Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 7

RfC: Is waterboarding a form of torture, based on sources?
See Talk:Waterboarding/Definition for the discussion and place your comments there.


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


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


 * Tricks have been tried. See Requests for checkuser/Case/GooseCreek and Suspected sock puppets/Shamulou.  Wikipedia needs an uninvolved administrator to close the RfC, and then Wikipedia needs to eject any editors who persist in disrupting the article with argumentum ad nauseum. Jehochman  Talk 21:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Eject them based upon what policy? --Blue Tie (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I suspect that he isn't. The charge of "politically motivated dissembling" doesn't stick. Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White are Democrats, both of them say "waterboarding may not be torture," they would be saying "waterboarding is torture" to gain an advantage for the democratic Party if they were politically motivated, and this is about the fourth time that fact has been pointed out for the "waterboarding is torture" crowd. Please stop misrepresenting the evidence. Neutral Good (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. They may believe that showing toughness is good for their party ("the softies are voting democratic anyways"), they may believe it's good for their political career (and damn the party line), they may put what they think is their county's interest above what you think is their party's interest, they may think "protecting our guys in the field is more important than party politics", they may think that appearing to protect "our guys in the field" is good politics. Anyways, they are part of a marginal fringe group and have no significant weight of opinion compared to all the other sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, do you have a source for the claim that Andrew C. McCarthy is a Democrat? Likewise, I cannot find any party affiliation for White - and neither of them is a career politician, anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both were appointed to their Justice department positions by Democrat Bill Clinton. We are known by the company we keep. Neutral Good (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not evidence that McCarthy and White are Democrats. Believe it or not, a President can select people of the opposite party for appointed positions. As for "the company we keep", McCarthy's Wikipedia article says that he "has served as an attorney for Rudy Giuliani, and is also a conservative opinion columnist who writes for National Review and Commentary." Do many Democrats write for those publications? Oh, and why do your recent edits pertaining to McCarthy's position leave out the quote "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture", found in the Wikipedia article about him? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You say his Wikipedia article says that? Are you aware that even Jimmy Wales admits that Wikipedia articles aren't necessarily reliable? Neutral Good (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the answer of a person who's engaging in reasonable discussion. You already know that Andrew C. McCarthy has written for National Review--you did bother to read the articles you're citing in this article, right? You can also easily determine whether Andrew C. McCarthy has written for Commentary and worked for Giuliani--shall I point out that you are the one who started talking about his employment history? And, once again, why did you leave out the quote where McCarthy says "waterboarding is close enough to torture that reasonable minds can differ on whether it is torture"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring points when proven wrong is a hallmark of trying to prolong a losing debate, or one with no factual standing. Lawrence Cohen  03:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * THAT'S IT! The magic formula with which no one can possibly disagree:

"Waterboarding was a method of torture from the time of the Spanish Inquisition until 2001, when President George W. Bush legalized it by executive order."

How about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.67.2 (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably a joke, but judging from the arguments that "we can't say waterboarding is torture" on the Arbitration Evidence page we may well end up with some kind of bizarre compromise lead that does indeed state that waterboarding was universally regarded as torture throughout history, until 2001 when its legal status in the United States was changed by Executive Order of President Bush. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding, a word-of-the-year nomination for 2006
By the American Dialect Society

waterboarding: an interrogation technique in which the subject is immobilized and doused with water to simulate drowning; reported to be used by U.S. interrogators against terrorism detainees.

htom (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Clapping. Now, how reliable is that source? Jehochman  Talk 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know how WP establishes a source as "reliable"; the heading (which might be faked) says

2006 Word of the Year Nominations American Dialect Society, Jan. 5, 2007 Benjamin Zimmer Editor, American Dictionaries Oxford University Press
 * I found it via the self-published page at their home page; they claim to have been around since 1889:


 * "Founded in 1889, the American Dialect Society is dedicated to the study of the English language in North America, and of other languages, or dialects of other languages, influencing it or influenced by it. Our members include academics and amateurs, professionals and dilettantes, teachers and writers."


 * Now that's long before the establishment of the internet, presumably there's some WPian who has access to the Duke library?


 * And am I the only one who sometimes seems to be losing signatures? (I like the signbot, but.) htom (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heres their wikipedia stub American Dialect Society but its been a stub for atleast 3 years. ( Hypnosadist )  00:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Words of the year going back to 1990, and duke university press will sell you back issues of PADS going back to 1944 so that says these people are notable and an RS. ( Hypnosadist )  00:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But we don't know anything about how these definitions are created. Are they submitted by amateurs and dilettantes? Are they subject to any editorial control? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of info available on their website including;

American Speech Editorial Board Editor: Michael Adams, Indiana University at Bloomington Senior Associate Editor: Michael B. Montgomery, University of South Carolina Associate Editor for Book Reviews: Allison Burkette, University of Mississippi Managing Editor: Charles E. Carson, Duke University Press
 * As i say, sure looks like an RS to me but have a look around its website or take it to the RS noticeboard. ( Hypnosadist )  04:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the board for the journal; did the board exert any control over the definitions? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been nominated by Grant Barrett

"Submitted by Grant Barrett, co-host of the language-related public radio show, A Way With Words, http://www.waywordradio.org. Grant is also editor of the online Double-Tongued Dictionary, http://www.doubletongued.org/, and a vice president of the American Dialect Society, http://www.americandialect.org"

in this pdf :

"waterboarding An interrogation technique that simulates drowning. Though much-discussed as part of the nomination hearings of Attorney General Michael Mukasey, first widespread reports of the technique's existence were made in 2004."

With the results in the category "Most Euphemistic" Most Euphemistic

WINNER waterboarding: an interrogation technique in which the subject is immobilized and doused with water to simulate drowning; reported to be used by U.S. interrogators against terrorism detainees. RUN-OFF: surge 31, waterboarding 65 lancing: the forced public outing of a closeted gay celebrity, after ‘N Sync singer Lance Bass. 23 lyric malfunction: obscenities scrubbed from the Rolling Stones’ Super Bowl performance. 1 waterboarding 46 surge: an increase in troop strength. 26

(btw, "plutoed" was the 2006 overall winner) htom (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The ADS is obviously an RS by wikipedia standards, if we use a very short definition of waterboarding used in a press release as a source in this article is another thing. ( Hypnosadist )  05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

For fun, informed but not official: Announcement for 2006 htom (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it should not be used. ( Hypnosadist )  05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was unaware that informed fun precluded reliability. htom (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not writing a "fun" encyclopedia, what do want this source to say in the article and how much weight are you intending to try to give it. ( Hypnosadist )  05:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This may not be a "fun" encyclopedia, but I am (usually) having fun contributing. That's how I took the description, which I'll quote:

Word of the Year is interpreted in its broader sense as “vocabulary item”—not just words but phrases. The words or phrases do not have to be brand new, but they have to be newly prominent or notable in the past year, in the manner of Time magazine’s Person of the Year. In addition to an overall Word of the Year, words will be chosen in a number of categories. The categories are determined each year, but they generally include Most Useful, Most Creative, Most Unnecessary, Most Outrageous, Most Euphemistic, Most Likely to Succeed, and Least Likely to Succeed. The vote is fully informed by the members’ expertise in the study of words, but it is far from a solemn occasion. Members in the 117-year-old organization include linguists, lexicographers, etymologists, grammarians, historians, researchers, writers, authors, editors, professors, university students, and independent scholars. In conducting the vote, they act in fun and not in any official capacity of inducting words into the English language.
 * How much weight to give to their definition of "waterboarding" I leave to the concensous. htom (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * REAL WATERBOARDING Waterboarding is an extreme sport popular among surfers on Middle Eastern beaches. Only recommended for experienced wandsurfers, this sport requires a long, narrow, wedge-shaped board. Practitioners secure themselves to the waterboard and ride, face-down, on the slightest currents. The tide off the Gaza strip is perfect for this sport in summer. Waterboarding was invented in 2004 by American troops protecting the Gaza strip. Being in service there, the Americans had no surf-boards or boxer shorts. So they did what any bored serviceman would do: they took all their clothes off and made do with the crude planks from pirate ships in that area. Hence, the American military is the father of the sport we know today as waterboarding. Inertia Tensor (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously a reference to the earlier use of the towed-watersport form of waterboarding, and not useful here. htom (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/water_boarding_11/ ;
 * Waterboarding at the DoubleTongue dictionary site:
 * this citation confounds watercure and waterboarding (flood) and waterboarding (immersion.)

"There’s what I call the WaterHood, also known as “water boarding’ or the “watercure,” where interrogators shove a prisoner’s head in abarrel of water and make him think he’s drowning. Actually, heis drowning; they just save him from death at the lastsecond (if all goes well)." http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/citations/water_boarding_1/ ; waterboarding(immersion?) "In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as “water boarding,” in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown."

htom (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From the website "This catchword has yet to be researched." so again i don't think its an RS. ( Hypnosadist ) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Votes to support

 * 1) Remember (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I would agree.  This links to the place in the article where more information and references can be found.  That helps.  The intricacies can be explained at that location. Jehochman  Talk 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC) I no longer agree. Jehochman  Talk 20:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) A good lead should be non-weaselly and non-inflammatory. I'm not sure if this is possible at all, but this is the closest one so far, IMO. GregorB (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Not a bad proposal.  henrik  • talk  15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Factually accurate, and can be used to draw attention to limited in scope domestic US controversy.  Lawrence Cohen  15:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support: seems like a reasonable compromise. Personally, I'd also want to link the first use of torture in that sentence, but I think that is very much a second-order thing. -- The Anome (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I think this is a fine proposal. The main issue with regard to the term torture is that it carries the connotation that "the current US administration used methods of torture". It automatically does so, and we cannot totally avoid this. But qualifying the use of the term with regard to the ongoing media controversy is probably our best shot at avoiding POV. Dorfklatsch 22:03, January 4, 2008
 * 8) Support: We are not here to adopt doublespeak and newspeak, even when advanced by the US. Clearly experts overwhelmingly agree it is torture so to ignore that merely because public opinion within the US is influenced by its administration is a logical fallacy. Nowhere does public opinion trump expert opinion! Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes to oppose

 * Oppose - I oppose this because it continues to push a POV. Adding a link does nothing to remove or mitigate the POV-pushing. The first six words of the article are vitally important. They cannot show even the slightest sign of bias. In America, the place where more than half of the world's native speakers of English reside, this entry in Wikipedia will be perceived as biased. This affects the credibility of the entire project. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you object to the addition or just feel that the addition doesn't do anything to allay your concerns about the statement "waterboarding is a form of torture" as the intro to the article? If it is the later, then isn't your vote neutral to the addition I proposed but an objection to the whole lead sentence? Remember (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, only three of the first six words are critical. :) Jame§ugrono 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I an US born US resident and I would find any implication _other_ than it being torture to be biased. Please don't read into the whole American psyche.  There is nobody who questions if it is torture except people that have a political motive.  This can be tested by checking if US soldiers can be acceptably waterboarded by other nations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.98.174 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The section linked to (entitled "Classification as torture") should logically describe the historical definition of this practice as torture, not simply one vague introductory sentence about pre-2001 definitions, then the rest of the entire section about the views of a single administration of a single nation. Badagnani (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you oppose the addition of the link in the lead or are you just suggesting that the linked section should be more informative regarding the classification of waterboarding as torture? If you just object to the informative nature of the linked section, could you please change your vote to neutral on link for lead and oppose the current status of the Classification as torture section (which currently cannot be improved due to the article protection).  I think this would more accurately describe your vote. Remember (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The rest of the article could definitely use improvement, that is true, and this could let us focus on something other than the lead for a change. Why not give it a chance? henrik  • talk  23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the first six words of the article are an "in your face" violation of WP:NPOV. This violation cannot and must not be ignored. Thanks. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But this isn't a debate about the first six words. This is a debate about adding the link.  How do you feel about adding the link? Remember (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Shibumi2 (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any reason?Remember (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The real problem is not addressed. Neutral Good (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the article that need fixing? The question is do you specifically object to the addition of a link in the lead and if so why? Remember (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I do not see this as particularly different than the current lead. The problem of flagrant violations of WP:NPOV remain (or are even worse) and I do not believe wikipedia should express opinions as facts. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, doesn't that mean that you are neutral to the addition, but you think there are other major problems with the lead that need fixing? I'm not asking you to support the current lead.  I asking you for your opinion on the minor addition of the link to the lead. If you object to this please state so and why? Remember (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point, but No. I consider the addition to increase the intensity of the already bad NPOV problem by further reinforcing the impression that it is a fact that the Waterboarding is Torture, when in fact that is disputed.  That is the way I see it.  Furthermore you did not ask just about the addition but about the whole lead -- which is what I responded to. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This argument of inclusion of such a link is a step (but only one step of many) in the right direction, but completely misses the problem that needs to be solved and still leaves the primary issue unsolved. Furthermore, you cannot separate the first six words of this article from the link you are proposing. "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." unequivocally states that it is a form of torture when its status is disputed. Making a conclusion (that either it is or isn't torture) is disingenuous and does not present NPOV. Furthermore, this issue is being decided at ArbCom and such a discussion here without their guidance is liable to be either an exercise in futility or an unnecessary duplication of efforts. I highly recommend putting in feedback there.  — BQZip01 —  talk 19:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

