would not want it as a regular part of their diet.
And when was that standard proposed, in the early 2nd century? And revived by one Alberto Gonezales? 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Pure pain is, by definition, not pleasant. It has the advantage, however, that once it is terminated it can quickly be forgotten. Injury, however, is another matter. Even something as minor as a broken toe can leave one with a lifelong disability, and a source of new pain whenever one buys shoes that are too narrow at the front. Not all injuries are physical. Some injuries are psychological. Intense insults leading to shame can leave impressions that stay with one for a lifetime and may continually provoke dysfunctional behavior.
You are dead wrong when you say that pain can be quickly forgotten. The emotional scars of being tortured never leave. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
When one puts misleading hypotheticals aside and looks at what the truly effective path to "information retrieval" may be, it becomes clear that the most effective ways require relatively long time periods to accomplish. Even better than retrieving information from unwilling prisoners is retrieving information from non-prisoners beforehand. Sometimes that is not possible, and enemies who are in one's custody may be persuaded to cooperate. The best interrogators apparently are the one who do not force information from their captives, but that approach takes time.
Enemies? What enemies? There is no country that has declared itself an enemy of any country for a long time, other than the US of course who pretends that there is an axis of evil, without declaring war on any of them - the US never declared war against Afganistan, yet obliterated it, never declared war against Iraq, did the same, never declared war against Cuba, punished them unnecessarily with an embargo just becuase of a silly opposition to their form of government. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, one who attempts any kind of assault on another has to realize that even if the assault may have been made in jest, the party who perceives himself/herself to be under attack has no obligation to be saintly under those circumstances. In fact, the reality may be that an ordinarily very nice person snaps under perceived threat to self and family and retaliates in a way that is out of proportion to the threat. But that is a fact about human nature, and anyone who attacks without taking that fact into account may get badly surprised. Even creating the appearance of being a terrorist bomber can put a prankster into the position of being perceived as a real threat, and the response to the threat may go far beyond what would have been appropriate if the threat had been real. (People who are deeply frightened often find it difficult to remain entirely rational. Just think of how some people react to the presence of spiders that have no serious venom and no intention to bite anyone.) So the would-be terrorist ought to consider himself/herself likely to be subjected to torture if caught. But that doesn't condone the torturer.
Ah yes, an eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind. Treat people with respect and they won't attack you. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that there are at least two different kinds of torturers. The first kind is the one who perceives someone else as a horrific threat to his community and, for lack of time to do anything more humane and effective, attempts to cause the individual enough pain to force him to reveal the truth. To the extent that such a person remains rational under the circumstances, he would opt for means that produce pain but that do not result in long-term physical or mental damage.
The second kind of torturer is someone who has come to see torture as the object of the game, who no longer feels a shred of empathy for his intended target. He is, then, a person who has lost his essential humanity or at least put it in the deep freeze. He has become an inhuman being. There were plenty of examples of people who took up torturing as a regular job toward the end of the last century. (I am thinking of certain nations in South America.) These people were rarely if ever operating under the hypothetical conditions that have been used to justify torture in emergency circumstances. If I remember the general drift of what Clinton said, it was the if somebody used torture in an instance where his/her family and community were under immediate threat, then it would perhaps prove reasonable to pardon the behavior, but that the behavior should still be regarded as having been a crime.
Read the article. Torture is any act of torture done in an official capacity. You can torture your dog, or your grandmother, but for the purposes of an international definition of torture, that is not torture. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Arguing any kind of calculus that provides a guilt-free trip to the status of professional torturer seems ill-advised to me. After all, one could become the next person thought to have information pertinent to the interests of the state, i.e., to whoever is in power at the moment. P0M 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever - torture seems ill-advised to a lot of people. The point of international law is that torture does not serve the interests of any state - and is prohibited. 199.125.109.125 20:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

12/04/07 - Jos' Edit

The article was too bias, especially in favour of Amnesty Int. I've cut down the excessive use of negative adjectives, and created a new definition section, which seems more neutral than the old layout. But it does really need a re-write.

Thanks Jos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.109.92.210 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines specifically Good practice, new sections should go at the bottom of the talk page and you can Sign your posts: To sign a post, type four tildes (~~~~)
I reversed you edits please see: Wikipedia:Lead section. You might like to consider making you changes but keeping a lead section, but please consider WP:NPOV. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle on Torture

In book I chapter 15 of Rhetoric, Aristotle says torture is unreliable. "we may say what is true of torture of every kind alike, that people under its compulsion tell lies quite as often as they tell the truth, sometimes persistently refusing to tell the truth, sometimes recklessly making a false charge in order to be let off sooner." (1377A) And also "We must say that evidence under torture is not trust-worthy, the fact being that many men whether thick-witted, tought-skinned, or stout of heart endure their ordeal nobly, while cowards and timid men are full of boldness till they see the ordeal of these others: so that no trust can be placed in evidence under torture."

If there is evidence of Aristotle's "staunch" support of torture I would be very interested in seeing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.228.148 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Rounding

I read this book where this was a torturous death called "rounding." From the book, it was a technique invented by Native Americans and used during the American and Indian hostilities (don't know the official name for it) in the 1800s. What happened was that the person would cut off the victim's nose, lips, ears, and cheeks, which caused the face to be "rounded." Is this real or made up? The book I read about this in was one of those mystery Lincoln & Child novels. Eridani 03:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent torture

I think the politically-charged nature of the Abu Graib picture distracts from an objective description of the subject matter. I think it shoudl be changed to something like an old inquisition woodcut or babmoo or water torture, or the like.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.176.98 (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised this article which has a section for recent acts of torture lacks information or at least a mention of torture condoned by the US in Iraq and Guatanamo Bay and abroad in CIA prisons. 87.194.250.183 13:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

