Talk:Waterboarding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Talk:Waterboarding/Definition


 The Arbitration Committee has placed this article on probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Administrators: when banning a user from an article, look up this article on the list of active general sanctions, select the relevant Arbitration case, and list the user under the Log of Bans at the page bottom; additionally, make use of {{User article ban arb}}.
Waterboarding is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
This section seeks to provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions about the Waterboarding article. If you have a question please read this section before asking the same question on the talk page.
Q:Does the lead with the phrase "Waterboarding is a form of torture" follow Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines?
A:There have been extensive discussions on this topic over several months, and the consensus view is that according to the sources that exists, the phrase "waterboarding is a form of torture" is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources. For further details on how this conclusion was reached, the interested reader is referred to the discussion archives.
Q:Isn't the current debate enough to call the status into question?
A:Wikipedia tries to fairly represent the published views of relevant experts in an area. In this case, the vast majority of experts found so far have been of the opinion that waterboarding is torture. Almost no experts have stated the opposite position, while a few have expressed the view that it might not be torture in all circumstances. (See here for a list of all sources that we have collected on this topic)
Q:I still do not agree that this article's lead is neutral -- how can I change it?
A:If you wish to change the assertion that waterboarding is a form of torture, please first propose to revise the lead on the talk page. You should support your proposal with high quality reliable sources, such as from medical or legal scholars, supporting why it would not be an accurate description. Even a single new high quality source would be enough to revisit the debate. Then please add that source to here and mention the addition on this talk page.
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
16 November 2007
Torture harms more than the victim[dead link]
Loretta Keller – Pasadena Star-News
Shortcut:
WT:WATER
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1: 2004 - 20 Jul 2007

Archive 2: 21 Jul 2007 - 31 Oct 2007

Archive 3: 31 Oct 2007 - 8 Nov 2007

Archive 4: 8 Nov 2007 - 23 Nov 2007

Archive 5: 23 Nov 2007 - 26 Dec 2007

Archive 6: 26 Dec 2007 - 27 January 2007

Archive 7: 27 January 2007 - now


Contents

[edit] References

[edit] Notice

WP:AE#Waterboarding and Neutral Good ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

[edit] Waterboarding is torture intro and creation of FAQ on talk page

It appears that the lead will forever be brought up again and again. Because this seems to be a neverending issue, I was wondering whether we should do a FAQ at the top of this talk page so we can convey the current consensus and what is needed to change consensus. What do other people think? Remember (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to post something about a FAQ, as there seem to be a definite need. :-) In the middle of the arbitration case, one was started but it was unfortunately never finished.
What are your opinions on the current proposal at Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ? Once we're happy with the wording, it can be linked from the talk page. henrik•talk 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting the FAQ on the actual talk page itself and not just as a link (as is done on the Obama page Talk:Barack Obama. Any views on this?Remember (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
FAQ is a great idea, well done editors. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have no objections to using the same style as is used on the Obama page, it seems quite good. henrik•talk 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. On a side note, gosh, this page got small. Lawrence § t/e 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
That's because that huge section listing all the sources regarding whether it was or was not tortured got removed, which leads to my next question. Should we put those sources back up on the talk page indefinitely or at least have a permanent link to those sources in the FAQ box?Remember (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking a subpage, like Talk:Waterboarding/Sources as a repository. Every time anything new gets posted (here or on the article), even if we don't use it in the article long term, we can create a sort of Waterboarding bibliography. No policies say we can't, and it will only be a benefit. Just a straight dump, even ("Here are 500 sources on waterboarding!"). We can always parse them out later and use them as needed. Lawrence § t/e 20:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I like it. Remember (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't split up sources onto different pages but is the Waterboarding/Definition page the best page for this information. Alternatively we could always do something like List of sources discussing waterboarding as an article (but maybe it is not notable enough). Remember (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How about we use definition as the final home (since so much is there) and we can use /sources as a workspace to dump found links into, until they can be sorted/parsed into definition? Sort of like this workspace I've been working off heavily this week for another article. Lawrence § t/e 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think Talk:Waterboarding/Sources is a fine idea. To consolidate everything, we can grab all of the sources from Talk:Waterboarding/Definition and move them to the new subpage (and then archive Talk:Waterboarding/Definition). List of sources discussing waterboarding wouldn't pass an MfD, I think, so this list needs to remain in talk space. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't have any particular viewpoint towards waterboarding (yet), but this entry seems to carry an obvious bias. "Consensus view" is argumentum ad populum. I'm not understanding why it needs to be declared as torture--if it is really torture then the facts/arguments/history should speak for themselves, and users can come up with their own conclusions whether it is really or not. I find the neutrality highly suspect. Sugaki 05:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, "is a form of torture" is used on many other articles, for example these ones: Bastinado Strappado Music torture Dental torture Dunking and Denailing - that phrase is nothing unique to this article and seems to be fairly uncontroversial there. As for this article, the goal is to reflect the published views among relevant experts, and the vast majority of published opinions by medical, legal and military experts describe it as torture. There is a distinct lack of sources from qualified experts that claim the opposite. Do you have new sources that haven't been incorporated yet, if you do, we'd be happy to consider them. (here are most that have been found by the current set of editors) henrik•talk 17:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I was bold and created the page Talk:Waterboarding/Sources so that we can have one definitive place where we keep all sources on how reliable sources categorize waterboarding as torture or not torture. Since Badagnani said that the definitions page held all of the definitive sources, I cut and pasted them from there. Remember (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indexing the archives