Interesting new source
The opinion of Gary Solis Adjunct professor, Georgetown University Law Center and former Marine Corps judge advocate and military judge. ( Hypnosadist ) 14:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is written like an opinion piece. The author repeatedly asks rhetorical questions.  However, the article is interesting because it identifies a number of historical incidents that we can research to find additional sources. Jehochman  Talk 14:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece but in a notable online journal and he is someone qualified to have an opinion on the subject. This should not be used as a source on its own because of its strong POV but with others, also i've not run into many pinko-commie Marine Corps judge advocates. Thats important as it shows how fringe the "not-torture" view is. ( Hypnosadist )  15:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote from the article: "It remains amazing that, in 2007, any intelligent person can have any question that waterboarding constitutes torture, morally and ethically wrong, and contrary to U.S. law, U.S.-ratified multi-national treaties, and international criminal law." I couldn't agree more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly the new NDI recently stated quite clearly he regarded waterboarding as torture. Wolf Blitzer showed Mitt Romney the clip, and asked him for a response yesterday on CNN. Geo Swan (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a link. And there is video too.  Geo Swan (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is good stuff. Check the articles for extra footnotes that can lead back to other sources, as well. I found a fountain of sources doing that on another article, Bezhin Meadow, recently. Lawrence Cohen 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He starts with a probably bad assumption: "By now, most of us know what the interrogation technique of waterboarding is." Then he demonstrates that maybe that is not true.  Because he uses analogies of experiences that are by him but not by contemporaries, described as waterboarding and at least some of them do not appear to match to waterboarding. In short, his evidences are not so good and since his logic is based upon them, his logic fails.  I am surprised that someone who is supposedly a jurist would express his opinion so poorly.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no "Nice CIA method" so can we stop claiming some minor variation in style of waterboarding makes it OK. ( Hypnosadist )  06:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"Shower-bath" torture of black inmates in NY state prison in 1858
Source links to a 1858 digital archived press report of a black man being tortured to death. The original source is "Harper's Weekly". Also see the NY Times 1852 and an article on Auburn prison which mentions the "shower-bath" torture in the context of waterboarding. A History of Torture (Scott 1940), p.243, calls this "an amplification" of strapping someone down and pouring water over the face with a watering-can. (It also talks about the use of the "wet cloth" water torture in conjunction with the rack: for some reason I can't access the appropriate page on gbooks at the moment, but it sounds like a combination of waterboarding and the rack). A description from the Warden's report describes its use "produced a suffocation; this is continued for some time, the operator either increasing or slackening the torrent at his pleasure." I am wondering if this information should be added to this article. I am also wondering if the indictment of Hissene Habre by Belgian authorities for water tortures is appropriate in this article; it looks to me like dunking, but there are some references out there that call it waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I never learned about such in American History class, either in high school or college. I thought the U.S. Constitution outlawed this? In any case, there are elements different from the general definition of "conventional" waterboarding here, most prominently the seated position and bowl under the chin. Badagnani (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This does not seem to me to be waterboarding to me, Torture and the United States is probably the place to send it. ( Hypnosadist )  06:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution does outlaw it. That's why the current executive branch is using Newspeak words for torture.Reinoe (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In theory the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes torture for the purpose of confession pointless, and the United States Bill of Rights prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In practice, up until around 1910 it was standard police practice to beat and torture confessions out of people. Around that time some courts began to deny forced confessions, and the "liberal media" of the time highlighted a lot of the obvious injustices, which led to a fall in beatings, burning tortures, etc. and the rise of water tortures and others that leave no physical marks. Around 1930 there was a lot of public discontent regarding crime, and the Wickersham Commission wrote its "Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement" which basically said that one of the major causes of crime was the fact that innocent people were tortured to confess and went to jail, while the guilty walked free. It was easier to torture a random person into confessing than to do proper detective work. After that more serious efforts were made to eliminate such practices. So, the theory was sound, but it took a while to get put into practice. from 1852 is an interesting read - they make the point that around 1750 the English had sentenced one senior prison warden to death for torturing prisoners, and the U.S. was supposed to better than that because of the Constitution, and yet 100 years later U.S. prison guards were still committing acts of torture. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that we are dealing with a serious conflation of waterboarding and other things in the press. Its a problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Can we all agree not to use this source, as a concensus building exercise? ( Hypnosadist ) 09:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent news
FYI: United States National Intelligence Director Michael McConnell's views to the US Congress — BQZip01 —  talk 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that one rule of politics is Cover your ass. Politicians are not reliable sources for anything except their own opinions. Jehochman Talk 09:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Especially when facing a lifetime retirement in the hague as murderous war criminals. Wee bit of self interest, CWA in this. UNDUE WEIGHT Inertia Tensor (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No one is a reliable source for anything but their own opinions, this includes the people who write the stuff that we call "reliable sources". In this case, testimony before Congress by a legal official of the executive branch is a good reliable source -- for whatever it was he said, and probably as more than his personal opinion.  These speculations about war crimes are inappropriate discussion for this page and unhelpful in editing.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, he's an involved party in a massive news story, growing bigger even as we discuss this dispute (hint: we should unprotect the article so we can update it). He's much more involved than any reporter.  There is a material difference. Jehochman  Talk 01:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not commenting about the protection of the article issue but I do not think he is a bad source. That he is involved might make him a great source... better than many who are not involved.  But I am far more concerned about the issue of "What is Waterboarding?".  I do not think it is everything that is being called waterboarding but our article has a problem. But on this matter, I think he is a far more reliable source than news reporters who conflate waterboarding with water cure.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting story i have some points. 1)"Michael McConnell, told students at St. Mary's College in Maryland." we don't know what was said to congress as that session was behind closed doors. 2)This source is good enough to say " Michael McConnell says about waterboarding "It has saved lives. And so from my point of view, we've accomplished the mission within the bounds of U.S. law"" But is nowhere near good enough to say much more on the subject of the legality of waterboarding. 3)The warcrimes charges that 30+ americans currently face in europe and the posibility of more (going all the way to POTUS) is what hangs over this whole article and others like it on wikipedia, and most people charged with a crime say "it wasn't me" so it does stretch the credability and reliabilty of Michael McConnell as a source. ( Hypnosadist )  04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also this is about the legality of waterboarding not that it is not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  06:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link or a cite for the warcrimes charges? Where were they filed and what court is hearing them?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, there are multiple problems with this. First it has nothing to do with waterboarding, Second, the charges were dismissed in Federal German Court and so, they do not exist any more.  (Anyone can file charges in court you know, but making them go forward is the trick).  Are these 22 arrest warrants cited in some way and are they related to waterboarding?  If not, then why are we discussing this unrelated matter?  Why is it brought up?--Blue Tie (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

another story
This story from the BBC talks about a canadian training manual that names the USA as a torturer. This is not enough yet to use as a source but could be later if we know more and if this becomes a big issue. ( Hypnosadist ) 06:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Canada removes U.S., Israel from torture watchlist OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's foreign ministry, responding to pressure from close allies, said on Saturday it would remove the United States and Israel from a watch list of countries where prisoners risk being tortured.

Both nations expressed unhappiness after it emerged they had been listed in a document that formed part of a training course manual on torture awareness given to Canadian diplomats.

Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said he regretted the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual, which also classified some U.S. interrogation techniques as torture.

"It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten," Bernier said in a statement.

"The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy. As such, it does not convey the government's views or positions."

The document -- made available to Reuters and other media outlets -- embarrassed the minority Conservative government, which is a staunch ally of both the United States and Israel.

U.S. ambassador David Wilkins said the listing was absurd, while the Israeli envoy said he wanted his country removed.

Asked why the two countries had been put on the list, a spokesman for Bernier said: "The training manual purposely raised public issues to stimulate discussion and debate in the classroom."

The government mistakenly gave the document to Amnesty International as part of a court case the rights organization has launched against Ottawa over the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan.

.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis search
The question of whether waterboarding is torture is in part a legal one, and on legal topics one of the first things that should be done is a Lexis-Nexis search, so that we see what law review articles (as well as case law) say about the topic. I searched US/Canadian law reviews for "waterboarding or water-boarding" and got 95 results. A good number of articles unequivocally say that waterboarding is torture, and I've placed quotes from those articles above. Only one article questioned whether waterboarding is torture--but this article doesn't say that waterboarding isn't torture, it says that he's not sure whether waterboarding is torture or not. I placed a quote from this letter above also.

I found no articles that said that waterboarding isn't torture. Most of the articles from the search don't yield a directly quotable section that says "waterboarding is torture", but rather focus on the question of whether waterboarding and the other CIA "extreme" interrogation techniques violates US law and UNCAT. Saying that the techniques are illegal isn't quite the same thing as saying they're torture, but it's pretty darn close. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is amazing research. So all these 21 legal authorities are saying that waterboarding is torture. Lawrence Cohen  20:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but they don't. The first, for example, says "Waterboarding entails many different methods of torture." It does not say, "All waterboarding methods are torture." This is a subtle but important distinction. The fourth describes it as a "coercive interrogation technique," not as torture. The fifth describes it, not as torture, but "exactly what Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention prohibits"; reading Article 17 reveals that it prohibits many other things besides torture. The sixth doesn't call it torture; instead it says, "There is little doubt that this technique represents torture." Another subtle but important distinction. The eighth is Evan Wallach, who has already been counted elsewhere. The author of the tenth, Jamie Meyerfield, signed the open letter to Attorney General Gonzales and therefore has already been counted elsewhere.


 * There's much about the presentation of sources from the "waterboarding is torture" advocates that is disingenuous at best: glossing over subtle but important distinctions in some sources, counting other sources that have already been counted elsewhere, and counting one astroturfed source as 115. I stopped checking these 21 alleged new "waterboarding is torture" sources after the tenth. A very casual, ten-minute Google search of the first ten "new sources" on the list reveals six that are not "new sources" for the "waterboarding is torture" advocates. They're either "old sources" or they shouldn't be counted as "waterboarding is torture" sources at all. Devoting the same amount of time and professional Lexis/Nexis resources that Akhilleus has devoted would no doubt disqualify even more; some of them probably work for Human Rights Watch or the Jewish human rights group, which have already been counted. Neutral Good (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is truly an amazing amount of nitpicking. To disagree in your own terms, the distinctions may have been subtle but seem rather unimportant, and certainly not sufficient to disqualify them. Snowfire51 (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * John Yoo, and other sources presented by the "Waterboarding may not be torture" advocates, have been subjected to the same level of nitpicking scrutiny, exquisitely careful dissection and disqualification by the "Waterboarding is torture" advocates. This is only fair. Neutral Good (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral Good's response is hardly surprising, but it's mistaken on several points. NG seems to think that "sources" means people, and thus claims that some of these sources have been counted already. That's wrong: for the purposes of Wikipedia, "sources" means publications--each article is a source. This is the case even if a person writes two or more articles (as authors usually do)--each article is a separate source. Claiming that the Meyerfield article is not a new source because he signed the open letter to Gonzales is simply wrong--his article is a source, the open letter is a source. If Meyerfield writes a piece for the Washington Post, that will be another source.


 * The value of the sources I've provided here is that they appear in peer-reviewed publications; exactly the kind of expert literature that Wikipedia is supposed to be based on. A clear message to draw from the sources I've found is that the academic legal community overwhelmingly feels that the "extreme" CIA techniques are illegal and the legal reasoning used to allow their use is severely flawed. Considering that these articles appear in law reviews, an argument that the administration has acted illegally is probably more damning than a statement that waterboarding is torture.