See the main article in that section Uses of torture in recent times. When there was more on recent torture in this article it attracted a POV war. For example you sate categogorically that "at least a mention of torture condoned by the US in Iraq and Guatanamo Bay and abroad in CIA prisons" but there is not categogorical proof that the authorised treatment of prisoners held by the Americanse results in "severe pain or suffering". But whatever ones point of view on this there is a detailed section and an article on the subject in Uses of torture in recent times#United States and in Torture and the United States withou the need to single out the USA in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

You can bet that if there's a subject in the media where negativity is directed at the US, there will be a mountain of it represented on the Wikipedia. If you don't see it you are just looking in the wrong place. Every claim, allegation, and accusation gets added to the wikipedia (and usually referenced as if it was undisputed fact) within seconds of publication. What happens is the distaste with articles being too americentric, plus the plain unweildiness of the large mass of polemic, causes it to break off periodically into its own articles. Then new editors such as yourself come along and fill in the void left behind, plus those newly formed articles experience the same forces, and the process repeats. It's how the wikipedia grows, similar to asexual reproduction. 64.163.4.225 18:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"condoned by" the US? Why the weasel word? You mean "committed by". "Condoned" might cover extraordinary renditions, but surely not Guantanamo, CIA prisons, and those held by US forces in Iraq. This argument that there is not "categorical proof" that the "authorised" (authorized by whom, pray tell? So state-inflicted torture is exempt from consideration in the article? Doesn't that render most of the text absurd then?) treatment of US prisoners results in severe pain or suffering could be used to undercut virtually every example of torture mentioned in the article. (and incidentally, to the Cheneyesque crowd: if such practices don't result in severe suffering, then just wherein lies their utility? "Oh no, here come these guys again to not make me suffer! I better give up what I know right now!") I don't see anyone lining up for water-boarding. And US personnel have been prosecuted (if rarely sternly punished) for having committed torture - even going by Gonzalez's absurd "death or major organ failure" definition - which gives the lie (if so much other evidence is to be ignored) to this "no categorical proof" nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2007

Merge to Torture

Seems to me that any article entitled "Psychology of torture" cannot avoid being a personal reflection or essay as it is not a formally recognised subject, so that it might be a better course to merge it into Torture and redirect? --Zeraeph 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That article discussed mainly other definitions of torture than the international definition, which was mainly discussed in this article. However bringing part of it in has made a long article even longer. 199.125.109.125 20:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. They should remain separate articles.65.255.130.104 06:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that this article is far too long. It is currently 81 kb when the warning goes off anytime it an article exceeds 35 kb. Rather, Sections 10, 11 and 12, already paralleling the article Psychology of Torture should be removed and retained only in the latter article which is already linked. Bad idea all around, Zeraeph. 70.69.141.34 07:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Checked and found that before the Psychology of Torture material was imported 18 June 2007, the article was already 62 kb long. Meanwhile, the Psychology of Torture article has yet to reach 35 kb and the topic is well defined and is far beyond the scope of the present article.

I vote to immediately eliminate all the recently added material from P of T article, namely

Section 10 - Immediate psychological aspects of torture 10.1 Psychological effects of pain 10.2 Extending torture to family and friends 10.3 The perversion of intimacy

Section 11 Post-torture psychological effects of torture 11.1 Intrapersonal effects 11.2 Social effects

Section 12 The torture process to the torturer 12.1 Motivation to torture

70.69.141.34 08:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is essay then it should be put up for an AfD. Essays should not be merged into other articles to disguise that they are essays. Even if it is not an essay this article is already too large, so I have reverted the text that was added over the last few days. As this article is already the size that it is there is no reason why a short section as an overview can not be written and added to this article with a "main article" much as is done with the section "Ethical arguments regarding torture". --Philip Baird Shearer 18:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

If the material is of good quality, then Wikify it and make it no longer an essay. There's no need to disdain good material because of format. As to merging it, the resulting article would be absurdly long, and cause a torturous load time on the user. Perhaps there should be a Torture Portal under a larger one, (Human Rights, Psychology, etc.) This article is clearly written and positioned for an audience desiring material: there's no need to dumb it down. Fifth Rider 23:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Torture, survey info, disproved sentence removal.

From my talk page: Regarding your edits to Torture; The survey info was specifically added to counterprove the previous sentence "Nevertheless in the 21st Century torture is almost universally considered to be an extreme violation of human rights," which is literally contradicted by the survey info. So if this survey information is going to be moved then the sentence it was ment to counterprove will have to be removed from the artical in its' entirety. You do not need to take any action as I have already removed the offending sentence from the artical.

It saddens me that I must now consider 29% of the world population the 'enemy'. --ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE 07:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit I made did not delete the text mention it moved it down into the appropriate section Torture#Ethical arguments regarding torture. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the rest of the sentence?

This article opens with an incomplete sentence. And btw, what is an "historic dictionary"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2007

I agree, the opening paragraph is terrible. It's virtually unintelligible (it begins with a sentence fragment and gets worse.) It's original research (unless someone can find a source that says all "historic dictionaries" define torture this way). It's probably factually incorrect (I don't know what a "historic dictionary" is but I doubt they all define torture in exactly the same way). It uses bold, italics and hyphenation in an apparently arbitrary-way. I'm reverting to the last version that made any sense to me. Sideshow Bob Roberts 13:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It's much, much better now! Great job!--24.90.17.134 01:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this assertion supported or just assumed?

Especially in countries where citizens can expect to be spared routine exposure to real torture, the word "torture" is used loosely -- There should be support for that assertion, or it should be removed. And what exactly is "routine" exposure to real torture? And what does "exposure to" mean? Actually having been tortured, or simply being aware of it as a "routine" fact of life? And surely there are many countries where the "word 'torture' " is not used at all - anywhere English is not spoken! In any event, this whole passage seems more appropriate to a dictionary than to an encyclopedia article. (If every article contained every loose or metaphoric usage of the title term, the bloat would become awful.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.17.134 (talk) 03:13, 23 July 2007


Not a forum

KenBest, this is an online encyclopedia, not a dabating forum. The article should not contain "Arguments" for and against anything.

this section a little wobbly

I think the section citing Will and Ariel Durant re the Middle Ages strays a little far into speculation about the motivations of victims who resisted interrogations in that period. The section seems flabby. I wouldn't know how to fix it, because I'm not clear about the function it's intended to serve within the article as a whole. --24.90.17.134 02:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

United Nations Convention Against Torture

Was this passed and therefore enforced on all members? Or wa sit one members sign up to?

