Talk:Waterboarding/Archive 9

Waterboard editors you don't like!
Please forgive me if I'm out of line here and if I'm repeating something that's already been said. I tried looking through the archives and what's above and started feeling like I was drowning in a sea of controversy. But it appears that Wikipedia editors are expected to be able to foretell the future, and if they fail to do so and someone reverts their edit, they will be blocked. Hopefully, I'm reading this whole thing wrong. I just made an edit that seems pretty safe to me (gave a source and info that President Bush plans to veto a bill outlawing the use of waterboarding by the CIA), but if it's reverted, will I be blocked?

As to torture, I'm not going to argue about whether I think it's torture or not. But is it appropriate for Wikipedia to say either that it is torture, or that it is not torture? Unless we have a clear-cut definition of "torture" that any educated reader can agree with, I think it's inappropriate for Wikipedia to take sides one way or the other.

If I'm out of line here, please just tell me and don't block me! Wakedream (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's appropriate. Have you read the archives? Badagnani (talk) 05:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for responding. I have looked through the archives as I stated above, but admit I haven't read everything there.  However, in the U.S. at least we have some of the most prominent people in the country on both sides of the torture/not torture issue (as just one example, Republican President George W. Bush says it's not torture, whereas the Republican presidential nominee John McCain says it is).  Can Wikipedia say Bush is right and McCain is wrong, or visa versa?  Is that NPOV? Wakedream (talk) 06:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are four individuals who have stated their belief that it's not torture (two Republican politicians and two conservative columnists). But it is torture by definition, and has been considered as such for hundreds of years. The definition of torture may be found here. Try reading the archives some more; this was one of the main subjects covered, at some length. Badagnani (talk) 06:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Bush has said waterboarding is not a form of torture. He simply said something like "We don't torture." If I'm wrong, please put the quote where he says waterboarding is not a form of torture here. Badagnani (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to see White House says waterboarding not torture, and the statement "Although President Bush has stated that the United States has not and will not torture people, it has been learned that Mr. Bush himself has authorized the use of waterboarding on detainees" in Bush Will Veto Ban On Torture. No, I'm not quoting a source where George W. Bush actually says, "Waterboarding is not torture."  But by his statements: the United States does not torture.  The United States does use waterboarding.  Therefore, he is in effect saying, waterboarding is not torture. Wakedream (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If he didn't say it, he didn't say it. Badagnani (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, that's a classical example of WP:SYN. Bush's words can be interpreted in many different ways ("the United States does not torture - at this very moment", "the United States does not torture - its a country, only people torture", "the United States does not torture - the CIA does"). Political dissembling is not unusual among politicians. Bush is not a WP:RS on anything but his opinion (and in fact, I have my doubts about even that). But anyways, Bush is not an expert in the field, and his opinion has no significant weight on the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to the view that no living American politician is a RS about his own opinions (unless they're Motherhood, Apple Pie, and the American Flag; well, that list should be shortened to ... no, just completely unreliable.) htom (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, I have to concede a point to Badagnani. In Bush explains veto of waterboarding bill it says, "But the administration has refused to rule definitively on whether it is torture. Bush has said many times that his administration does not torture." President Bush has skirted the issue, as politicians who are dealing with extremely controversial topics are likely to do.  However, I do still contend that there is debate about whether or not waterboarding is torture.  Again, I am not stating my personal opinion on this issue, just stating that I question whether something that is so controversial should be stated in a Wikipedia article as fact.  The article currently says it is a form of torture, not that many nations and authorities have said it is. But Badagnani is right in saying if Bush didn't say it is torture, he didn't say it. Wakedream (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope people won't send me hate mail or threats of being blocked because of it, but I changed "Waterboarding is a form of torture" to "Waterboarding, which has been called a form of torture". I am not in any way arguing whether or not it is torture. But to say that the President of the United States approves the use of torture does not seem at all Wikipedia:NPOV. As Badagnani pointed out above and as the article linked to above indicates, Bush has not said it is torture, but does approve its use. The practice is highly controversial, and I don't believe it's the place of Wikipedia to take sides in a controversy. Thanks to everyone who's posted in this section so far for remaining civil. You've made some good points and have corrected some of my errors without resorting to name calling. In my not NPOV opinion, this is the way Wikipedia should work! Wakedream (talk) 17:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see my section below. This needs a dedicated section. Lawrence  §  t / e  17:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Change in lead by Wakedream