 * Not that we lack such statements. In NG's response, he notes that the fifth source (Bassiouni) says that waterboarding is "exactly what Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention prohibits," and contends that Bassiouni isn't saying that waterboarding is torture, because the Geneva Convention prevents more things than torture. True, but not particularly relevant, because Bassaouni continues: "The Administration's legal advisors preposterously claimed that the infliction of severe pain and suffering, as defined in Article 1 of the CAT, '[M]ust be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" in order to constitute torture.'" Bassiouni is clearly saying that the administration's reasoning is ridiculous, and that waterboarding (and the other techniques listed) are torture. This should be plain to any editor who is willing to read the whole quote, without a predisposition towards tendentious nitpicking. And really, that's the most apt description of NG's comment above--tendentious nitpicking. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with any of these sources as being statements of opinion. However they are not legal rulings. They cannot be construed as law. They can only be construed as opinions about the law -- by people not in power to actually do anything about it except vote.  Things do not enter the area of law until there is a ruling from a court (and it must stand above appeal) or when things have been legislated upon.  There is a quasi area of law known as regulation as well and currently only regulations and the UCMJ have reviewed waterboarding as far as I can tell.  In this regard, waterboarding (specifically) is illegal for US Military personnel, but is (specifically) not illegal for non-military personnel.   --Blue Tie (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For the final time, stop bringing up this legal angle--it's a non-argument because Wikipedia does not care about the legal status. We aren't a legal guide and never will be. Opinions are fine to establish facts. If you don't like it: fork to another pedia. This constant fake argument is now disruptive. Stop. Lawrence Cohen  05:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are wrong. The legal status is reportable. You should not be running around issuing instructions to other editors based upon your personal beliefs. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you are editing to support a US POV. US legal status has zero relevance to anything in this article's definition of waterboarding as torture, period, full stop. The US is one source only. A single government will get no special treatment by us. The United States government is subservient to NPOV here. Lawrence Cohen  18:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect and you are starting to be disruptive in your efforts to violate WP:AGF with other editors... something you have proposed as a policy in the ARBCOM page.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Go and start Legal issues in the USA around waterboarding if you want to, the current US administration's legal defence is not enough to say waterboarding is not torture. Please stop bringing it up. ( Hypnosadist ) 03:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If legal issues in the United States are so unimportant why do 115 left-wing American law professors figure so prominently in your list of sources? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If this is just a partisan political issue where are the 115 right-wing law professors saying its not torture? ( Hypnosadist )  03:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Because some editors believe that if POTUS says its OK then its not torture, or that if CIA does it their lawyers have "proved" that its not illegal (because the CIA never does anything illegal), thats why! I'd have no mention of the USA except in the history section saying you have used this technique many times in different wars. And absolutly no mention of the legallity in just one country. ( Hypnosadist ) 01:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Brain scans for signs of cerebral hypoxia?
I haven't yet found any obvious sign that anyone has done brain scans of waterboarding survivors - have they really not done so? Even sleep apnea supposedly can cause chronic cerebral hypoxia to the point of creating foci visible on a magnetic resonance imaging scan, though some signs of this type may be regarded as normal for people of a certain age. Furthermore the changes (visible reduction in size of certain areas of actual brain tissue after the damage is suffered) develop over a period of weeks to months, so I would expect that by doing a brain scan on a newly extracted waterboarding survivor and repeating it a few months later, it could be proved that the recent trauma was to blame. Wnt (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt it has been done. There does not appear to be much in the way of scientific research uncovered by editors here. Mostly it is opinions.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly we have loads of medical evidence and literally infinitely more evidence than the fringe view that its not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not being silly. We do not have one single peer reviewed, medical or scientific source on the effects, specifically, of waterboarding. What this person has proposed is that such a study be referenced. It does not exist as far as I know. Please refrain from personal attacks.--Blue Tie (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "It does not exist as far as I know" Exactly as the US government does not allow independant medical reviews of its "guests". Many ex-prisoners have been treated for the injuries they have recieved, including the psychological injuries, as none of these mention waterboarding (just other forms of torture and CID that are used). I would like the medical exams Wnt speaks of carried out but as it is very unlikely its not worth talking about. ( Hypnosadist )  02:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some thorough medical and psychiatric examinations of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaidah, searching specifically for signs that their waterboarding episodes might have physically or emotionally damaged them in any way. That would be helpful. Instead, we have opinions and speculation based on political predispositions. Left-wing law professors, Democrats in Congress, and Physicians for Human Rights claim that it's torture, and that's very predictable. Republicans claim that it isn't, or that it may not be torture in all cases, or that they aren't sure, and that's also predictable. Neutral Good (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All this is only relevant (barely) to the United States subsection only. The stances in the US have no bearing on the rest of the article. The US is just one country, and not that important in the end here. Lawrence Cohen  06:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * A peer reviewed medical source would be relevant to the whole article. Not just to a US Section.
 * Unfortunately there's nothing in PubMed yet, but it's worth keeping an eye out for new results or preliminary reports. Wnt (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research
Our gathering lists of references is helpful, because it can demonstrate the relative prominence that different views should receive in the article. The reference lists can be used as citations for specific statements. However, we are not in the business of weighing the references and pronouncing The Truth®. That would be Original research.

What this means is that we should say, "Legal scholars, international organizations, {drop in everybody else} state that waterboarding is torture. {Drop in list of citations} Begining in {drop in year} the US Government Bush Administration officials, such as {drop in list of names}, and political commentators such as {drop in names of notable people} have suggested that waterboarding may not be torture in all cases."

This would be the most precise and neutral way to state things. Rather than telling the reader what to think, we can give them all the information, and they can be as informed about this subject as we are.

I still prefer to start the article with a specific description of the waterboarding process and the effects on the subject. The second paragraph can cover its status as torture. The third paragraph should explain the huge political controversy caused by waterboarding. The term was obscure until this controversy created worldwide headlines. Jehochman Talk 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We weigh the references and produce an article where the majority and minority are given proportional weight not equal weight. This is still not proportional to the amount of sources. -- neon white user page talk 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. This is most unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. If you insist on this change for this article, you must also change the lead in the article regarding the age of the earth, the origin of species, etc. Suffocation of a bound prisoner is a form of torture, as the sources (except in the public statements of two Republican politicians and two conservative opinion columnists), and the article should describe it as such. Again, I respectfully request that you *read the talk page archives straight through* before commenting or proposing here further. The idea of a simple description in the lead has been proposed several times, and rejected, for reasons already stated. Again, as already stated, the politically motivated hammering of recent months does not seek to redefine waterboarding, but simply to shed doubt that it is torture. This idea of "giving in" to this politically motivated agenda is very, very misguided. Please read the discussion archives straight through, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Waterboarding is torture, the use of torture here is a descriptive term - it explains what it is, and vital for an inclusive description of what waterboarding is. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * VotingIsEvil. There should be no doubt in anybody's mind that waterboarding is torture.  Why are we letting the fringe modify our behavior?  We do we need to state the obvious?  By showing who says waterboarding is torture, and who says it isn't, we can educate the savvy reader. Jehochman  Talk 20:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly support. Let's move forward. Present the facts, don't take sides or make judgments, and let the facts speak for themselves. Neutral Good (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with what Jehochman has said. I believe it is entirely consistent with wikipedia practice and policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. 70.9.13.143 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC) — 70.9.13.143 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * This proposal is incorrect on policy. No original research doesn't mean we check our critical judgment at the door; it's impossible to write a decent encyclopedia article without determining the quality and reliability of different sources. At its most trivial, this means that we can and should give different weight to articles from the New York Times and the National Enquirer. For this article, that means that we can observe that the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed sources and expert opinion (not to mention pre-2001 jurisprudence) say that waterboarding is a form of torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm tired of saying exactly that, the problem is with a handful of editors who refuse to accept that that is what is meant by a neutral point of view and continually misrepresent the policy as 'no point of view'. -- neon white user page talk 16:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, however, as a practical matter, if we can establish consensus and get the page unprotected by adopting a very strict version of neutrality, that will be good for Wikipedia.  The description of waterboarding that we have, and will hopefully continue to have, will demonstrate to all but the most partisan reader that waterboarding is torture beyond any doubt.  By highlighting who says it is, and who says it isn't, we will show the relative strengths of the arguments and identify who may be covering their ass.   Jehochman  Talk 16:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be 'adopting a very strict version of neutrality', it would be adopting an incorrect misinterpretation of the policy, one that is specifically outlined as incorrect in the policy. This is no help in achieving a good article. We simply cannot just list hundreds of sources in the lead of an article. They can be listed within the article and lead is a summary of the article. -- neon white user page talk 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong support. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Point of order
All, please remember that this is supposed to be a discussion. As it is now, any ideas to move forward are shot down immediately. This obviously isn't working. If we could avoid bold "opposes" for a while too, that'd be great.

This has been proposed before, but how about we give the lead a rest? There has been a continuous argument for over two months about the lead now, going all the way to arbcom. Is there any chance we could declare a temporary cease fire, try working on the rest of the article, and come back refreshed and duke it out later on the lead?

I think that everyone who are truly interested in improving this article, as opposed to fighting over the lead, should try to improve a section. You can write a draft in a subpage, then post the proposal here for discussion and implementation. henrik • talk  21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The first six words of the article are a glaring violation of WP:NPOV and Jehochman is trying to work constructively to cure that problem. Props to Jehochman. Henrik, working on other sections of the article would be like receiving a patient in the emergency ward who's pumping out his blood from multiple gunshot wounds, ignoring the gunshot wounds, and providing medical treatment for his psoriasis. Neutral Good (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been pointed out time and time again NPOV means representing the majority point of view not fringe views. The lead is in complete compliance with the policy. Shouting the same tired argument that has been answered many times is just disrupting the discussion.  -- neon white  user page talk 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Metaphor aside, it's actually suggested by wikipedia that when there's conflict on a page, good faith can be gained by working together to improve other parts of the article. Once everyone is working together, then maybe the hotbutton issue can be revisited with new cooperation and results. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Hyperbole like that is exactly why we are at arbcom now instead of constructively editing. henrik  • talk  08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The first six words are not a violation of NPOV. They are simply starting out in an unnatural way by denying a fringe view that should not need to be denied.  By the definition presented, it is obvious that waterboarding is torture by the common meaning of the word "torture".  We can use "torture" as shorthand for the well-sourced statements: "immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages", "the subject experiences the process of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent", and "it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death".  I prefer to avoid redundancy by stating the specifics.  Later on we will explain the high-profile and historically significant political battle surrounding the status of waterboarding as torture.   We should say why it is torture, who says so, and also identify those who deny the common meaning of the word, and why they do so, as substantiated by the numerous sources we have found. Jehochman  Talk 19:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can say it is 'historically significant' at the current time. It may be in the news now but could well be forgetten later. -- neon white user page talk 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no. Do a Google news search for waterboarding.  The number of high profile search results indicates that this is permanently notable. It's like Watergate or Irangate or Monica Lewinsky. Jehochman  Talk 20:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot say anything has long term singificance based on current hits. There is no evidence yet that it will be as remember as any of those. -- neon white user page talk 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding should be redirected here. There are many ridiculous claims about waterboarding. I think if it's not classified as torture then it should be classified as an extreme sport as the article suggests.Reinoe (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * while i dont believe that htis technique can even remotely be considere d "torture" it hardhly should be continued to be considered as "torture" unless a cited sources claims that someone notable has said that it is or if there is a notable source cliaming that is has been practised as a sport somewhere in the world. Smith Jones (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the sources at the top of the page Smith Jones then you will find literally hundreds of of notable and reliable sources as well as expert medical opinion that its torture. ( Hypnosadist )  04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * i understand there is a lot of controversy relaiting to that claim and it seem sto me like both sides of the issue culd be valid. you can get experts saying almost anything these days and i think that wikipeida should only present the majority and significant minority views and avoid giving undue weight to radical spin-doctoring.
 * Fringe is exactly why the extreme minority opinion that waterboarding is not torture should only get a passing mention. ( Hypnosadist )  19:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * that odesnt seem right to me. there is a LOT of debate and controversy and a lot of political thinkers ahve expressed opposing opinions regardless of thes and it seems like a better idea to present both sides equally rather htan using wikipedia to promote pundit talking points. Smith Jones (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Check the "definitions" page linked at the top of this page. There are only four individuals stating their opinion that waterboarding is not a form of torture: two Republican politicians from the U.S. and two American conservative opinion columnists (one not particularly notable). Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral POV policy demands that views are represented in proportion to the weight of sources; to quote ...fairly, proportionately and without bias This means that each view gets mentioned without suggesting either is correct but it doesn't mean they get equal prominence in the article. -- neon white user page talk 16:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * politicains are notable, and just because they happen to hold an disagreeing point of view with you rdoesnt mean that they're opinions are somehow worth less than that of the more left-wing pundits. again, its easy to find a bunch of sources attacking waterboarding as an interogation technique, but that doesnt prove that those opinions have more real world weight than that of anyone who disagres. after all, the US is not the only country to have been accused of practicing enhanced interrogation and it doesnt make sense to only portray the controversy from an American or even a North American perspective. it makes sense for me to just write the article normaly and if it turns out that the anti-waterboarding crowd has more people then the article will go that way on its own. there is no need to artificially slanted the debate towards anti-waterboarding instead of letting it develop that way through a fair and encyclopedic process. Smith Jones (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a quick question: have you read the discussion archives for this discussion page straight through? I ask that you please do so before commenting further here. If you had done so, you will see that there is no objection to including information about these four individuals in the article; however, as with the age of the earth (or the definition of "torture," which is well understood, and does include suffocation by use of water, which waterboarding is), it's not appropriate to include such a fringe opinion in the lead of the article. Badagnani (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that, User:Badagnoni and i have no objection with the pro-waterboarding information not being in the lead of the article. i am only saying that it should be addressed and the that controversy not be burhsed aside or buried under a bunch of rules. the fact of the matter is that ive read this entire discussion (although i havent even looked for any archives yet -- those tned to be irrelevent flamewars and arguments awnay) and i see no reason put forth as to why the controversy should be minimized or censored. the whole point is to let the reader decide for himself what is true and to avoid giving undue weight to the fringe theores to avoid confusion. i can see why giving pro-waterboarding a large role in the article is a bad idea, but to make it seem lik ea wild fringe theory held by almost no-one is inacurate and unfair to the extreme. Smith Jones (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might think it is unfair, that's your opinion, but the lack of decent sources and obvious polictical motivation of them is far more important in determining this as a fringe theory. -- neon white user page talk 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion archives and your questions will be answered. Your argument that the archives are irrelevant, and yet somehow this discussion page isn't, is bizarre given that the archives are just copies of this discussion page. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the sources and read the archives. ( Hypnosadist )  07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edits to Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ
Which experts consider waterboarding to be torture?

a)The doctors.