USA likes to support all sort of international convention, but they never sign them. This is because they dont want to have to play by the rules!

Has the UN done anything about the USA using torture at Gunatanamo Bay? NO! Just another point UN is a joke.--203.192.92.73 13:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the article it "came into force in June 1987". This article needs another rewrite. The soon to be Gonezales folks have once again tried to redefine torture. 199.125.109.125 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Him him him" - only men are tortured?==

This article constantly mentions "him" when presumably it is talking about potentially any person so it may be better to use "them" or sometimes "that person" instead. If "him" is in quotations directly from another source like U.N. articles then it would have to be left, but others could be changed.

"...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..."

Carlwev 11:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Institutionalized State-Supported Torture in Prisons

Someone began this subtopic, and it is true that it was written like an essay, by someone deleted the entire subtopic without any edit summary, explanation or opinion entered on this Talk page.

This being an appropriate topic (in my opinion, being worthy of its own daughter topic (but let's start out here with some discussion til someone decides to adopt and develop such a project..), I reverted, then deleted all buy a small part of the lead, added some things I know to be true, added citation needed tags, and have brought the balance over here so it can be read, accumulate discussion and encourage research. Citations (and/or wiki-links) can be undoubtedly found for the at least some of those needed. Kiwi 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"no sun light ever (see Oklahoma's H Block entirely underground).

Often these conditions including incarceration within small cells accounting to no more than a small cage. A substantial percentage of those incarcerated in such a way go insane within one to three years. Generally these prisoners receive no subsequent psychological treatment.

If the public at all understood any of this, it would be surely widely seen as torture. And the public, if understanding the illegal nature of all that as torture , would also not condone any continuation of any of it.

And those, especially including victims families, loudly advocating, longest sentences and advocating these conditions would be seen to have fallen off the range of normal human behavior and to have joined the ranks of those approving and condoning torture - surely acts as criminal as those they decry as though victims of rape, murder and so on. The question is which is more criminal, to murder someone with a single shot, or to torture them for a life time via conditions in prison.

This condoning surely includes the legislatures of many states maintaining such facilities and e.g. refusing to fund any mental aid for those driven crazy. And esp by the endless pandering of legislatures, to the un-informed public, by legislatures constantly advocating, heavier sentencing , more time, etc. And much of any such longer sentences is entirely illegal as the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause make illegal any citizen of any state getting any different sentence than those in the states with lightest sentence.

This subject also includes the too frequent rape of prisoners by other prisoners, and on being often repeated, becomes itself a form of torture, if not actively condoned, by prison operators, still responsibility can lie no where else when the prisoners raped have no means to defend or escape that form of rape torture.

  • COMMENT - As can be seen, this impassioned widely ranging portion of the edit of the other day could not be left as it is. Additionally, the safety of prisoners, imo, does not specifically fit under torture, though the fear for one's safety from rape within the prison population is well recognized, but is not an institutionalized issue, even if advocated, manipulated or even arranged by prison guards unless this does not constitute rogue behavior, but it considered as totally acceptable under the management of the prison or under tacit acceptance of government. Kiwi 20:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A sub-sub-topic entitled "Remedy for torture" actually addressed only the issue of prisons, so was deleted and will be, in part, recorded below.

When laws ban such activities, then when they occur, there is usually no remedy given, when in fact, any one giving any substantial thought to this subject, would immediately understand that such methods as torture then negate entirely e.g. the rest of any sentence left.
And those driven crazy by heinous conditions of their prison life, have been tortured to insanity; and so any remaining time is negated entirely by the state / the government so causing that insanity when insanity surely was never part of the sentencing.

Kiwi 20:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


Added more there being about mental illness and disordered personalities much more common in incarcerated populations, and that Supermax treatment causes exacerbation of these conditions, and that treatment of depression, delusions, paranoia, psychosis, et al, are not provided with appropriate psychiatric and psychological help for them to maintain a "normal" mental state, given the Supermax conditions. Also added two sources. Many many more authoritative and specific citations can be supported from links and documents from the supermax site. Kiwi 05:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuses now included under medical torture

What needs to be included here is at least a mention of how the Soviet Union used extended psychiatric commitments for those airing "politically incorrect opinions" Kiwi 22:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Length - time to begin a review process

Obviously this article is over long, needs added citations, tightening up, lots of wiki-links for deeper coverage of various issues that are addressed, but that will involve a group of interested souls willing to use the talk page here to work out these issues in an atmosphere of consensus seeking and adherence to WikiPedia principals governing encyclopedic standards.

When you find something you disagree with, consider why you disagree - is an obvious pov approach, an essay type diatribe or simply missing citations. Before feeling driven to wholesale deletions of material, think of what you can do, by editing of existing text, your additions to balance pov, etc, and bring what you see the problems to be to the talk page for discussion. Kiwi 22:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

  • CAUTIONARY COMMENT. Daughter articles may already exist for some of the entries, some daughter articles may be obviously required. I would ask, please, that subtopics and/or large chunks of good basic information not be deleted, but exported to this talk page or directly to new daughter articles, or that it be checked to see how well an existing article already covers the material well (like the Spanish Inquisition as just one example) where many details can be transported if needed and embedded wikilinks inserted within this main article. Kiwi —Preceding comment was added at 22:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical

I added involuntry commitment . There is numerous evidence of crimes in involuntary commitment. Recent example languished in the hospital's psychiatric unit for up to a decade This is POV? What is the arguement for removing it?--Mark v1.0 14:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Involuntary_commitment[[2]] Involuntary hospitalization[[3]]. Once a person is judged mentally ill, the state and psychiatry can treat this person the way psychiatrists and hospital staff deem necessary. Examples of abuses are forced electroshock, forced drugging and confinement without judicial hearings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

2 specific large deletions from Torture article

From my talk page:

Regarding 2 subtopics started this weekend.

