Talk:Torture in fiction

Misreading of name
I first read the title as "Culture in popular torture".

Now that would be a really interesting article to read, if it were possible. Daniel Case (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Popular culture is commonly used as a form of torture. For example, see Musicians tell US to ban using songs as torture.  So, the article we need is popular culture in torture, eh?  See also Vogon poetry... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"Only in fiction"?
The appearance at DYK provoked some discussion at WP:ERRORS. It was not resolved but has scrolled off there now so, for the record, here's the issues.. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * ... that efficient and professional torture is found only in fiction? two hooks about torture (this one and torture) ran relatively close together. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, this isn't an error if it's not in the same set. This applies to any topic such as the common radio stations, German musicians, etc. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pull The current hook is as false as a forced confession.
 * The article in question is torture in popular culture. Studies of fictional torture are obviously of little use in telling us what happens in the real world.  And the article doesn't actually make this absolute and extreme claim – it uses the word "often" rather than "only".
 * If you read our article on interrogational torture, it tells quite a different story. Firstly, note that it distinguishes torture used to extract information from other cases where torture is used for other reasons such as punishment, deterrent or sadism.  The fictional article fails to make this point even though there are plenty of examples in fiction. And then our article about the real thing has a section about effectiveness which provides examples showing that "research on the history of torture suggests that torture has, at times, proven quite effective".  As for professionalism, the book Torture and the Military Profession indicates that real torturers often adopt professional attitudes as a form of self-justification and self-righteousness.
 * So, as this is an IPC article, it should stick to fiction rather than making unlikely claims about what actually happened throughout history.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging nominator, reviewer , and promoter . SL93 (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Darius Rejali is one of the top scholars of torture in the real world, who has also written about fictional torture. It's true that torturers often pretend to adopt "professional" or "scientific" attitudes, but most sources agree that this does not reflect the reality, in which torture is a pseudoscience that leads to erosion of professional skills (see the last paragraph of Torture). If you read the article, interrogation is not the main reason for torture anyway and claims about effectiveness compared to other means of obtaining information are impossible to test and highly disputed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If such claims are "impossible to test" and "highly disputed" then we should not be making absolute and sweeping statements about them. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * All sources agree that in real life, torture is never effective in the same way as depicted in popular culture and the drawbacks are rarely portrayed. As the popular culture article states, "Torture can be a convenient plot device to extract information, and when the hero is the torturer, it almost always works, usually quickly." In real life, torture is certainly not convenient in obtaining accurate information, often takes a long time to work if at all, and does not produce accurate information in most cases (if that's even the goal). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These are massive generalisations which reek of WP:RGW. Are these sweeping statements true throughout all of history?  Consider the Gunpowder Plot, for example, which is a featured article.  Torture was used against the conspirators and this seems to have been both effective and professional.  There are countless examples throughout history and it seems to absurd to claim that they have never, ever been effective. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The words "effective" and "professional" do not appear in the article. I think we should go with what the RS says rather than rely on original research. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  10:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The words "found only in fiction" do not appear in the article in question and so the hook is not supported. It's a basic breach of DYK rules which require "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article ". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)}}