The formost expert is Dr. Allen Keller, the director of the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture  ( Hypnosadist )  08:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

This expert medical opinion is backed up by the work of Physicians for Human Rights in this report that includes references to multiple medical journals on the long term physical and mental effects of waterboarding. ( Hypnosadist ) 08:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

b)The victims.

Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) school in California said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured". ( Hypnosadist ) 09:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

''Henri Alleg. French journalist'' who supported Algerian independence from France. He was arrested by French paratroopers in Algeria and interrogated and subjected to waterboarding in the 50's. "Well, I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to. And no one can say, having passed through it, that this was not torture, especially when he has endured other types of torture—burning, electricity and beating, and so on." ( Hypnosadist ) 09:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is very useful. I've posted the first part to the FAQ, I'd like some more opinions on whether the victims can be considered "experts" in the reliable source sense before posting that. Thoughts on that anyone? henrik  • talk  09:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that these two particular victims are experts - the one as a specialist on counterterrorism, the other as a published author and journalist whose reports have stood up to 50 years of scrutiny. I also think that Alleg is a very good antidote to recentism. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Alleg is also a good antidote to anti-amercanism as america is not mentioned in his book. ( Hypnosadist )  09:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about a section Legal findings? The point would be to focus on actual court findings, not the hypothetical "what might happen" in the future WP:CRYSTAL stuff. Would include: Evan Wallach "Historical analysis demonstrates U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions." Also could include prosecutions of Japanese, US soldiers and police etc. already listed at Talk:Waterboarding/Definition Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added an initial suggestion based on Mr. Wallach's writings and the open letter to Mr. Gonzales by the U.S. law professors, which I perceive to be the strongest sources. Comments? henrik  • talk  15:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * How about historians/historical opinions? Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews by James Carrol describes the 'toca' used by the spanish inquisition. also describes the technique but calls it the 'water cure'. Also  quotes a cambodian surviver and Richard Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state, describing it as such. -- neon white  user page talk 16:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in Reference Citation
The following is an excerpt from the reference section (#1):

Eban, Katherine. "Rorschach and Awe", Vanity Fair, July 17, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-12-17. "It was terrifying," military psychologist Bryce Lefever is quoted as saying, "...you're strapped to an inclined gurney and you're in four-point restraint, your head is almost immobilized, and they pour water between your nose and your mouth, so if you're likely to breathe, you're going to get a lot of water. You go into an oxygen panic."

The quotation, referenced above is not found in the cited article "Rorschach and Awe." It is a clear error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.237.57.2 (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is. I suspect you did not notice that the article has 4 pages. The quote is on page 2, at http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?currentPage=2. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Legal status of torture and Wikipedia policy
Please cite the exact policy that *supports* your repeated statement that sources are only allowable to say waterboarding is torture as some form of legal status. I am officially tasking anyone who asserts this to demonstrate where we can only use legal rulings: show me the Wikipedia policy that backs this claim up. If you cannot, you (all of you) need to stop disrupting this page immediately. Link to the specific passage of policy that supports this idea that we can only call it torture if a legal ruling calls it that. Now. This game has gone on long enough; consensus does not and never needs to be "unanimous" on any Wikipedia page or process. Link the policy.

And please stop referencing legal status in the United States. Simply put, no one cares, because the US is one country and no more important in anything on Wikipedia than any other country: the US is just a name and a body to us. The legal status or lack thereof there will not be used to gauge the overall statements of is/isn't torture on this page. Lawrence Cohen 05:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Lawrence, It is inappropriate to tell someone to stop referencing something saying "no one cares" when it is focused on the topic of the article. It is also inappropriate for you to declare unilaterally what will or will not be used as though you alone judge such things. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am doing is calling on the editors here to quash disruptive tenditious editing. Consensus does not require unanimous support, and I think now that people took AGF to truly absurd lengths to induldge nationalist editors. Time to stop and do the right thing for the 'pedia, rather than the USA. Lawrence Cohen  18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The legal status of waterboarding under the US Constitution, UNCAT, ECHR and GC's is important and should be noted on wikipedia, given that we have RS to do this. But you are right in that "no court case since 9/11 has called waterboarding torture" is not reason enough to say waterboarding is not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  08:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything related to International Law should be noted as "International Law". And, in fact, there are no court cases, world-wide, as far as I can tell, that are related to waterboarding.  Legality and torture are two different things.  Something may be legal but still be torture.  Something may also be illegal but not torture.  The two are not necessarily the same thing.  In the United States, however, there are five things that work together:  1) Representatives of the US Government have affirmed repeatedly under oath, that they do not torture.  2) Representatives of the US Government (sometimes the same as in item 1) have affirmed that the US authorizes waterboarding to be conducted and this is confirmed by published documents from the Government.  3).  Representatives (again, sometimes the same as #1) have issued regulatory rulings (which have the force of law when statute and court decisions do not exist) that permit waterboarding.  4). Legal authorities, tasked with interpreting the law for the executive branch have ruled that waterboarding is legal. (this is not the same a court ruling) 5). Some individuals have reported, (in reliable ways) that waterboarding has been conducted under the aegis of US authority.  These all indicate that in the US, waterboarding may be legal under certain circumstances.  I would note, also that the US signs many international treaties with specific stipulations that these treaties are subordinate in the US to the US Constitution. This is deemed necessary because by default, the US Constitution actually suggests that treaties are equal to it and ratification in the Senate would not occur without that stipulation.  As a result, US agreement with treaties that define international almost never includes submitting to authorities or interpretations outside of the US.  That is not a topic for this article, but it may inform some of the editors here regarding legality. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal status in the US is irrelevant to the definition of waterboarding as torture. We are not a legal guide, and do not care about outside ramifications of this article to the US government. The United States government is subservient to NPOV here. Lawrence Cohen  18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe you are in violation of one of your own proposed statements of policy on the arbitration page. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And which would that be? Lawrence Cohen  18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie go and start Legal issues in the USA around waterboarding if you want to, the current US administration's legal defence is not enough to say waterboarding is not torture. Please stop bringing it up. ( Hypnosadist ) 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For some reason you have confused me with someone else. I have never brought this up.  But it is inappropriate to ask me to stop bringing up something that I think is right to bring up. Just as it would be inappropriate for me to ask you to do that. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What the CIA does
Just an FYI since people keep mistakenly saying what the CIA does may or may not be "waterboarding", have we all forgotten John Kiriakou already, the CIA agent that detailed the CIA technique? The one that matches our article description? Lawrence §  t / e  14:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue Tie's Proposed topic on Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ

 * Question: When did the term "Waterboarding", first make its appearance?


 * Question: Is any sort of water involved torture the same as waterboarding or is there a difference between waterboarding and other procedures?


 * Question: How is Waterboarding conducted?

--Blue Tie (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer to Q1 could be incorporated under "What is the history of waterboarding?" and likewise the Q3 answer is a good fit under the existing "How is waterboarding done?" (I guess the title could be renamed though, I like "conducted" a bit better). But I'm afraid I don't entirely understand Q2, would you care to expand what you intended there? henrik  • talk  22:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not done enough research, but after reviewing work by htom, I am concerned about conflation of waterboarding with things. I do not know, but I suspect the following may be happening:


 * 1. Waterboarding is a term (neologism) that the Bush Administration used for a specific procedure which has not been clearly defined.
 * 2. Other activities that look like they might be waterboarding (as discussed above) have been identified as being waterboarding, when they were previously known as something else and perhaps should continue to be known by those labels.
 * 3. Separately, there may be an issue of severity. If I look at a rainbow, when does the color exactly change from red to orange?  When does waterboarding change to something else.


 * Through all of this, I am concerned about Original Research -- assuming something is waterboarding, without actually, clearly identifying it as such. In part, I have not seen an actual, authoritative definition of waterboarding. The article suffers because of this lack of information.
 * Conflation between various tortures may be happening widely both in the press and here on wikipedia. I have seen things as diverse as "locked in an evacuated airlock" to "dunking disobedient housewives" to stuff that is clearly not the same thing but which was conducted in the Spanish inquisition being called waterboarding.  This is a problem for the article.  It is a deep problem.  htom identified it as a problem back in November and he was right.


 * I would discourage you from including Q1 as part of "What is the history of waterboarding? because it is possible that the answer to that question defines the start of the history of waterboarding. It is a major separate concern for me. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on sources

 * Blue Tie, you appear to be accusing secondary sources of committing original research. If this is the case, your understanding of the no original research policy is seriously flawed. You appear to be using your own original research--that is, your worries about the definition of waterboarding and the supposed "conflation" committed by seconary sources--to rule out sources that you don't approve of. Let's be clear about this: your own notions of the proper definition of waterboarding do not trump what reliable sources say. If we have peer-reviewed, expert sources that say that waterboarding was used in the Spanish Inquisition, the Philippine-American War, the Second World War, by the Khmer Rouge, the Chilean junta of the '70s, and so on, the opinions of Wikipedia editors fall by the wayside. We go by what reliable sources say, not Wikipedia editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Though it may appear that I am accusing secondary sources of committing WP:OR, that would not be exactly correct. They are unable to commit that error, because they are not wikipedia, and OR is a wikipedia rule.  So, since that is not my objection, you do not need to be concerned about it on that score.
 * However, I am not positive that we are using very good sources ... sources that actually can comment, though they claim to be able to. I am not done with research yet and I have not presented any logic yet. Be patient. And please do not "be clear" in presumptuously instructing me when you do not understand what I am talking about. It is a very poor way to show good faith.


 * Incidentally, your implications about the quality of our sources is not borne out by an examination of them or how we are using them. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Peer-reviewed articles in law reviews are high-quality sources, and two of them (the articles by Cristian Correa and Evan Wallach listed above) discuss historical instances of waterboarding. Your comments so far strongly suggest that you think Correa and Wallach are wrong in saying that waterboarding took place before 2001, and it looks like you want to argue that we can't use such sources. If I'm getting your argument wrong, then perhaps you can actually present your argument, rather than hinting at it in fits and starts. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the article by Evan Wallach published by anyone but himself yet? Has it been peer reviewed?  Have you actually read it?
 * I will present my argument when I have done my research and I have time. Some of it must be in Arbcom. I am doing it here at the behest of JeHochman.  I suspect I will spend money and time for nothing because there are fewer people interested in the article as an objective piece of information than about making sure it sends the right message. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, now who's not assuming good faith? I'm quite concerned about this article being accurate--so much so that I spent quite a bit of time with Lexis-Nexis finding law review articles, and reading said articles. I listed quite a few of my results near the top of this page, with full citations and ample quotes, so anyone with access to a research library (or the appropriate internet resources) can verify them. If I say that a peer-reviewed article has been published in a law review, I'm not lying.
 * Moreover, if the questions you've just asked about the Wallach article are any indication, you seem to be criticizing sources without actually bothering to check them first--not exactly a great research method, hm?
 * If you'd like to say what databases or other resources you're considering spending money on are, I can see if I have access to them, and run whatever searches or queries you'd like. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have checked the Wallach article to the best of my ability, based upon links provided by those who advocate it. Based upon that reading and review, it looked to me like it has not been published, not peer reviewed and it has internal consistency problems.  I notice you have not answered my questions.  The databases I am thinking of running on are found on dialog. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue Tie, are you having problems reading my list near the top of the page? The citation is: Evan Wallach, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts," Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 45 (2007) 468ff. (That's a humanities-style citation, rather than the format common in law.) The article was published in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, and I read the whole thing. I have to say, that I rather resent your implication that I was making things up.
 * As for your statement that the article "has internal consistency problems," this is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said that the opinions of Wikipedia editors aren't important in comparison to what reliable sources say. Especially when the author is someone like Evan Wallach. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not see your citation. I guess you could say I am having problems reading it.  I saw a different citation, where I downloaded it.  Thanks for the reference. Some heat could have been avoided if you had answered my questions or pointed that reference out earlier.  It would have been a simple and easy thing.
 * I never implied you made things up. If you actually want to resent things, I suppose it helps to imagine things to be resentful of, but I will only take credit for things I actually say or imply.  And implying you lied is not in there, so I take no credit for that and I cannot help you with your resentment. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue Tie, in my second comment in this section I pointed out that the Wallach article was published in a law review, and I provided a wikilink to the list of citations above. Apparently you missed it, and instead of accepting my word that it was published in a peer-reviewed source, you asked, "Is the article by Evan Wallach published by anyone but himself yet? Has it been peer reviewed?  Have you actually read it?" In my response, I noted that I had listed my Lexis-Nexis results at the top of the page so that other editors could verify them, and said "If I say that a peer-reviewed article has been published in a law review, I'm not lying." You responded by saying that you still thought the Wallach article hadn't been published. No, I suppose you weren't implying that I was making things up--you just didn't see that I had directed you to the citation several times, and you didn't trust me when I said that the article had been published in a law review. --Akhilleus (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you pointed to the article. Yes you provided a wikilink.  I did not miss it but I thought that it was a repeat of what I had already seen.  Yes, I asked questions. That is how I find things out quite a bit. I think you mischaracterize my response. I said that I looked at it to the best of my ability and did not see that it was published or peer reviewed.  That is not a statement that you lied .. it is a statement of what I did and saw.  It was also not a statement that the article was not peer reviewed or published.  It was just a statement of what I had done -- and did not see.  Think of it as me saying "Here is what I saw"  And then it was followed by my observation that you did not answer my questions.  And to my eye, you didn't.  Perhaps you didn't think it necessary. Either way, I did not judge you for it, I just noticed that you didn't answer them.  By saying that I was trying to bring that to your attention without being confrontational.  Think of it as me saying "What did you see?"  I was not saying you were lying. I was not saying that there were no answers... or that there were no good answers.  I was not even implying it.  I was just saying you had not answered.  That is all.
 * Please do not be upset. It only leads to misinterpretations.  I have not impugned your honesty.  I have not judged you.  You are imagining all sorts of bad things -- none of them true. That I did not see your citation is not the same thing as an evil.  Perhaps this should help you:  When I type, I generally am typing in a calm and respectful tone.  I also speak rather matter-of-factly, very litterally and tend, in short snips, to focus on things that are proven.  Usually, if I ask questions, I am really asking them, not trying to make a point.   If you read my words as being matter of fact, calm and respectful, maybe you will not read all sorts of evils in them. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article does have internal consistency problems -- and no, it is not the same thing you are talking about. It is different.  In this source, he discusses  waterboarding, watercure and water torture. So, it might be a good source, except that he makes no distinction between these.  But there is a distinction.  With that kind of confusion, this may not be such a good source after all.  (And you are wrong in one sense about the opinions of wikipedia editors, but we shall get to that another time).
 * More importantly, this all gets to one of my other questions: What constitutes "Waterboarding"?  Where is the definition? Where do we have ANY source that AUTHORITATIVELY says "This is what waterboarding really is"?  I do not see ANY.  There are just assumptions that "we know what it is".
 * This is more serious than just an issue with the article you have provided. It is a fundamental part of the problem with the article. htom determined this a couple of months back, but I am just now starting to understand the point he made some time ago and has continued to make. Without a good definition, this article can never be correctly resolved.  This is not the only article that suffers from this problem but it is acute here. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