One, entitled "Involuntary commitment" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=164693609 Your edit summary specifies - (→Medical torture - Removed USA specific paragraphs. These should be added to the main article and/of the USA section of the article Uses of torture in recent times)...

The other, entitled "Institutionalized Torture in Prisons" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=164693776&oldid=164693609 Your edit summary specifies - (→Institutionalized Torture in Prisons - US specific. This incormation can be added to the the USA section of the article Uses of torture in recent times)

However you do not move either section. Why did you delete instead of doing a cut and paste move?

BTW, the "main article" is obviously not the place for the material you referred to as that is not the purpose of a Main Article. The main article is to be a summary of what the article below covers.

Waiting to hear your explanation as I am baffled why a cut and paste move turned into deletion of two large new edits. Kiwi 17:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • COMMENT - it is a wikipedia aim to present "world views", not just a USA pov. However many sub-topics in this article could present a "how it is in America" while it will also talk about how it is was in the US in the past and how it is/was in other countries. While there is, currently, a USA section dealing with an overview of the Constitutional and Bill of Rights protections, simply because portions of both these new subtopics addressed "how it was then and is now" in America" does not mean that the entire topic somehow becomes "a sup-topic specific to America. This is because all countries over the world have the mentally ill and prisons. Kiwi 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it because it was US specific, we have a whole article on country specific aspects of torture: Uses of torture in recent times. Why did I not move it? Mainly because there are hardly any citations in the information and secondly there is already a mention of some of this material in Uses of torture in recent times#United States and/or Torture and the United States --Philip Baird Shearer 17:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW a misunderstanding of "Main Article" see {{main article}} as used in the Torture#Medical torture section. Usually the summary page that calls main article would only contain the lead section of the main article not the other way around. Use {{see also}} if you prefer. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your contentions. Neither topic is US specific. Prisons exist in every country, yet all countries to not use prisons to torture. There is not a single mention of the Supermax prisons recently conceptualized and built in the US (again covered in 60 Minutes on CBS last night where a former warden of a Federal Supermax prison was interviewed, as was a former prisoner confined to a Supermax facility. The warden was very frank and open, and talked about a number of the high-profile inmates and talked about forced feedings. Interviews of prison guards were done, too, and the type of some of the common complaints from inmates were detailed. It gave a lot of information.
Your claim there were no citations to support anything in that is incorrect. Twice, links to a prison-rights data-collection site was given and I have the link to a pdf file of a federal lawsuit that detailed conditions in one SuperMax as experienced by the plaintiff. This website has a wealth of legitimate high-quality citation material.
I have carefully reviewed the Torture article and there is not a single mention of psychiatric commitment, be it involuntary or no. Not to mention that the subject of the Soviet Union's use of involuntary psychiatric commitment to punish political dissidents, holding sane people captive for years, decades. I'm sorry I ended up having to get a bit of sleep last night rather than track down citations. I DID mark things with "fact|date" markup.
Again, I ask why both of these sub-topics were deleted when your edit summaries only indicated the need to move them. Kiwi 17:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have not said in my edit summary I was moving them I said " Removed USA specific paragraphs" and "can be added to the the USA section ". The first removal was for text that did not have one citation. The second one is to an index page which does not support the sentences written and before every one is a {{fact}} template indicating that someone thinks that more accurate citations are needed. But apart from the fact that neither carries suitable citations, the information is too specific to one country for this article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To explain a little more about WP:V and WP:CITE take the first sentence of the second section:

In today's prisons, what would be widely perceived as torture may be common place, but not widely understood.{{Fact|date=October 2007}} [[http://www.supermaxed.com/]].

The sentence makes an assertion. see WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. (my emphasise)" [[http://www.supermaxed.com/]] which turns into "[[4]]" is not a clear and precise. See WP:CITE for more details on this, but as reference tags are being used in this article you should add your citations as reference tags. see footnote 6 in the article for how to cite a PDF file with paragraph noted so that someone can follow you citations. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But I presume from your comment Kiwi "I DID mark things with "fact|date" markup." that you already know that the citations were not adequate. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Philip. I am the person who added the "fact|date" mark-ups so that people could see when the alert was added that the material needed citations or otherwise could not be retained. I then found and added the prison-related citations, but I did not remove the other as I do not think I am the be all and end all of expert researcher on this topic. I added BOTH to attract attention and encourage editing when I did not remove the mark-up as I did not think that a sole citation was adequate. What did you think of the citations when you accessed them up?
You state that both of these sub-topics are solely USA topics, and again I state that you do not describe the global view WP aims for. Concerning prisons, I assume that other material will be added that deals with other countries. The fact that -I- have not done the work does not mean that there is no prison-based torture in other countries. Concerning psychiatric torture (coerced treatment and no legal protections to involuntary commitments) is also a world-wide problem. My adding the "fact|date" markup does not mean there are no sources, simply that they are not there at the moment.
It seems as tho you were more interested in deleting this material (SuperMax prisons and other torture in prisons, in many countries around the world ... and dealing with "the physician as authority figure in a medically-based paternalistic power structure" is evident, now and then, in many countries besides the US) than in letting the material remain visible, in evidence, for long enough to have more citations added. 12 hours seems an unseemingly short time to let a cite mark-up be considered "to have remained too long".
Neither sub-topic can be considered "should be in the USA section". Are you referring to the other WP article about torture today in various countries around the world? Problems of torture that extend over decades and centuries cannot be confined to "today", tho the SuperMax prisons are a current issue in the US, but torture, including police interrogation technique abuses, have been with us forever and forever will be.
In short, neither sub-topic warranted immediate deletion, removal from view before a single other editor had a chance to see them and help edit them. I strongly disagree with your unilateral decision on behalf of all the editors concerned with the developement of this topic. Kiwi 20:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did not delete the information because of the topic I deleted it because it was USA specific (see the comments I made in the history).