If someone has some time on their hands they might want to index the rather substantial archives using User:HBC Archive Indexerbot.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If I knew how to do that, I certainly would. Quick off-topic note: I just spent a couple hours reading through the archives, and I have to say, I'm amazed at the doggedness of the crew on top of this article, particularly Badagnani, t, henrik, user:Neon white and --Akhilleus. I don't mean to leave anyone out, those are just the ones that stood out fighting off the hordes of sockpuppets and so forth. I thought y'all could use some props for that--I bet it's gets pretty dark in the trenches sometimes.Russell Abbott (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. ;) - t § t/e

[edit] Waterboarding is torture, especially for those who do not volunteer for it

[This is in response to the above query about whether this is torture or not and the main point could even be included in the actual article. My point here is that waterboarding was only recently accepted as a legal method of interrogation (not torture) by the Bush Administration and I can show that this is a fallacy and the government only got away with it because they used a method of doublespeak (see Wiki topic). In other words, they twisted their words.]

In order to explain my point more clearly, I will initially digress a little.

Basic Chinese Water Torture or Chinese Water Treatment should, by logic, be considered a very good option as a means of US interrogation of detainees. It is not as apparently terrifying as waterboarding and doesn't cause hearing damage as White Noise treatment can. As such, it would not be considered torture by the Bush regime, unless you are from a far eastern country and are not versed in the same kind of doublespeak. The main form of Chinese Water Treatment is actually a very slow drip that falls on the lower middle part of the forehead when the head is slightly tilted back. The person is restrained in a chair for a long time. The process eventually drives the person insane. It is strange, because it seems a very innocuous thing at first. Waterboarding, on the other hand can get quicker results. Whether this leads to true confessions is not always a relevant aspect of its use.

The waterboarding technique is also a very old method and was always considered as torture until recently when Bush made a public statement saying that it wasn't! How did he/they get away with this? Simple - there's 'waterboarding training' and there is 'waterboarding treatment', which is really 'waterboarding torture'. The training type is done in a very safe and controlled way and it is practiced on extremely fit US soldiers, like Navy Seals. But the soldier knows that he is going to be ok after a minute or so, even though the experience is one of the most unpleasant types of training. It is supposed to toughen the soldiers up.

Detainees on the other hand, don't know whether or not they are going to live or die when undergoing the same thing. It then becomes infinitely more terrifying and is done for longer periods on detainees, often with hate on the part of the personnel carrying it out. In fact, it is better if some of the detainees die, because it instills fear in the other detainees. The death can always be put down to an accidental one, anyway. The world wasn't supposed to know about the Abu Ghraib policies, by the way. The policies were part of a stepped up interrogation protocol that was devised by a member of the CIA and was essentially sanctioned by the Whitehouse.