AEB1

 * Blue Tie, you said: "In this source, he discusses waterboarding, watercure and water torture. So, it might be a good source, except that he makes no distinction between these.  But there is a distinction." Perhaps you think so. But Wallach is an expert source, and if he equates water torture, the "water cure", and waterboarding, he knows what he's talking about. He is an authoritative source about "what waterboarding really is." He is certainly more authoritative than anonymous Wikipedia editors. We cannot decide, on our own, without any secondary sources to support us, that waterboarding is a different phenomenon from the "water cure" and then exclude sources on that basis. But it looks like you're trying to do that. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You say that Wallach is an expert source. I agree.  He is an expert on the law.  However, when did he become an expert on waterboarding?  When was his training?  What courses did he take that give him expert knowledge in the techniques and methods and procedures?  Does he claim to have any such background?   There is no doubt in my mind that he is an expert on legal matters.  There are other experts on legal matters who do not agree with him. That is the way it is with opinions. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I realized that I should have made myself a bit more clear. I consider Wallach's article to be an excellent source for his opinion about water torture and the law. I do not consider it to be a great source on actual law and waterboarding -- even when he quotes legal sources and opinions.  Because a great source for that would be the actual case rulings, not his partial quotes or paraphrase.  So... I should not exactly say it is not a good source, it is just not a good source for much more than his opinion.  His opinion, however, is that of an educated and experienced person so it should be given credit in that regard.  But it is not the law. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm struggling to understand why this is relevant. When a legal authority writes an article about how waterboarding has historically been treated in the courts, that seems like a pretty good source about the law. It's exactly the kind of source we should use to write articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because you are bringing this source to the article. Certainly he is an expert on the subject, but that does not make his opinion authoritative.  It makes it opinion.  Opinions are important but they are not authoritative until they pass through the processes that turn them into laws. For example, The Supreme Court of the US may rule 5 to 4 on some issue.  People on both sides are experts. And people on both sides are authorities. But until the vote, the matter was not settled law and the opinions of either side were only opinions.  After the ruling, 5 people's opinions became law and 4 people's opinions did not.  In this case, Wallach does not even have the appropriate juridstiction to make a ruling on the matter. He can only offer his opinion.  Yes, an expert opinion, but it is not the law.  As an aside, I have a verifiable, reliable source that declares there there are no judicial rulings on waterboarding.  --Blue Tie (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the 1,500th time: US-specific legal policy in regards to Waterboarding means nothing to us, as the USA government. doesn't get to define the status of waterboarding as torture for our purposes. Also, we're not a legal guide. Why do you keep bringing up absolutely rejected and irrelevant arguments? Lawrence  §  t / e  00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem frustrated. Please note that I have not made any arguments that are specifically related to the USA.  (Not yet anyway.)  So please, do not imagine that I have done something I have not done.  However, when you say the US Govt does not get to decide the status of waterboarding as torture... I ask you:  Who does?  And who says that they have that power?  As an adjunct to that, do we have any sources of legislation or judicial ruling anywhere that uses the term "Waterboarding" in the designation of law? --Blue Tie (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I initially shared Blue Tie's concern that the definition was sloppy. I guess I like precise definitions. However, in attempting to resolve this I came to the realisation that I was in fact doing original research. If a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal says something is waterboarding, then that is what Wikipedia should report. If another article in a similar journal disagrees with the first article, then we include that too. That is how other articles have resolved this problem - don't think too hard, just repeat what the reliable sources are saying. See WP:RS. I accept that this may ultimately mean merging the water cure and waterboarding articles, as they may end up containing much the same content.
 * As for the claim that Wallach is just stating his opinion - this is an article by an expert in the law of war, in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. It is not just an opinion piece in some trashy newspaper. It is one of the most reliable types of source there is; to quote WP:SOURCES: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree that it is a fantasic source... for an opinion. But it is not a source for what is law.  Things are laws based upon: 1). Legistlation, 2). Regulation 3). Judicial Interpretation in a case.  An opinion -- even if expressed by God, would not be law unless either God was the King/Dictator or God's opinion had been solidified in legislation, regulation or a judicial interpretation from the bench on a case. Note that I am not arguing that God would be wrong.  By the same token I am not (at this point) arguing that Wallach is wrong.  Only that his opinion, as wonderful as it is, is only an opinion.  It is not law. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The question of if Waterboarding is torture is not a legal one for our purposes. The current legal stance in the USA is irrelevant to us to making a determination, and has no more value. The USA is one country of many, and is not a special place. Lawrence  §  t / e  00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree... the question of if Waterboarding is torture is not a legal one for our purposes. I do not agree that the current legal stance in the USA is irrelvant to this article. But what I most object to (in your statement above) is the notion that ANYTHING can be relevant to "us to make a determination".  We cannot make a determination.  It is not our job. And this is at the heart of some of the editing problems.  People want wikipedia to determine that it is torture, when wikipedia cannot do that.--Blue Tie (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, what we determine is what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say with an extremely high degree of unanimity, and across a surprisingly large spectrum of legal, medical, historical and even military experts, that waterboarding is a form of torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Physicians for Human Rights "In the form of waterboarding reportedly authorized for use by the CIA, “the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane or a towel is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him to simulate drowning" what is wrong with that deffinition. ( Hypnosadist ) 07:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That is great. But how is Physicians for Human Rights a reliable source about what waterboarding is or what the CIA does (which may be two different things). Mind you, I am not arguing with what PHR said is waterboarding... I am asking how they are a reliable source for this matter, especially since they are an advocacy group. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't this report be a reliable source? Why is calling PHR an "advocacy group" meaningful on this question? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They might not be a reliable source because they appear to have a partisan agenda and because they have no first hand knowledge of what waterboarding is. So, now I ask again: How is PHR a reliable source for the definition of waterboarding?  Notice I am not asking if they are a reliable source for the opinion of PHR.  Nor am I even questioning whether they are a reliable source for general medical information.  I am not impugning their general quality.  But.. how would they know what waterboarding is and why would they .... of all entities... be the arbiters of what waterboarding is? --Blue Tie (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They rely, like all of us, on the common knowledge, as e.g. reflected in the 8 sources I listed above. They actually list their reviewers, contributors, and sources in the report. Surprisingly, you don't need to know every irrelevant detail to evaluate something. "I'm no murderer unless you know which kind of socks I wore when strangling my wife" is not a strong defense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, you suppose they rely on some common knowledge. But perhaps they have some special knowledge that would make them experts.  That is the idea, isn't it?  Or are you arguing that ordinary knowledge is sufficient for the designation of "expert"? --Blue Tie (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that the amount of knowledge about waterboarding available to any serious researcher who already has a good grounding in the legal, medical, or historical background of torture and law is enough to make an informed determination. Peer reviewed articles in medical and law journals, as well as expert synthesis reports like the PHR report are certainly good and, especially in sum, sufficient sources for this determination. As I understand you, only an actual trained torturer CIA enhanced interrogation specialist who also happens to be an MD, a JD, and an appellate judge is competent to make this determination?  --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand me. I have not proposed any test of expertise. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I inferred that from your comments so far. You have so far avoided any positive statement - would you care to make one? My current impression is that you are not engaged in a constructive dialog, but in a combination of stonewalling and smoke and mirrors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your impression is incorrect. The fact that I do not know what to do is not the same thing as not wanting to do it.  I am frankly perplexed by problems of sourcing and OR.  Every time I come up with a solution, I immediately think of a problem. So, while I am not trying to be a problem, my comments reflect my own inner concerns that I think are flaws in this article and in trying to write it.  I have previously said "The problems are so profound that I would have a problem writing it even by myself".  But I have said to myself, how would I do it if I did it myself.  My solution so far, is two fold:


 * Use only truly superb sources
 * Be very conservative about Original Research


 * But I am not sure that these make the problems go away. Sometimes, I mentally imagine a situation where we seek and make an exception to the OR rule, but I see a slippery slope in that solution and so I have not proposed it. I hope my explanation will help you assume good faith.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion is amusing, but not likely to be fruitful. I don't find any of Blue Tie's questions compelling, or a reason to doubt that the PHR report is a good source. The idea that someone needs to have first hand experience with waterboarding to be considered an expert is quite funny, really. That would knock out almost everything cited on this talk page and in the article. Perhaps we should try to see if John McCain will write the article for us. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I support writing this article with people with first hand experience of waterboarding; French Journalist Henri Alleg, United States Senator John McCain and John Kiriakou. And that article would say Waterboarding is Torture, so come on blue tie lets write this article with your interpretation of experts please! ( Hypnosadist )  09:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also support writing this article with people with first hand knowledge or experience or reason to know about waterboarding. Question: Where does Alleg identify his experience as "Waterboarding"? If he does that, it might be a strong source.  While he is not the final arbiter of what waterboarding is, he may be a strong source.  Did he call it "Waterboarding"?--Blue Tie (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Answer: At the time he did NOT call it waterboarding, but in retrospect, he DOES: "Well, I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to." --Blue Tie (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, let me ask you... what expertise is appropriate for someone to define what waterboarding is? Suppose the term is a neologism ... which it might well be given that it came out of the Bush Administration as far as I can tell.  If it is a neologism to describe some treatment that is done by the CIA or other agencies... who has the expertise to define it? Let's suppose it is not a neologism.. that it is an older term for some specific action.  What Pre-2001 comprehensive dictionary could we quote or use to show a long-standing definition of waterboarding? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Negroponte confirms U.S. use of waterboarding
Ambassador John Negroponte obliquely confirmed the use of waterboarding in an interview with the National Journal:

I get concerned that we're too retrospective and tend to look in the rearview mirror too often at things that happened four or even six years ago. We've taken steps to address the issue of interrogations, for instance, and waterboarding has not been used in years. It wasn't used when I was director of national intelligence, nor even for a few years before that. We've also taken significant steps to improve Guantanamo. People will tell you now that it is a world-class detention facility. But if you want to highlight and accent the negative, you can resurface these issues constantly to keep them alive. I would rather focus on what we need to do going forward.


 * That is a recent article. "Years" could be "two" or perhaps "twenty".  I wish he had been more specific. Oh well, its probably a good cite as a footnote to some statement that As of 2008 waterboarding has been discontinued by the US. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No just "John Negroponte claims that waterboarding has not been used in years, and it was not when he was director of national intelligence." ( Hypnosadist )  08:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are right. I am not sure.  The question devolves to this:  Does he have the expertise, position and information to be a good source on what has happened since he was National Intelligence Director?  However, I believe that he would be a very good source to say that it was not done by the US Govt during his years in position.  I think he is a good source for that. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV proposal #43
The previous round of comments revealed many helpful suggestions. In response, I propose:


 * Waterboarding is the practice of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensations of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Waterboarding carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

This would be followed by historical perspectives on waterboarding, and then a summary of the current controversy in the United States which is making headlines around the word.