  • There are specific articles for this type of specific information -- and as this article is already over the recommended size limit -- it is IMO better off in one of those articles. The reason why I deleted it instead of moving it is because IMO the citations were inadequate.
  • In the past, and I see no reason why it should have change, country specific allegations in this article lead to bloat as POV piled up on POV. Given the size of the article already it is better that specific information about post WWII torture allegations are not in this article. This was the reason why Uses of torture in recent times was created.
  • Please consider what you would have thought if someone was to add all the same type of specific paragraphs about the same topics but wrote about them from the perspective of Western Samoa or Lichtenstein would you consider that that information should be on this large page or in Uses of torture in recent times and Medical torture and/or some other suitable article.

--Philip Baird Shearer 07:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please read WP:Revert? Reversion is supposed to be the tool of last resort, not the knee-jerk response to any attempt to change an article. (See WP:OWN as well) I have just dealt with the last Guantanamo Bay deletion by editing the text to make it less POV-ish and making it clear that it is a conceptual subheading - i.e. for torture in modern times, you can use "secrecy" or you can use (here) "legal alternatives". This information is not the same as an article that lists many different countries and provides a blurb about the Amnesty International report for each one; the point is to provide an overview of how torture (or arguably torture) works today. If anyone doesn't like my contributions, then fine, change them. Dare I hope improve them? But don't just delete everything because you don't like one little bit of it. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well over 200 articles about torture

I have found a plethora of articles about torture. I find the "torture in modern times" article featuring a list of various countries to be an article that will quite possibly never last. Indeed, it was nominated for deletion last year, but has clung on, but it a very contentious battleground. On the other hand, there was a break away article created last year, JUST on torture in the US.

I think you mean Uses of torture in recent times and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uses of torture in recent times and there was nowhere near a consensus to delete it. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I find I cannot add the category of Torture to this page, thus the page is locked from being properly linked to the Torture topic page. Who can be approached about adding this. There is one Category Page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Physical_torture_techniques that should, perhaps, be merged with the torture category (?) as it has only 5 entries and seems a trifle over-narrowed range.

I am not sure what you are saying here. This page is already in the category:torture. Category:Physical torture techniques is already a sub category of the torture category. There are a number of other country specific articles on torture see Category:Torture by country. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a time for a template thingie - you know, the directory box to help lead people to various categories of a topic? I'm sorry I can't be more specific but my editing experience is limited. And when I go looking for wiki help and instruction pages, I can easily blow half a day and still not find what I'm looking for. Kiwi 07:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • At least the Torture Category needs to be added, otherwise we will continue to stumble around in the dark. It's a pathetic situation being cut off from its own Category. Kiwi 07:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see the bottom of the article this article is currently in the following categories
Category:Crimes against humanity
Category:Human rights abuses
Category:Torture
Category:Violence
Category:State terrorism methods
--Philip Baird Shearer 08:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations and focus

Citations are nice, but beginning an article by a lengthy quote from a UN convention makes us look as though we're not literate enough to define a very general and well-known topic. I remember that just before law was to be featured on the main page, there was a similar attempt to define the concept of laws by quoting a bunch of academics. It was quite appropriately replaced by the much simpler summary "Law is a system of social rules usually enforced through a set of structured institutions." The citations were kept, but were moved to a footnote instead of hogging so much space in the lead. This lead in this article would also benefit from a similar attempt to scatter the dense fog of over-definition.

And I believe that overall, the article seems to be suffering from legalism and recentism. The legal definitions should take up a lesser proportion of the article and more space should be devoted to cultural and historical aspects. The general reader does not need to be subjected to this much judicial minutiae from the very onset of the article.

Peter Isotalo 15:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peter long time no see. I disagree, Any definition that is given at the start of the article ought be a cited definition or we fall into the realm of WP:OR (for example the word severe is important in any definition) and UNCAT is probably the most widely used definition --Philip Baird Shearer 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
UNCAT's definition is only the most common in a legal context, and torture isn't just a legal term like manslaughter or tort. Lead sections also don't have to be this heavily cited as they're supposed to be summaries of the article as a whole. Citing the UN convention at length in the sections that actually deal specifically with the legal definitions of torture is very appropriate, but beginning the article by defining torture from a purely legalistic aspect is nothing short of undue weight, perhaps even POV.
Peter Isotalo 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Does torture work?

I have frequently heard statements that torture is completely ineffective because people will say anything. I have also repeatedly heard histories of Vietnam in which POWs are described as saying that everyone will break sooner or later and tell everything. (though some used expedients such as giving real figures multiplied by a factor of three to keep the story consistent - whether torturers figured this out easily and humored it, another question...) I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. In any case, the topic doesn't seem to be touched at all by this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't really add much to the articel in this regard unless somebody finds a scinetific study as to whether or not it works. Admittedly, I would say that most people will tell you what you want to hear if you torture them. As for a war situation, I would probably tell the truth- if you lie and they later find out, then you're really in trouble. But anyway, we need reliable sourcs (yes I know this sucks and often blatantly obvious stuff gets chucked out because of this rule, but it's a rule). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.134.111 (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also the question of the intended purpose of torture. From what I have read, as a method of extracting information, it is an open question as to whether torture is effective or not. As a method of extracting confessions or instilling fear, however, I don't think its effectiveness can be denied. In the WSJ, Alan Dershowitz flat-out states that it is effective "This is simply not true, as evidenced by the many decent members of the French Resistance who, under Nazi torture, disclosed the locations of their closest friends and relatives..." [5] cojoco (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

General Jack D. Ripper: "No, I mean when they tortured you did you talk?"
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: "Ah, oh, no... well, I don't think they wanted me to talk really. I don't think they wanted me to say anything. It was just their way of having a bit of fun, the swines. ..."