Re this edit, please review the history (yes, I know there is a lot) and present your policy and evidence (include links, diffs, etc.) for this change before enacting. This is the single biggest point of contention that has been repeatedly shot down and/or resolved in favor of the "is a form of torture" language with heavy and extensive sourcing in the past. What do you have that is new to bring to the table to support this change and edit? Lawrence §  t / e  17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. While I've looked through the archives, I can't say I've reviewed every comment or edit. I may be adding nothing new to the discussion, but did want to assert my support for what I see as Wikipedia:NPOV.  If another editor reverts my edit, I don't plan to change it back unless I find what I believe is overwhelming support from either editors or Wikipedia policy, and will likely post it for discussion first. By the way, my user name is Wakedream, not Wakedreams--it's no big deal, but I fixed it above. Thanks for listening! Wakedream (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate your reasonable tone and willingness to discuss. However, why, after everyone who issued an opinion opted against the change, did you go ahead and did it anyways? For the issue at hand, if you look at Talk:Waterboarding on this very page, you will see that literally hundreds of reliable sources - from law professors over medical experts, interrogators, former JAGs, to actual victims and members of international organization concerned with human rights and torture, have made explicit statements, often in peer-reviewed publications, that waterboarding is a form of torture and has been considered one since essentially forever. There is an extreme dearth of reliable expert sources &mdash; or even notable statements by anyone &mdash; on the other side. Expert opinion on this is not divided, and expert opinion is what WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE require us to report. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the edit with good intentions, and may well have been wrong to have done so. Thank you for providing the links! Wakedream (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being very understanding, in this--a lot of good editors here are still a bit raw from basic all out attacks on this page by long-time banned editors, trying to slant the thing in favor of their point of view. Those sources, by the way, are a bit out of date--there are (just a ballpark guess, I haven't counted in a while) about 200+ sources and authorities that support the "is torture" wording now, and roughly 12-14 in favor of "isn't torture" or "may not be torture". Lawrence  §  t / e  18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Re-Re-Proposal
This idea has been discussed and implemented before but was later changed back but not through consensus and many of the editors that opposed are not gone or not editing this page. Because this proposal was never formally resolved, I thought I would bring it up again. So 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) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the proposal since its obvious it has no support. I won't mention it again. Remember (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Support- Remember (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Hi. I'm back. I do not believe the lede should state "Waterboarding is a form of torture" for two reasons: (1) "torture" is not a universally defined concept (see my discussion here); and (2) assuming a universal definition of torture can be found, there remains some debate whether every instance of waterboarding is actually torture and the proposed lede does not allow room for a non-tortuous use of waterboarding. I would propose starting the article by defining waterboarding as an interrogation technique and then in the second sentence say something like: "Waterboarding has been widely regarded to be a form of torture." --Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy dictates that fringe theories are not given undue weight. see WP:UNDUE. This means that we do not have to allow room for political euphemisms or views held only by a tiny minority. This has already been resolved. see the archives. -- neon white user page talk 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please put a link to where this issue was resolved. Otherwise, telling people to just "read the archives" is akin to Badagnani's disingeneous and repeated attempts to block users he disagrees with by giving them the task of reading for a week before contributing to the discussion as he does so here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Please see this discussion. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead torture debate itself is settled. If a small number disagree, they need to convince the majority with new discussion/section and new evidence. Lawrence  §  t / e  17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Instead of your bare assertion of fact, an actual link would be handy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And as has been explained repeatedly, there is no one sole link. Every time this argument comes up, it ends exactly the same. So no, I'm not going to keep a running scorecard to provide to each new person that shows up. If you have a problem with the lead, please post a new section, with why it should be changed, and cite convincing evidence of why. Note that saying "NPOV" is not sufficient. You need to explain why specifically under NPOV that when 230+ international sources say one thing, we should not say that thing because 6-10 sources of basically one political allegience in one nation say another. To do so would be to give that minority (American conservatives) authority over the rest of the Earth they do not have. If you want this changed lay out a new section with the + link at the top of this page. Provide convincing arguments and evidence. Lawrence  §  t / e  18:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is no actual finished debate then the issue has not been resolved or "settled". Even a finished debate on wikipedia would fail to convince me when the issue (whether all instances of waterboarding are acts of torture) has not been definitively ruled on by a court of law (at least to my knowledge. What you represent to be a settled issue is just your opinion that the issue should be settled. The debate over whether waterboarding is torture is still alive and well and wikipedia should not represent otherwise. To do so would be to establish a POV. Wikipedia should reflect the facts on the ground. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By that argument, there is no torture, and very little else in the universe... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should call this the 42 argument. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, this debate should not be centered on whether the first words are "waterboarding is a form of torture" but rather whether the link to later in the article should be added. The other more contentious argument seems to have already been settled. Remember (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Alternative: "Waterboarding is a torture technique ..." with a suitable explanation in the footnote. The "torture technique" also addresses Cdogsimmons concern, as not every use of a torture technique has to be actual torture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unncecessary. Readers can simply refer to the text of the article for clarification. Lead is well sourced and factual. Badagnani (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This would be giving undue weight to the 'debate' which represents a fringe theory. -- neon white user page talk 15:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The weight of argument has previously established that the current lead, as it is, is acceptable and NPOV. As an aside, regarding "torture" is not a universally defined concept. This is a fallacious argument since many words in all languages can't stand up to the standard of universally defined. A fairly neutral term such as amphitheater is not universally defined. People can argue whether a given venue is truly an amphitheater or an arena or a stadium, and there are often venues that blur any perceived boundaries. The most common universally defined terms that I know of deal with mathematical objects (e.g., parallel, square, or intersection). More typically one might say that a term is generally accepted to mean something rather than universally defined. My point is that claiming that the concept of torture is not universally defined is a non-argument. Definitions of torture are generally accepted and waterboarding itself is generally accepted as being torture. -- Quartermaster (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please include a link to this "weight of argument." I see clear POV, and I disagree that the lead is acceptable for that reason.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The American government view that it may not be torture is the extreme minority view, and the US government is not a particularly notable authority when compared to the weight of history and the rest of the world. It's just one government with a limited (4 to 8 year) lifespan. Lawrence  §  t / e  17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about a link to policy. I'm talking about a link to the results of an actual decision that was made by a consensus of well informed editors. Otherwise, I maintain that it is only your opinion that the discussion is over. At this point, it is not mine.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Quartermaster, I think that the language "generally accepted" is a good way of describing it, and your point about a universal definition is well taken.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Waterboarding
Please see: Featured article candidates/Waterboarding. Let's see what happens. Lawrence §  t / e  17:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This looks as if its going to be a clear fail, with a Split of the modern american stuff. Thats what i propose we do. ( Hypnosadist )  01:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it fails because of that, discounting any unsupported POV statements, that would be the clearest endorsement for such a thing ever. Lawrence  §  t / e  01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to pass unless NPOV issues are fixed. I've spoken with our best editors about this, and am prepared to fix the lead, but I would like a commitment that my edits will not be reverted without discussion. Do you all trust me to make this attempt, or shall we instead continue discussing in circles? Jehochman Talk 02:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * POV hammering cannot be allowed to change the lead, which is factual and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that the article starts off with a large POV push. Read the reviews that are coming back at FAC. Jehochman  Talk 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, if you have an idea for a modified version of the lead, why not present it on the talk page? That way we can discuss it here, without any possibility of a revert war. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Calling it a form of torture is like calling the violin a musical instrument. The POV is in the hammering we've been seeing. The lead is factual and well sourced. What reviews show is that if something is hammered enough, even if it's clearly untrue people start to believe it. This starts with the shedding of doubt, which is usually enough (and, in fact, is what was asked for from the beginning of the hammering). It's a well-understood technique and works well--even with otherwise discerning and scholarly WP contributors who have not carefully read the sources and all the discussion, as many of us have done. Badagnani (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that musical instruments were that controversial. If you can present prominent sources who say the violin is not a musical instrument, then I think we should indicate that in the violin article. Wakedream (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is continually accused of violating the NPOV policy. But the complaints seem to be grounded in people's opinions about waterboarding. The NPOV policy, though, doesn't deal with Wikipedians' personal opinions--rather, it states that NPOV is "a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources." I've looked at a lot of reliable sources in doing research on this topic, and so have other editors--the results of this research are at the top of the talk page. What I see is an overwhelming number of references, many from highly expert sources, that state that waterboarding is torture. I see a handful of reliable sources that claim that waterboarding may or may not be torture. These sources tend to be of lower quality--for instance, I've seen only one article in a law journal that makes this assertion.