See:

Comments? Jehochman Talk 08:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The current form of the lead is fine and, again, the conspicuous avoidance of "is a form of torture" when the sources state that it is, is again an effort to accommodate a fringe effort at redefinition of this well understood term (a form of suffocation using water against a bound prisoner). Badagnani (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to accommodate a fringe. I am trying to improve neutrality.  Please do not ascribe motives to other editors.  What here is factually inaccurate?  The description is precise and subsumes the definition of  torture ("To intentionally force someone to experience agony.").  Rather than give the conclusion, I think we do better by providing the rationale. The word torture is going to show up in the next two paragraphs anyways. Jehochman  Talk 08:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I ask again that you please read the discussion archives straight through before commenting or proposing further changes to the lead (which is factual, well written, and NPOV at present). Whether you believe you are doing this or not, your proposal (conspicuously removing "torture" from the lead sentence, where it clearly belongs, according to the sources) privileges the politically motivated hammering that has occurred over the past months, where no such privileging is warranted. Badagnani (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does "torture" clearly belong? The definition I proposed subsumes the entire definition of torture, and more. Why repeat ourselves with extra words? At Holocaust the first paragraph does not include the words "murder" or "genocide", even though those would clearly be accurate. Jehochman  Talk 09:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In Armenian Genocide it's in the title because, like with holocaust the majority consider it a genocide and only a fringe disagree the same as this article. What the article contains is not really relevant as it could easily be described as a genocide without being non-neutral. -- neon white user page talk 18:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's not a good analogy, as that article clearly deals with the murder of people, and 99.9% of people coming to that article will already know this. Even if the proposed lead does subsume the definition of torture, it is not immediately obvious to the uninformed reader that it does so.  At the very least, it should mention that the vast majority of reliable sources consider the practice to be torture.  BLACK KITE  09:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at the definition of torture, the proposal I have made unquestionably qualifies as torture. Explaining is better than labeling.  "Torture" is a label that may not have clear meaning.  "Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the sensations of drowning and is made to believe that death is imminent" leaves no room for doubt that this treatment, done in anger, would constitute torture.  Jehochman  Talk 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I ask that you read the discussion archives straight through before commenting or proposing here. It really is important. Regarding "why do we have to call it torture" in the first sentence, we would not begin the Saxophone article by stating that the saxophone is "a curved tube of brass with keys and a reed"; we would say, "The saxophone is a musical instrument..." Badagnani (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can't we say "waterboarding has consistently been found to be torture under both U.S. and international law.". That way, we are stating who states the "fact" (courts of law), and it uses the most reliable source we have (a journal published paper from a former JAG/current Judge who has written extensively about post-WWII prosecutions). There can be few objections, since there are no reliable sources stating that U.S. or international courts have found waterboarding to not be torture. This way we can eliminate the whole idea of including some persons "opinion", or even any mention of the US controversy, from the lead, and only include absolutely verifiable statements regarding historic use, and not the current controversy. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I do not think that banning the t word from the lead will solve the actual problem. The edit-warring and disagreement will just be shifted a couple of paragraphs down. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your proposed wording certainly could appear in the second or third paragraphs about the history of waterboarding and the current controversy. Having "torture" in the definition (first paragraph) creates the appearance that we have a political bent.  If there were no political dispute, why would we need to say something so obvious?   It's like saying "Water is a wet substance composed of hydrogen and oxygen" when the natural statement would be "Water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen."  We should certainly mention "torture" within the historical context, because waterboarding was primarily used for torture.  We should also mention "torture" in the third paragraph about the current controversy, because that's what the controversy is about.  Jehochman  Talk 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, it creates the impression that editors have analysed the sources available and made conclusion based on them. Again it seems like i need to point out that a neutral point of view is not 'no point of view'. You are simply giving far too much importance and weight to the recent controversy. -- neon white user page talk 18:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What you seem to fail to realize, User:Jehochman (probably from not having read the discussion archives straight through), is that the intent to sanitize the lead by excising the very term that is the definition of what this practice is what is politically motivated. In an effort to "get this dispute over with, already," you are exactly following the dictates of this tiny but extremely vocal minority (including several SPAs and socks) in their politically motivated hammering (whose sole focus seems to have been removing this word from the lead). It's very, very important that you carefully read the discussion archives straight through--it will take time, but is really extremely important that you do so. Badagnani (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, creating an ambiguous lead does not reflect the weight of opinion on the subject, it creates the impression of a wide dispute when, in fact, there isn't one. It shouldn't read more like a political speech than an encyclopedic entry. -- neon white user page talk 18:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, I would change "breathing passages" into "nose, mouth, and throat", because I think of breathing passages as being the trachea, bronchi, and bronchioles. Other than that, I kinda like it. htom (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Agree with Badagnani. The "controversy" here is similar to global warming, where there is a robust consensus among experts, but dispute among politicians, pundits, and the public at large. But our encyclopedia entries are supposed to be based on expert opinion. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Speaking as a Finnishman, The status of waterboarding as torture is indisputed where it hasn't been made into a political issue. If a fair portion of discussion seems to say that it isn't -- well, I suggest a broader check of international media. --Kiz o r  10:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Please bring sources from international media. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a number of international ones in the lists above. Here are some more from Germany: ,,, , --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those appear to be nothing more than news reports, repeating what's been going on in the American press. Oh, there's a blog too. I don't see any expert opinions, or any official position statements by governments. Neutral Good (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to actually read them. Of course they discuss the US events, but they all call waterboarding torture. Heise Telepolis is one of the major online news services. Die Zeit is the most respected German weekly newspaper, Der Tagesspiegel is the leading Berlin daily newspaper, and Der Spiegel is the leading weekly newsjournal. The "blog" is an official comment by the head of the most respected and widely viewed German TV newsbroadcast (written in his official capacity) and discussing if the short except of a waterboarding video in this news broadcast has been too shocking and brutal for the 8 pm main news broadcast (and viewer reactions to it). Your moving of the goalposts is noted.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Neutral Good (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong support 70.9.13.143 (talk) 12:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Based on cogent, and heavily supported, previous argument, this proposal does indeed support a fringe group (whether intending to do so is not relevant) rather than expressing clearly and accurately that waterboarding is torture. I also urge you to take the time to read all preceding arguments, not just the previous round, before tendering what I see as a repetitive proposal to remove the appropriate term "torture" from the lead paragraph. -Quartermaster (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. After reviewing the wiki list of torture methods and devices it seems in general that acts solely used for "torture" are defined as "torture" in the article. To standardize the articles water boarding should be defined as torture, otherwise all other articles defining acts or methods should have the act of torture removed from the definition or said act/method. (CrazyivanMA (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Oppose. Every relevant source cites waterboarding as torture. (Basilicum 00:39, 31 January 2008 (GMT))

important report
This report Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality by Physicians for Human Rights and Human Rights First has a section on waterboarding and the long term effects of torture as well as the legal aspects of torture. Discuss! ( Hypnosadist ) 09:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like an excellent source to me. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not a peer reviewed scientific source. Nor is it a particularly good legal source. But it does look like a good source for the opinion of an advocacy group. I do not think that, in the writing of this article or the problems we are facing, the opinions of an advocacy group are important to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue tie look at their sources for the medical effect of waterboarding and you will see its high quality peer reviewed medical sources;

Dorte Reff Olsen et al., Prevalent pain and pain level among torture survivors, 53 Danish Med Bull. 210-14 (2006), For details on the study,see note 92.

147 C. Bouwer & D. J. Stein, Association of panic disorder with a historyof traumatic suffocation, 154 Am. J. Psychiatry 1566 (1997), Recent research suggests that panic disorder results from a false suffocation alarm. Bouwer and Stein found that there was a significantly higher incidence of traumatic suffocation experiences (e.g., near-drowning and near-choking) in panic disorder patients (N = 176) than in psychiatric controls (N = 60), and that panic disorder patients with a history of traumatic suffocation were significantly more likely to have predominantly respiratory symptoms than those without such a history. In the majority of patients who had experienced traumatic suffocation this had been during accidental near drowning (N = 25). However, a smaller number of patients had experienced traumatic suffocation during deliberate torture (N = 8) or during rape (N = 1). In a case reported by the authors a 31 year old man with panic attacks characterized by predominantly respiratory symptoms reported that he had been tortured at the age of 18. A wet bag had been placed over his head repeatedly, leading to choking feelings, hyperventilation, and panic. At about age 20 the patient began to experience spontaneous panic attacks.

148 C. Bouwer & D. J. Stein, Panic disorder following torture by suffocationis associated with predominantly respiratory symptoms, 29 Psychological Med. 233 (1999), The authors examined whether a near-suffocation experienced in certain kinds of torture is associated with the development of predominantly respiratory panic attacks. A sample of 14 South African patients who had experienced torture, were questioned about symptoms of panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder and depression. Patients with a history of torture by suffocation (N=8) were more likely than other patients to complain of predominantly respiratory symptoms during panic attacks (N=6). These patients also demonstrated higher levels of depressive symptoms. The authors noted that torture by suffocation is possibly associated with a specific symptomatic profile.

149 H. P. Kapfhammer et al., Posttraumatic stress disorder and healthrelated quality of life in long-term survivors of acute respiratory distress.


 * See what i mean. ( Hypnosadist )  14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue tie have you got any medical sources that challenge what the Physicians for human rights doctors say? ( Hypnosadist )  07:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. Of course part of that is my fault.  I misspoke by saying it was not important to the article.  I meant, given our problems right now it was not important to the article right now.  I could see a place for the opinions of an advocacy group at some point. But that is not the biggest issue right now.
 * However, as a source of scientific information it is not a reliable source. Go ahead.  Read the guideline on Reliable Sources and see. It is however, an excellent source on the opinions of an advocacy group.  And this is true if I do or do not have other medical or scientific opinions. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It is important to note that any organisation that is trying to insist on the rule of law, and mentioning human rights abuse, by definition gets labelled as advocacy group. By the same token we should describe those denouncing the rule of law as tyrannical groups. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not important to the article to mention this. Perhaps it is important to you in a personal way but that does not mean it is appropriate to the article. --Blue Tie (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

OK i've started a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Physicians_for_Human_Rights_report about the usability of this source. Please comment there. ( Hypnosadist ) 09:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Added to my list of good sources as per discusion. ( Hypnosadist ) 08:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope that when you add it as a good source you include the sense that it is only a good source for the opinion of an advocacy group. It was not determined to be a good scientific source for waterboarding. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

More than good enough to quote those medical journals, again if you had sources that counter these, your arguments might have a bit more weight. The thing is those sources do not exists, as you well know. ( Hypnosadist ) 02:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hypnosadist, you're getting these sources from the footnotes of the Physicians for Human Rights, aren't you? You've never actually read these sources, have you? In fact, you cut and pasted these synopses of the peer-reviewed sources from the footnotes of the PHR advocacy group's report, didn't you? And the synopsis of each peer-reviewed article is subject to their advocacy and spin-doctoring, isn't it?


 * Furthermore, the short summary on the page you linked says, "the authorization of these enhanced interrogation techniques, whether practiced alone or in combination, may constitute torture." It does not say that "the authorization of these ... techniques ... constitutes torture." Another subtle but important distinction that's being glossed over, as Neutral Good would say. Be sure to put this source in the "unsure" section of sources, rather than the "waterboarding is torture" section. These are sources about suffocation, not drowning. Do you have any additional sources about interrogative techniques that simulate drowning? And have you read them yourself, rather than accepting without question what a political advocacy group had to say about them? 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hypnosadist, you're getting these sources from the footnotes of the Physicians for Human Rights, aren't you?" YES i am, if you read what i said as oposed to just looking for something to complain about you would have read "Blue tie look at their sources for the medical effect of waterboarding and you will see its high quality peer reviewed medical sources" just before my cut and paste of those footnotes (hence the numbers infront of them). As for the OR "These are sources about suffocation, not drowning" what do you think drowning is death by breathing too much? But that is why we have a notable secondary source (the many doctors and profs at Physicians for Human Rights) to say the primary source (the medical journals quoted) say happens to the victims of torture. These sources are in total agreement with the medical evidence given to congress about the effects of waterboarding. But the final thing is this source has been vetted by the RS notice board and they say its good, END OF ARGUMENT. ( Hypnosadist ) 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PS If its not clear i intend to use this source to show the long term effects of waterboarding, not to partisipate in a semantic discussion about "is waterboarding torture". ( Hypnosadist ) 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