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

slow torture

It should be considered that poisonings which work on a slow, unnoticeable level should be considered torture. There exist people with genes who do not experience pain (albeit very few), poisonings on such people may not be noticed by them themselves since they experience no pain, but the result is often worse than immediate painful torture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.129.249.213 (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Enhanced interrogation techniques?

Someone suggested Enhanced interrogation techniques should be merged here. They screwed up their placement of the merge tag. I corrected it.

I disagree with this idea. There is no question in my mind that Enhanced interrogation techniques can stand on its own. There is no question in my mind that this merge would be a disservice to those readers who only want information on the Enhanced interrogation techniques. Nothing prevents them from clicking on the link in that article to torture to read about torture in general.

Cheers! Geo Swan 22:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association has defined them as torture, and that's sufficient. 199.125.109.85 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
They might even state that eating unhealthy food is a crime: that still would not make it so. The law is determined by legal experts, not psychologists, engineers, economists, greengrocers, et cetera. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"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, [...]
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."
Stress positions, waterboarding, blows with a stick and "bitch slaps" are the physical kind of "severe pain and suffering" Sleep deprivation and sexual humiliation are mental suffering. The Bush administration have themselves allowed it: "with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.".
We cannot let political terms become articles, we merge some of the legality information and the techniques used and state in the Torture article that the Bush administration refers to it as "enhanced interrogation techniques". Wikipedian231 18:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see the ECHR ruling on the five techniques, "... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ..." it is not at all clear that the techniques used are torture. By including the information in this article and redirecting it, is to re-enforce the point of view that it is torture when there is no consensus that it is. IMHO that should not be done unless it is found to be so in a court of law, a judicial inquiry (an American equivalent to the Parker Report) or the consensus is reached that these techniques as used amounted to torture and not 'just' inhuman and degrading treatment. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The articles should be merged. Like I pointed out above, this article is not merely supposed to be about torture as a legal concept. It's perfectly reasonable to use Philip's and Nomen's arguments in a court of law, or perhaps even in a mass media outlet, but not in an encyclopedia with NPOV as one of the central guidelines. Narrowing down the definitions according to various court rulings is not neutral and concluding that waterboarding isn't toruture would require far more clever argumentation than common sense.
Peter Isotalo 13:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And advocating merging could be seen as POV pushing. Apologists for the Bush policies try to merge articles that talk about instances of the policy that are embarrassing. They see it as less embarrassing to have one article, rather than two, because, given how widely mirrored the wikipedia is, reducing two articles to a single article halves the number of results someone sees who uses the number of "hits" a web search produces to evaluate the importance of a topic. I am afraid there are shameless POV pushers who see using merging to artificially reduce the number of google hits a topic nets as an important thing to do. And I am afraid they will use any justification for those merges, no matter how deceitful. Thankfully there aren't that many of these abusers.
Is "enhanced interrogation technique" a euphemism? Is it a term that advocates a biased point of view? If it were a term coined here at the wikipedia it would be a big time violation of the neutrality policy. But we didn't coin the term. So we should cover the term, from a neutral point of view, citing our reliable sources. Just because a term may not not be neutral itself doesn't mean it can't be covered from a neutral point of view. Controversial topics, like astrology, iridology can be covered from a neutral point of view. So can "enhanced interrogation technique".
Remember, WP:VER says the goal of the wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". Is this term widely used? Yes. You and I are fully entitled to hold the view that it is a euphemism. There are sincere wikipedia contributors, and sincere commentators who fulfill the criteria for being a reliable source, out there, who do not regard these techniques as torture. Maintaining a separate article allows us to cover the term without taking a stand. Is it our role to over-rule those who state that torture and enhanced techniques are different? When there are sincere contributors who disagree?
Thought experiment: What if wide-scale slavery, as practices in the Old South. or ancient Rome, were still legally and openly practiced on a wide-scale, in modern, industrialized nations, like Italy, or the USA?
  • Would the wikipedia's coverage of slavery be highly controversial?
  • Would we have sincere wikipedia contributors who lapsed from divorcing their contributions from their personal point of view?
  • Would there be spin doctors trying to restrict the debate?
You bet there would. The Slavery Industry would have at least as many tricky lawyers, and tricky spin-doctors as today's Tobacco Industry. Like the Abortion debate each side would be trying to get us to use their terminology -- ie "pro-choice" and "pro-life". The Slavery Industry would hire tricky guys like Karl Rove, who would try to probably stop people referring to slave as slaves. They would probably try to get us to refer to slaves as something like: "beneficiaries of guaranteed lifetime employment".
So, could we write about slavery from a neutral point of view? Yeah. It would be harder work, but it would certainly be possible. Shameless pro-slavery spin-doctors would be advancing justifications of the benefits of slavery. Just as the spin-doctors for causes like Tobacco use make strategic retreats, the slavery industry would make strategic retreats. As with some argue there is a distinction between torture and "enhanced interrogation techniques", slavery's spin doctors would argue that there was a distinction between the excesses of the past, and today's practice. They would agree to cosmetic changes to slavery, like you would have to have a pass a test, and get a liscense, before you could beat your slave -- just like you have to pass a test and get a liscence before you could drive a car.
Do we have separate articles about "creation science", "creationism" and "intelligent design"? The proponents of intelligent design insist intelligent design is different from creationism. They claim that they aren't stating that the Universe's intelligent designer is God. Okay, I just checked. We do have three separate articles, even though critics of ID claim it is just a re-animation of the defeated movements.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The merged article was 74 kb, unmerged this article is 63 kb. Merge was a cut and paste with no removal of any duplication. So you can see that the waterboarding article is pretty short. 199.125.109.85 15:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Waterboarding is 33 kb, and Enhanced interrogation techniques is 13 kb. They are not short. They are pretty long.--Neo-Jay 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Very strong Oppose. While it should be rather obvious from the text of the article that this is indeed torture, the fact that this is a reference to a specific event or events points to it being its own article. -Aknorals (talk) 19:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think the subject is notable enough to deserve its own separate article. --Alexc3 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose - It is a euphemism for torture, however stands on it's own legs as an article. A better approach would be to refer to this and summarize it within Torture.
  • Oppose - The NPOV issues aside, EIT are a subset of torture, and there is enough information on them for a distinct article. But the NPOV issue is important as well, because the Bush Administration currently denies these measures are technically torture. COGDEN 02:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Seeing the time passed and response here I closed the debate as no merge. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 13:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Torturing tools