McCain considers waterboarding as torture and is against it. I only mention him here, because he was once a detainee in Viet Nam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.140.117 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No one who's being honest disputes that waterboarding is torture. Back in the days when torture of prisoners was considered acceptable and uncontroversial, nobody had any doubts that it was a torture technique. The only people denying now that it's torture are those who want to torture prisoners while dodging legal prohitibions against torture. 71.203.209.0 (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Waterboarding can readily be considered a torture. Its use convinces the victim that they are facing imminent yet a prolonged death. I strongly suggest that anyone who doesn't believe it to be a torture to experience it first hand and then make up their mind.I55ere (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I ment to write something similar as I55ere and want to add on, that if anyone really has the intention to try it out on their own should have at least an ambulance on side since there is a hugh danger involved. Better yet: Don't ever try the real thing! --Floridianed (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote addition

All, I added the following footnote at the begining after the word torture end of the first sentence so that people can easily locate all of the information on this topic if that is what they are looking for right at the beginning of their search. If people object to this addition, then I suggest the information simply be moved to the end of the sentence so that it can serve its function there. Nevertheless, I will concede to consensus if people don't want this. I just thought it would be helpful. Remember (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Revision - Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. [1]
  1. ^ Waterboarding is considered to be torture by a wide range of authorities, including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations (See Classification as torture for more information). In the United States in recent years, arguments have been put forward that waterboarding might not be torture in all cases after it was revealed that this technique was used to interrogate suspects in relation to the war on terror (See Controversy over classification in the United States for more information). A list of all sources related to the classification of waterboarding as a form of torture has been created here.
I'm not too hot about the idea in general, as it gives too much weight to the US debate. But your version has problems beyond my basic dislike: It points back into talk space, which is not acceptable, and it contains the self-referential "Wikipedians have tried...". Just think about how you could source this statement from reliable sources... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no way to source this statement from reliable sources because the part that I refer to on wikipedia is only on wikipedia. It is a table to try to provide a list of every source on the topic. But I will revise. Remember (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but "whoosh". If we cannot source it, we cannot include it in the article. The (annoying, impractical, ... I know) correct way is to reference the sources directly.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about what "whoosh" means. I understand the rule that everything must be verifiable, but in this situation I am not stating a fact about waterboarding, I am telling people where to find further information in wikipedia about waterboarding. One does not need a source to say "see definition on wikitionary" and link to that. I am a bit confused regarding your position on this. Remember (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The whoosh part is about the sourcing. If we cannot source something, we cannot include it. I know that we have collected an impressive list of sources. But we cannot just dump them into the talk: space and point the reader there. Apart from problems with WP:OR (how can the reader know that we did a good job there?), it also is akin to breaking the fourth wall. Only the main space is the encyclopedia. Talk is a tool to help us build an encyclopedia by talking about the topics, but it can never be part of the encyclopedia proper. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This part has been revised. As to the US weight part, I don't really see how it gives it too much weight since all it does is point people to where they can find the information in the article and does not take one side or the other.Remember (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it elevates the short-term US debate to the same level as the centuries of unanimous expert opinion. It's a bit like including "but creationists disagree, see creation-evolution debate" to every date older than 10000 years ago. Again, this neutral statement does not take sides, but it elevates the small dissent out of proportion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How about I just move it to the end of the sentence that way it doesn't specifically footnote torture, but just shows people the support for the first sentence and where to find further information regarding the support. Just so you know I fully support the current consensus I just think that a first time reader would find a first reading of this article to be organized in an odd way. Remember (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest we wait a bit and see what other people think. It's time to go to bed in this part of the world, anyways... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't link to a Talk page from a Wikipedia article. That's a bright line rule. Many sites mirror Wikipedia content, but they do not have access to the Talk namespace. One possibility would be to have a separate article on the controversy in the U.S. Otherwise, we just have to include the sources in the article, as we did before.--agr (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will remove that portion. Remember (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)