PPS I see there are still no sources that dispute the medical evidence given in these and other sources, that will be becuase they don't exist. ( Hypnosadist ) 01:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, none of these sources is about waterboarding. They do not pertain to this article on their own.  --Blue Tie (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are living in another reality than I do. I hope you enjoy your pleasant dreams. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks are not permitted on wikipedia. Please refactor your comments.  And, if you believe that some of those sources address waterboarding, please tell me which ones do. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No personal attack was intended. From your comments, I deduce that you live in a world where waterboarding was invented out of the blue in 200X by the CIA, which is hence the sole source of information about this technique and which has not made an official statement about the details of the procedure. This apparently makes all other sources unreliable. In my world, waterboarding has a history that goes back at least decades and has been described and discussed over and over again with a high degree of consistency in reliable sources.It consists of immobilizing a victim on his back, preferably head slightly down, covering his breathing passages with some semi-permeable material, and pouring water over it, with the effect that the gag reflex makes breathing impossible. It is, in other words, a technique of slow, controlled asphyxiation. Minor variations are possible in how the victim is immobilized, what material is used (and if it only covers the face, is wrapped around the head, or even partially inserted into the mouth) and what synonyms are used (where "water cure" is also used for an unrelated technique and "water torture" is a very generic term). Nevertheless, in my world the basics are quite clear, despite all attempts at obfuscation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that no attack was intended, but it was there nevertheless. And I notice that you did not refactor.  Perhaps unintentionally, you are still being uncivil. Would you like for me to quote the specific policy examples I am thinking of so you can understand what I mean? In fact, I live in the same world where you do, and in that world there is wikipedia. Wikipedia functions according to certain rules including No Original Research.  Because this article is very contentious it should follow rules very tightly. I do not agree that my position is that "all other sources are unreliable".  Quite the contrary, I am eager for good reliable sources.  However, this is an article that is very contentious and so I think that truly excellent sources should be used -- nothing the least bit marginal -- and wikipedia policies such as No Original Research should be followed very strictly. I happen to agree with your definition of what waterboarding is... except that I think a "board" probably is involved -- but note, that my agreement is based upon Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please illustrate why you think my above comment is both incivil and constitutes a personal attack.
 * Back to the issue under discussion. You completely misrepresent WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Citing reliable sources is not original research. Above I cited 8 mainstream press reports - including The Times, the BBC, ABC, the New York Times, The Independent - that all agree on the definition of waterboarding. This is indeed exceptional evidence for a rather unexceptional definition. Coming up with them took about 10 minutes with Google. But what is more, we have about 30 or so peer-reviewed articles that also agree with the definition.
 * I have another question. Given that you personally believe that my summary was accurate (including "It is, in other words, a technique of slow, controlled asphyxiation"), would you agree that a technique like that, applied to an involuntary victim to force compliance, is a form of torture? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems obvious to me (with and without sourcing) that people have been tortured with water for centuries (well, I doubt that any single person has been tortured for centuries, you know what I meant) and both they and others have reliably described their ordeals (and deaths.) We have, already, other articles about water tortures in Wikipedia. The term "waterboarding" as a reference to one, some, or all of these tortures, as well as who-knows-what-else, if anything, however, seems to have come into existence in the early 2000 or 2001 timeframe. While references to the activities seem to be found since the 1400s, uses of the word waterboarding to describe the acts (torturous or not) do not seem to be found prior to 2000. Some -- not all -- of the acts now being defined or described as being or being part of waterboarding were previously defined or described as other water tortures or harsh treatments. Has anyone found any use of the term "waterboarding" (in this context, the various water skiing, surfing, ... sports don't count) prior to 2000? There is no question that the activity may have occurred, I'm asking about the word. htom (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ
As we've seen, the discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments over and over. In fact, the discussions on this page alone and the most recent RfC consists of over 300 000 words. If we keep this up for a couple of more months, we'll soon beat the bible weighing in at 780 000 words. As much as we would like, it isn't really realistic to expect every user to read through a fair sized book before commenting.

My suggestion is that we use the time the article is protected and arbcom is deliberating to write an FAQ that as succinctly as possible summarizes the main points in the discussion and the main arguments for and against the positions.

For this purpose, I have set up Talk:Waterboarding/FAQ. Please discuss what should be added and how to express it. The rules regarding uncooperative editing that were tried for the main article at the previous attempt of unprotection are in force for this FAQ. henrik • talk  22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Questions "Which experts....". The answer is perhaps long, would be directly copied from Talk:Waterboarding/Definition, and depends on the definition of "expert". The question on the history is going to be long as well. And the question of the public; which public? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not intend the answers to the questions to be more than a paragraph or two long.


 * I know that these questions have been discussed at length in the archives and RFC, the point is to summarize them into something digestible. For the "experts" questions, for example, not every source needs to be listed - only the most prominent and important. The public answer could for example be "We have data from XX which expressed YY. From other places, there have been no opinion polls that we know of".


 * I am however certainly open to constructive suggestions on how the questions should be rephrased/altered/added or removed. For example, you implicitly suggest one additional question in your comment: "Who is an expert on this subject?" henrik  • talk  23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought thats why we had the list of sources at the top of the page. ( Hypnosadist )  07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * An FAQ is usually fairly successful in reducing repeated argumentation and is a useful place to point people to instead of asking them to read 300 000 words of archive. For an example how this has been done in other articles, see Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. henrik  • talk  07:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, but i see no reason why editors have to do more work because some noob can't be bothered to read the article. ( Hypnosadist )  07:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your additions were frankly not very helpful. Please make a good faith effort to explain why there are hundreds of thousands of words of debate for a new, but well intentioned editor that want to contribute. As I've said earlier, I'm open to changing the initial questions I suggested. Do you have any constructive ideas for better ones? henrik  • talk  07:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We've already been listing such information in the original talk page and the "Definitions" page. No need to split yet again. The article itself and supplements in the discussion archives and "Definitions" section do quite well--if editors actually read them before opining. Badagnani (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is definitely a problem that the list of sources has been split into two separate pages now with some only in one section. They should be merged into a single bibliography page or section, if anyone is up for it. But an FAQ is not a list of sources however, it should just summarize the main highlights. henrik  • talk  07:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are the answers to the questions, your owning of the article is noted. ( Hypnosadist )  08:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, until it is no longer necessary I will act as a moderator for the FAQ. Cooperative editing has clearly broken down on this article, so new things will be tried. henrik  • talk  08:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What has clearly broken down is your good faith, i'll post my propsed edits here so you can "moderate" me as you deem appropriate. ( Hypnosadist )  08:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Tancredo is not an EXPERT, he is good source for his political opinion but not an expert. ( Hypnosadist ) 07:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The view of a member of a legislative body should be considered in what is, at least partly, a legal question. I'll draw the line at pundits though, their view is not an expert opinion unless they have some other qualification that makes them experts on this issue. henrik  • talk  07:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying his view should not be considered just he is not an expert, hes just another politician, i can find loads of politicians of the same rank who say it is torture, are all those going to be added to the FAQ? ( Hypnosadist ) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, no, because the other side already has much more qualitative expert opinions making that unnecessary. I agree that it is somewhat weak, but it is the best I've found. Help tracking down more expert opinions would be appreciated. henrik  • talk  07:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"Well, no, because the other side already has much more qualitative expert opinions making that unnecessary." Thats my point, your making this guy an equal with much superior sources by claiming hes an expert, notable yes, expert no! ( Hypnosadist )  08:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hypnosadist. I just looked at the FAQ and my first question was - why is this guy an expert? As far as I can see, he has no legal training? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, until I hear convincing arguments otherwise I've commented out the congressman as an expert source. henrik  • talk  17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Can i also suggest adding the JAG's as sources to the FAQ. They are the deffinition of experts on military law, also it is hard to claim multiple 20+ year veterans of the US military are Anti-American or giving thier views for political benifit. ( Hypnosadist ) 11:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New source the APA
Reaffirmation of the American Psychological Association Position Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and Its Application to Individuals Defined in the United States Code as “Enemy Combatants”.

BE IT RESOLVED that this unequivocal condemnation includes all techniques defined as torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under the 2006 Resolution Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the United Nations Convention Against Torture, and the Geneva Convention. This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an absolute prohibition for psychologists against direct or indirect participation in interrogations or in any other detainee-related operations in mock executions, water-boarding or any other form of simulated drowning or suffocation, sexual humiliation, rape, cultural or religious humiliation, exploitation of phobias or psychopathology, induced hypothermia, the use of psychotropic drugs or mind-altering substances used for the purpose of eliciting information;

This is a very good source in my opinion, discuss. ( Hypnosadist ) 11:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is their FAQ on interrogation. ( Hypnosadist ) 11:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is a good source affirming that the APA is against waterboarding and calls it torture. In particular they mention waterboarding and any other form of simulated drowning, which, regardless of who waterboarding is defined pretty much covers the full spectrum.--Blue Tie (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking as advocatus diaboli, I guess: yes, this is a very good source given the reputation of the APA, but it would be even better if it actually said that waterboarding is torture - and it doesn't. It is unclear whether it describes waterboarding as "torture" or "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". Note that mistreating POWs violates international conventions (Geneva Conventions, that is) and is as such illegal in many jurisdictions, but it is possible to mistreat POWs without actually torturing them. Understandably, this doesn't make a big difference for the APA: their stance is that psychologists should not take part in actions that are clearly illegal. Unfortunately, it's quite a big difference for us at the moment: "being torture" vs. "being illegal". GregorB (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again i did not post this to win a semantic arguement, this is APA's position on waterboarding, that it is illegal and un-ethical for psychologists to be involved with in any way. ( Hypnosadist )  20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mukasey does not speak up again
Interesting and somewhat confusing comments here. I notice the author of the article gives a reason as to why the government is taking this stand, but does not say where that information comes from -- which would make it more solid to my eye. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In this article, he said it would be a form of torture if done to him (but did not comment if it would be if done to others). Badagnani (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Input needed for FAQ question
I've just added the question "Is the viewpoint that waterboarding should not be described as torture a fringe view?" to the FAQ and would like to hear some of the arguments pro and con. This gets very close to the heart of the conflict, but lets please try to keep the discussion constructive. Please don't debate each other in the arguments section, just post what you feel is the strongest argument for an affirmative or negative answer to the question. If you think the question itself should be phrased differently, please let me know on my talk page and I'll take your input into account. henrik • talk  22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments

 * No pre-2001 sources say waterboarding is not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No non-american sources say waterboarding is not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No medical sources say waterboarding is not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  22:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No left-wing or centerist sources say waterboarding is not torture. ( Hypnosadist )  22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No case law says waterboaring is not torture/illegal. ( Hypnosadist )  22:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accoridng to WP:FRINGE, fringe theories are those which 'depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view'. In this case i believe it is the direct opposite to the mainstream view, considering the clear evidence that not only the current mainstream view but the mainstream view historically is that this is torture. -- neon white user page talk 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'fringe' sources are very much opinion pieces rather than reliable independent sources.
 * The theory is 'a novel interpretation of history', if you consider the ignoring of past precedence in US and international law. -- neon white user page talk 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * to clarify the point, the world and the US considered it torture in world war 2 and vietnam and i believe tried several people for it as a war crime. Now there seems to be a reversal adding weight to the fringe angle. -- neon white user page talk 03:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I find wikipedia is even debating this repugnant. Of course water boarding is torture. As User:Neon white mentions, often the US has supported international law, treaties, and conventions as long as those agreements supported US policy. When those agreements conflict with US policy, they are disregarded. These violations are then quickly forgotten and American civil religious dogma quickly returns. Trav (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that there are no pre-2001 sources that ever mention the term waterboarding as we are using it here. That is why no pre-2001 sources would declare that it is not torture. None declare that it is.  It is not discussed prior to 2001. In fact, I have a challenge:  Find a source prior to 2001 that uses the term "waterboarding" (not surfing). I have taken that challenge myself and I am trying to find one.  I searched one database of newspapers and did not find any references to waterboarding prior to 2001. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is particularly relevant, since we have reliable sources that tell us that waterboarding did happen before 2001. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. We have sources that say it happened. I am not so sure how reliable they are, if the term is not well defined or is conflated with other things. --Blue Tie (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 02:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Blue Tie, this is exactly what we've been discussing above. Why should we value your opinion over that of people like Evan Wallach and Cristian Correa? They have demonstrable expertise in legal subjects, whereas all we know about you is that you're an anonymous Wikipedia editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You should value my opinion as another editor of wikipedia. I have not suggested anything but that. I do not see any reason for you to imagine that I have said something else. Where have I said that my opinion of Waterboarding should be above that of Evan Wallach? I cannot imagine such a thing. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Blue Tie, as you've already noted, Wallach equates the "water cure" and waterboarding. You have argued that this is a mistake, and you have just said that you are unsure how reliable Wallach's article because waterboarding is "conflated with other things." In other words, you are using your own judgement (and your own original research) to say that Wallach's opinion is mistaken. Since you have no apparent expertise in the subject, why should I value your argument over Wallach's? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are entirely mischaracterizing my position. I am not holding my opinion or original research to be say that Wallach's opinion is mistake.  How could I?  It is impossible since it is my opinion that he is NOT mistaken... he is right.  So your assessment is as far off as it can possibly be.
 * I believe in "No Original Research" as the wikipedia rule for articles, but "No original research" doesn't mean we check our critical judgment at the door. it is entirely reasonable to evalute the quality and reliability of various sources. In this case, I observe a legal opinion paper that has an intent of showing that waterboarding is ... or should be... illegal.  It is not intended to define what waterboarding is.  It is not intended to explore technical differences.  It is intended to put them all together as you would put together robbery of a car and safe-cracking as crimes.  Not that there are not very significant differences between the nature of those crimes but they are both criminal acts.  We would not use a legal document arguing that car-jacking and safe-cracking are both crimes to say car-jacking = safe-cracking.
 * And so, using the normal critical thinking skills of a wikipedian editor, not doing original research but simply evaluating the source, I do not see this as a good source for defining waterboarding. In fact, it is a particularly bad source for that because it is intentionally conflating various things all in the name of torture... or illegality... to make a point.
 * However, I do consider it an excellent source for a legal scholar's opinion that waterboardng is torture and should be illegal. --Blue Tie (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your "critical thinking" is a tendentious misreading of Wallach's article. It's not an "opinion paper", it's an analysis of legal history. Wallach says that waterboarding has been found to be torture in U.S. courts for over a century, since the time of the Philippine-American War. He makes it quite clear that the current technique is not appreciably different than that used by the U.S. in the Philippines and Vietnam, or by the Japanese in the Second World War. Another article by Wallach in the Washington Post makes the point plainly: "One such set of questions relates to 'waterboarding.' That term is used to describe several interrogation techniques. The victim may be immersed in water, have water forced into the nose and mouth, or have water poured onto material placed over the face so that the liquid is inhaled or swallowed...After World War II, we convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied prisoners of war..." and so on.
 * (The cited article was published on the opinion pages. htom (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
 * That may apply to the Washington Post article, but it doesn't apply to the article in the Coumbia Journal of Transnational Law'. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Volume 45, Number 2, where it was an "essay", not an "article"; not being a lawyer, I have no idea what that distinction means, but they made it. htom (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. Other law reviews make a similar distinction, but at the moment I can't figure out what it signifies. I'll try to figure it out later; maybe we should ask a lawyer. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think essays are simply shorter pieces than articles, based on this page. I might be wrong about this, of course... --Akhilleus (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't agree with Wallach's argument, which you're cetainly entitled to do, but that doesn't justify distorting what Wallach says, nor to use your own definition of waterboarding to conclude that Wallach's article isn't a good source. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I could say that your failure to recognize an opinion paper by calling it an "analysis" is tendentious misreading. But such things do not promote good feelings.  Try a little kindness. And if you find yourself unable to do that, then at least ordinary good faith and courtesy.
 * Meanwhile, let me point out that Wallach's statements are not the only ones on the matter... and a lawyer who actually practices in this specific area (Wallach does not) is on record as saying that there is no case law on waterboarding. Again, Wallach's paper is a good source of a legal expert's opinion, but it is not intended to specifically define waterboarding.  To use it for a purpose beyond its intent is a real misreading of the source. This is true even if I agree with the way that paper defines it.
 * And because you evidently missed it before, let me repeat again, but this time in bold I happen to agree with Wallach. Also, since you have missed it let me repeat, again in bold:   I believe it is a good source.  I just happen to characterize what it is good for differently than you do.  I would have more confidence that you were giving my words due consideration if you actually read them with comprehension. I would also appreciate it if you would not get upset and make things personal and insulting. Can you try? --Blue Tie (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that you're misreading sources is not uncivil. And really, that's what you're doing. What is your tortured, and incoherent, argument about Wallach's "intent" for, if not to deny that his central point is that waterboarding has been found illegal in U.S. courts for over a century? Or am I misunderstanding you, and you agree with Wallach that Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for waterboarding after the Second World War? Because, despite your saying just now that you think Wallach's article is a "good source", you've limited that to being a good source for his "opinion that waterboarding is torture and should be illegal." As far as I can tell, you don't think the article is a good source about the history of waterboarding. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I did not say that pointing out that misreading sources was uncivil. I say it is you who is misreading sources -- did you notice that? And I try not to be uncivil -- so I do not consider that uncivil behavior.
 * I consider Wallach's intent to be clear based upon the title of the article. His intent was to describe the legal history of water torture in the US.  He clearly believes that waterboarding is one of these tortures. His expertise is law, particularly international laws, so his opinion should not be viewed lightly. I do not agree that the Japanese soldiers were prosecuted for Waterboarding.  The existence of treatment that to me (and apparently to Wallach) looks like waterboarding but not called waterboarding (It was specifically called something else) was part of the evidence against them for torture, but they were not prosecuted or convicted on charges of waterboarding.  I do not think the article is a good source for the history of waterboarding.  But, I think it is a good source for the US History of Legal Decisions (Apologies to Lawrence for US focus) on using Water for Torture -- as that is its intent and it is written by a competent expert in the field. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If waterboarding is new Blue tie, what happened to French Journalist Henri Alleg. Is he lieing about what the paratroopers of his own nation did to him? ( Hypnosadist )  08:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly he is not lying. Does Alleg say that he was "Waterboarded"?--Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the picture of waterboarding that got the american squady convicted of waterboarding, if thats not waterboarding what is it? ( Hypnosadist )  08:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not know what it is. It looks to me to be something close to waterboarding. But if it is not labeled "Waterboarding" in the original article, it is original research for us to label it as waterboarding.  --Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course the painting of waterboarding in Vann Nath re-education camp Cambodia, did that not happen Blue tie? ( Hypnosadist )  08:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the painting titled "Waterboarding" by the painter? --Blue Tie (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Its from this blog

Below are photographs taken by Jonah Blank last month at Tuol Sleng Prison in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The prison is now a museum that documents Khymer Rouge atrocities. Blank, an anthropologist and former Senior Editor of US News & World Report, is author of the books Arrow of the Blue-Skinned God and Mullahs on the Mainframe. He is a professorial lecturer at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and has taught at Harvard and Georgetown. He currently is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic staff in the Senate, but the views expressed here are his own observations. His photos show one of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge.

So yes it is about waterboarding though i think we should ask them for the pictures of the actual waterboards used by the Khymer Rouge. ( Hypnosadist ) 14:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't blogs generally considered unreliable sources? --Blue Tie (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The BBC is reliable. . -- neon white user page talk 18:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree. Not in this case. That article is awful in its conflation and lack of precision.  I actually find the blog to be better than that article.  --Blue Tie (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is well written and verifiable, you're personal opinion of it's content does not change that. It clear states that Water-boarding was used by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and describes the image It was a naive drawing of a man strapped to a plank, a board, if you like, with another man pouring water over his face with a metal watering can. The kind you use for watering flowers. The face of the man lying down was covered in a blue cloth. The painting looked fairly comical, as if someone was irrigating a human face.  There is nothing whatsoever unclear or ambiguous about that. -- neon white user page talk 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends what they say or in this case show, are you seriously going to contest these pictures do not show a picture painted by victim of water boarding and the actual waterboard and blue watering-can. You can but at that point i'm going to stop assuming any good faith toward you. ( Hypnosadist )  15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is impossible, by wikipedia standards, to just look at that painting and declare "This is waterboarding". To do so is a violation of original research.  If you cannot assume good faith toward me because I want to adhere to wikipedia policies, you are in violation of WP:AGF for a terribly poor reason. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Read wp:nor "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." How is attacking this long standing part of the article useful in creating the FAQ, answer its not its just another front that can be opened in the war on this article. ( Hypnosadist )  09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that pictures are given exception because editors are encouraged to produce their own pictures. This is not something that is produced by an editor.  Also the exception to policy indicates that it is related to things unexceptional non-controversial matters. In this case, an OR interpretation of a picture from a discouraged source (a blog) is marginal.  I am not attacking this part of the article.  I am concerned about other things... Namely that in an article with lots of contention, we should stick with excellent sources.  (As an aside, I also do not like the picture because of the glare in it, but that is entirely not a factor in my thinking.  Indeed I was thinking of photoshopping the glare out, previously.)
 * But your statement appears to lack good faith. Are you unable to exercise good faith toward me?--13:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Are you unable to exercise good faith toward me?" I said if you challenge this picture i would stop assuming you were acting in good faith, and i ment it. There is no way any reasonable person can doubt what is depicted in that picture is waterboarding (and saying so is not OR because it is so obvious), you are now engaged in wikilawyering to get rid of it and i do not think that is to make the encyclopedia better. Begin to edit constructively, such as providing new sources or pictures for the article and i may have my faith restored. ( Hypnosadist )  14:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you are unable to exercise good faith toward me. However, in your failure to exercise good faith you made some false allegations.  I am not wikilawyering.  I am not trying to get rid of it. And I do want to make the encyclopedia better. Seeking to have policy applied very carefully and fully is not a bad thing.  However, since you have declared that you are not able to have good faith toward me, I will not be responding to your questions or issues in the future since it would be pointless; you would simply assume I am doing something evil. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This guideline (WP:AGF) does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary -- neon white user page talk 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets not pretend this picture is going away, because it never will if you're the only person advocating it. Blogs are acceptable sources if the author is of expert quality on a given relevant subject, and especially for trivial things. David Corn is absolutely a very notable expert. Lawrence  §  t / e  14:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Blank is an authoritative source who has published widely, and in this circumstance his blog should probably be considered reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that WP:SPS applies. It says that the use of such sources is really discouraged. I believe that in the case of a highly disputed article, only the very best sources should be used, not sources that are marginal. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Blue tie some searching has shown that our waterboarding painting is by Vann Nath and our painting would be a nice primary source. 14,000 people went into camp S-21, seven made it out and Vann was one of them. ( Hypnosadist ) 21:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article clearly covers the 'toca' used by the spanish inquisition which certainly wasn't identical everytime it was used. However they all had the same purpose so to characterise them differently based on political views in ridiculous. -- neon white user page talk 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, the Wallach paper is not an opinion piece - it is in fact one of the best sources available to Wikipedia. It is entirely apppropriate to quote from it as fact, unless the information has been superceded or disputed by new publications of similar esteem. That means "United States has historically regarded waterboarding as torture.{citeWallach}" and not "Wallach thinks X". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt it is an opinion piece. That is what judges do... they write OPINIONS.  Within these opinions they often express facts, but they do not limit themselves to facts, they also use other people's opinions and their own along the way. I think that using this article one should say "The United States has historically considered Water Torture to be illegal and Evan Wallach believes Waterboarding is included in the definitions of Water Torture".  --Blue Tie (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it would be "U.S. courts have consistently held artificial drowning interrogation is torture, which, by its nature, violates U.S. statutory prohibitions.{citeEW}" Since no expert has disputed this statement in any reliable source of similar esteem, the statement stands. If some follow-up paper appears in a legal journal that disputes Wallach, then that can of course be included too. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that wording. I would say, if this is used, the wording should be something like "Evan Wallach has argued that US courts consistently rule that Water Torture is illegal and he asserts that waterboarding is a form of water torture previously covered by U.S. Courts".  I think that would be a more precise wording of what he found and it also places the paper in the area of opinion -- which is what it is. I do not like to clutter articles with titles of people who are quoted, and his current (last 12 years) title is not very good for this purpose but his expertise should somehow be recognized, if nowhere else, at least in the footnote.  That is, if this is used. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * When this is used, we should use the long title Wallach is most known for, the one you don't care for. It demonstrates and asserts his status as an expert authority on the subject. Lawrence  §  t / e  14:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * His current title is not particularly relevant to this article and it does not particularly lend weight to his opinion. It is his past positions that make him something of an expert on this matter.  That is why I do not care for his current title... but it is what it is. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the words Alleg used. First he wrote about his torture in a book, which I can't find online but it's available from Editions Minuit for 9 euros. Of course he wrote in French so he would not have used the term "waterboarding". Recently he has been interviewed by US news media and if he wanted to draw a distinction between how he was treated and the practice known as "waterboarding" he had a chance to do that. Therefore we can assume that he regards one of the tortures that he underwent as essentially the same as "waterboarding". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What did he say in his recent interview? We cannot imagine what he meant, we can only use what he said.--Blue Tie (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here you go.  ( Hypnosadist )  14:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think he did not call it waterboarding originally but it is clear that he does now describe it as waterboarding: "Well, I have described the waterboarding I was submitted to."  I believe Alleg is a strong source in many regards. Maybe not 100% but more than 90%. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course he did not call it waterboarding, the book was writen in french! ( Hypnosadist )  09:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So it seems no arguments have even been put forward against the view that "waterboarding is not torture" in not the height of FRINGE thinking. ( Hypnosadist ) 10:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They have previously been put forward. There is no reason to re-state them. One of the problems mentioned in the Arbcom case is that people are posting the same argument over and over again. That does not bother me actually but it bothers other people. Since that is so, I do not think it is appropriate to ask people to post again what has already been posted. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "They have previously been put forward" then post a link to the section of the talk page/archive. ( Hypnosadist )  15:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, though, that people need to be able to defend their viewpoints if challenged. To do otherwise is to undermine our entire method, which is a Foundation issue and non-negotiable no matter how distasteful. Circular arguments are different--people being pointless stubborn and arguing on the RFAR that they don't like things for personal reasons, not policy. Personal reasons worthless on Wikipedia. That was the problem on the RFAR. In regards to articles, if challenged on your points, you must defend them. Way it works. Lawrence  §  t / e  14:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Creating a FAQ does entail revisiting previous arguments, but hopefully for the last time. I would strongly urge those who feel that the arguments above doesn't represent all opinions to amend the list of arguments.  henrik  • talk  15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So it seems no arguments have even been put forward against the view that "waterboarding is not torture" in not the height of FRINGE thinking. Are any people who profess the "waterboarding is not torture" view going to put forward thier arguments or can we put this issue to bed? ( Hypnosadist ) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)