this also relates to torturing. i was going to do parable to some torturing tool. i think it has existed and it would be on Wiki. I havent found much there. it would be interesting to have it here. Cc..aa..ll 23:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

See the section Torture#Torture methods and devices which has a main article List of torture methods and devices and that contains a section Torture devices --Philip Baird Shearer 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've tried reorganizing the text with all physical phenomena come first, followed by law and ethics. Very little was taken out and only a few sentences added, but I consolidated a few small sections to create a simpler structure (The previous version seemed to be getting so chaotically organized that people had added small sections under the wrong sub-headers) Hopefully this will make things easier to find. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes because without a definition of what torture first, the rest does not make sense. also sections like "Torture methods and devices" are not just a subsection of "torture in recent times". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The legal definition of torture may not be the same as the traditional definition. Aristotle did not rely on the UN convention! In fact, the legal definition seems to specifically exclude pain resulting from executions, by which definition crucifixion is not torture. That's why I think the history should be presented first (relying on the lead to make the definition). (see also the "Citations and focus" section above, which independently made the same point)
The two subsections you mention are primarily devoted to modern torture techniques and results as written, with only a couple of uninformative sentences hinting at the history. Alternatively, they could be promoted to main headings in their own right. Lumping them under a catch-all section titled "Aspects of torture" is IMHO not useful at all.
It creates a chaotic article when you start with a law passed in 1948 (without saying why it was passed, BTW), then discuss ethics, then take a stab at ancient history and modern torture, then discuss a grab bag of "aspects" of torture (more arguments against it, mostly, then some analysis of how some misguided people can be sick enough to argue for it which incidentally comes off as a very POV type of organization even if I agree with the POV, then describe some special types of modern torture, then discuss effects of torture, then introduce the torture devices you complain about being misfiled in my version, and finally end with the etymology by which you actually define the term, at the end of the article! 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree one can not talk about torture until the term is defined. As this is not a torture in history article it should start with what is torture today. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

One definition is given in the first sentence of the lead section. The section on international law describes many other types of nasty behavior, but how much of this is torture per se? For example the section on the Geneva Convention mentions "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment". But I'd think neither murder nor Koran-flushing are "torture" per se ... it seems like discussing the international laws further does more to confuse than clarify the definition. They're obviously relevant, but they're not the place to start. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The international section defines torture as accepted by most states in the world. It is better to put the definition before the usage. So the reader can decide if the usage is torture. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find that statement in the article - and I don't think it's true anyway. The British looked at torture in December 2005. Their Lordships were unanimous in condemning it's use in the UK - and in condemning the use of information extracted by torture in other countries "the English common law has regarded torture and its fruits with abhorrence for over 500 years, and that abhorrence is now shared by over 140 countries which have acceded to the Torture Convention." (Actually, the UK has once been convicted of "inhumane treatment" of terrorist suspects, that was in 1978. According to this non-RS it swore "a solemn undertaking" not to do it again).
And there's more - where did Amnesty state that 75% of countries use torture? Nowhere that I can find. PRtalk 15:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure which statement you are referring to. As for the UK see five techniques for details of the UK government's misbehaviour in the 1970s. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Methods of execution and capital punishment

The section on the Chinese slow slicing torture should probably be modified. The cited source clearly states that the method described is only a myth, and in fact, real victims were usually killed within an hour. There seems little point in reporting on a myth, and readers who do not catch two words in the first sentence will be lead into believing that this indeed did happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.76.232 (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

A further moral definition of torture proposes that the act of torture consists in the disproportionate infliction of pain.[1]

First, the search for the cited name Kang yields no results on that page. Second, the page is a blog, which is unacceptable as a source according to Wikipedia policy, except if it's an expert's personal blog, which doesn't seem to be the case. Interestingly, it also happens to be a conservative blog, where people may feel that, say, waterboarding and sleep deprivation is not sufficiently "extreme" to be torture. Third, I see no evidence that the author of the statement, whoever he is, is an expert or a reliable source for anything.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

Modern sensibilities have been shaped by a profound reaction to the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Axis Powers in the Second World War, which have led to a sweeping international rejection of most if not all aspects of the practice.

This sounds as if the Nazis simply went a little too far, and as a result people got overly emotional about it and were stupid enough to "sweepingly" forbid all torture, even including the good and useful torture such as the one used by the US government. In fact, humanists and progressives realized both the inefficiency and the inhumanity of torture for decades if not centuries before the Nazis. The opposite claim requires a citation.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Any torture, of course, goes "too far" according to any humanist, irrespective of the regime. It reflects the depravity of the ruling elite (and, yes, that applies to American tortures in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib).

The Nazis brought torture to places that had fully accepted the Enlightenment concept that torture is abominable, inexcusable, and ineffective contrary to the sensibilities of the conquered peoples. That it continued in the Soviet Union and other "socialist" states reflects that fanaticism and vindictiveness that degrade the "enemies of the people" into dehumanized pariahs against whom no abuse is understood as excessive. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Torture

I've been involved in a heated debate here [6] about waterboarding's definition as torture when I really should have realized that the problem was not over there. It's over here. This page acknowledges the United Nations Convention Against Torture's definition of Torture implying that that definition is universal, when in fact the legal definition of somewhat torture is vague, in someplaces, relying on varying degrees of pain (which is subjective to a certain extent) or motive. In fact torture is defined in numerous ways. The United Nations Convention Against Torture defines torture as:

"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."

Black's law dictionary defines torture as:

"The infliction of intense pain to the body or mind to punish, to extract a confession or information, or to obtain sadistic pleasure."

Wiktionary defines torture as:

"To intentionally force someone to experience agony."

The Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture defines torture as:

"any act intentionally performed whereby physical or mental pain or suffering is inflicted on a person for purposes of criminal investigation, as a means of intimidation, as personal punishment, as a preventive measure, as a penalty or for any other purpose. Torture shall also be understood to be the use of methods upon a person intended to obliterate the personality of the victim or to diminish his physical or mental capacities, even if they do not cause pain or mental anguish."

The United States defines torture in the Torture Victims Protection Act as:

"any act, directed against an individual in the offender’s custody or physical control, by which severe pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering arising from or inherent in, or incidental to lawful sanctions) whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on that individual for such purposes as obtaining from that individual or a third person information or a confession, punishing that individual for an act that individual or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, intimidating or coercing that individual or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind."

Since this is a pretty important definition, and each of the above definitions varies from each other (in some ways significantly), I propose that this page acknowledge this inconsistency in its opening paragraph instead of defining torture with the UN definition which implies that that definition is the universal definition (and wikipedia's definition) and I suspect has been the cause of no small amount of confusion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest starting this page in a way similar to the way Terrorism starts.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether waterboarding qualifies as torture has been established by a multitude of sources. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 21:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see an example of how Cdoggsimmons is proposing the wording should be. It sounds reasonable though. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster: Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist;

  • anguish of body or mind : agony
  • something that causes agony or pain
  • the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

That is what torture is. Check other dictionaries if you want. Enough said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition from Webster online dictionary
Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle
  • 1: a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
  • 2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
  • 3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining
While this definition shows that waterboarding could be seen as torture, if it is then the same classification would have to be extended to all interrogation techniques or even police questionings. This is simply because even the smallest of stress inducing questioning sessions could cause "mental anguish." ProtektYaSelf (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think Webster's second definition is closest to what people think of when they are looking up torture on wikipedia. It's also the closest to the legal definitions which require an element of intent to amount to torture. However, at the very least, I think the opening paragraph should acknowledge that there is no universally-accepted legal definition, possibly the other definitions from Webster, and perhaps elaborating on some of the incongruities between the various legal definitions (eg. The UNCAT provides a definition of torture based on the extreme infliction of pain for a discriminatory reason while the IACPPT defines torture as any infliction of pain for any purpose). --Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

History

The history section seems to focus only on Western Europe. The lack of diversity of the phenomenon of torture by non-Western and non-Catholic religious leaders, while naming only Catholic clerics, seems to compromise the neutrality of the article.

I also have some concern about the authors and their assertions which are mentioned, although their works are not cited. I believe I am correct in stating that Durant, at least, is not an expert on the history of torture, but instead is a general historian who writes for popular audiences. I assume Herrera Puga is Pedro, who I believe writes on Spanish history rather than torture. Emmo827 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Some good points. I think that the lack of diversity with non-Western torturers is more of an issue of incompleteness, rather than an issue of neutrality. I'm not sure where to weigh in on the contention that because someone is a general historian or just a specialist in Spanish history that their writings on torture should be discounted. One could just as easily discount the writings of experts in torture if they aren't experts in Spanish (or Catholic or Western European) history. Ideally, one would cite the most authoritative sources for any wikipedia article. -- Quartermaster (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced the {{NPOV}} with {{worldwide}} - I don't think it's an overfocus on Europe so much as a lack of focus on the rest of the world. Any reliable source discussing torture can be used, but definitely the section should be expanded using such sources to reflect what is known of torture elsewhere. I've a guy, I'll talk him. WLU (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I got your message in my talk page, WLU. The subject of torture has always fascinated me. It strikes me as the darkest side of our species. (Animals also torture for fun: chimps, orcas and even our pet cats with mouses.) As to the present dispute, focusing on Western Europe is certainly pov, although an unintentional one. I have almost a hundred edits in each article: Human sacrifice in Aztec culture and Infanticide. You can see in those articles that tribes and non-Western cultures were often horribler than this side of the hemisphere. As can be seen in my user page, the trouble is that, after Franz Boas' anthropology school took over the academy in the West, it's not considered politically correct to state that a culture might be more pathological that another one. But psycho-pathology is evident for psychohistorians. Just think of the holocaust perpetrated by Genghis Khan in Baghdad and China: it reminds me the Nazi advance in the Soviet Union. In the latest years however, feminist anthropologist have become rebellious against Boasian dogma. They consider female genital cutting as mutilation and psychological torture. And there are millions of mutilated (i.e., tortured by their parents and surgeons) women around the world. That's only one example. This subject is huge. However, I am so busy editing the Infanticide article that I've unwatched many other pages. Hope this comment is helpful for you guys. BTW, Will Durant is only a popular writer if we think of his bestseller The Story of Philosophy. His multi-volume work on human history (I've only read two of them) strikes me as scholarly. —Cesar Tort 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Torture, Colin Powel, and Ambien

Colin Powell who has been implicated foreign-departmental approval of the torture memo and it seems that he was also given a prescription for Ambien at about the same time[7][8]. I would like to know whether Powell was regularly using Ambien while the torture memo was being discussed? Dream Academy (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

75% practicing torture statistic

This wikipage states: "Torture is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries; however, Amnesty International estimates that 75% of the world's governments currently practice torture.[3]"

But the cited article states: "The right to be free from torture is clearly stated under international law and domestic law in most countries of the world. Despite this, legally prohibited torture is practiced by 75% of the countries of the world (Amnesty International, 2000)." on page 30

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.