Almost no sources say that waterboarding isn't torture. The ones listed on this page are pundits and a congressman--which I would assign almost no weight, given that this is a topic discussed in academic and legal literature. So where, exactly is the POV problem? What prominent experts tell us that waterboarding is not torture? If we find substantial number of experts that say that waterboarding isn't torture, then there's a POV problem in the lead. Until then, we should stick to the consensus of reliable sources--that waterboarding is a form of torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * While waterboarding certainly is torture, starting out the article with that assertion gives undue weight to the current controversy. Only because various right wing editors have been tendentiously trying to suggest that waterboarding might not be torture have editors responded by placing this assertion front and center. To those who are uninvolved, this looks odd.  A neutral treatment would start with "Waterboarding is an interrogation technique that consists of..."   In the second paragraph we state that waterboarding is considered to be torture by (list of names), which is sufficient. If there is a disagreement, please present this at WP:NPOVN for discussion by uninvolved parties. Jehochman  Talk 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think that Foot whipping suffers from the same issue? --Akhilleus (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Mock execution is "psychological torture." Solitary confinement is described as "punishment."  Caning is "physical punishment" and flagellation is punishment.  I think "torture" is a morally loaded word, like "terrorist', and that we should try to use more neutral terms such as punishment or paramilitary.  Can you show me any good or featured articles that say "X is a form of torture?" Jehochman  Talk 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Torture may be a morally loaded word, but when the overwhelming consensus of expert sources uses it, I don't see why we shouldn't. We're back to my original point: who says it isn't torture? I've looked for sources that say so, and I assume that others have as well, and I don't see that there's any genuine controversy on this point. You said it yourself: waterboarding certainly is torture. I see no reason not to use the term in the first sentence, and in fact I think it makes for a better article if we say so, rather than using weaselly neologisms like "interrogation technique". --Akhilleus (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Interrogation technique" is first an euphemism, and secondly wrong - if I understand my history, the Khmer Rouge used it as a means extortion, not interrogation. As I wrote above, I slightly prefer "torture technique" to "form of torture". "Torture technique" gives some wiggle room for the use in e.g. training. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Interrogation technique" is neither a euphemism nor a synonym for torture. There are many interrogation techniques, "good cop -- bad cop" being perhaps the most well known. That waterboarding (whatever it is) may have multiple uses is something that the article might well address. "Waterboarding", however, appears to be a euphemism for "water torture" in most of the cited sources. htom (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A thing can be a member of more than one set. See Venn diagram.  Waterboarding can be described in many different ways:  torture, a violation of the Geneva convention, an interrogation technique, a form of punishment, a war crime, a military training exercise, and more.  The question is which of these descriptions is the best if we have to choose one for the lead sentence?  Which is most NPOV, reflecting the multiple global and historical perspectives on the issue?   Waterboarding certainly is a war crime, but that would be a poor description because for much of the practice's 500 year history, there was no such thing as a war crime.   Jehochman  Talk 17:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - In fact, "torture" is the most accurate term, as the sources show. It is quite neutral, except for those four individuals who publicly state their belief it is not torture (likely because they want to do it and because they consider it most expedient to change the actual definition of this well-understood technique, to allow for its future use and avoid prosecution of those who have already conducted it). Undue weight is brought on by the hammering, whose intent is not to say that waterboarding is not torture, but to shed doubt and create ambiguity, or the hint of acceptability in the general populace, using our article as a battleground. As a violation of the Geneva convention, that wouldn't describe what it is, but its legal status in international law; the lead generally describes what something is. On the other hand, the suffocation of a bound prisoner, inclined on his/her back, by the use of water is a form of torture, by definition. The term "interrogation technique" would be partly true, as waterboarding (and torture techniques in general) may be used for interrogation, or a number of other reasons. This is basic information that is in all the articles and has been discussed many times, so it would not be suitable for the lead, as it is only one of its uses. As a form of punishment, again, that is only one of the uses of waterboarding or torture, so, again, that would not be a valid substitute for the lead. As a war crime, that again covers its legal status but, as with its status under the Geneva Conventions, does not state what it is (a form of torture). Its use as a military training exercise is solely to learn what it is in case the individual being trained is subjected to it, so it is clear that this would not constitute the definition of waterboarding (although this use may certainly be described later in the article. Badagnani (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Waterboarding is the intentional suffocation of a bound prisoner, inclined on their back, caused by pouring water over their face..." Why label it torture rather than letting the facts speak for themselves? A description of the process is more valuable than a conclusion. Jehochman  Talk 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - We don't say, at the beginning of its article, "An airplane allows its pilot to fly from place to place, often with numerous passengers." Similarly, we don't say, "The piano allows its player to perform many classical compositions, often in a virtuosic manner." We say what it is, first. Badagnani (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Waterboarding is the intentional suffocation of a bound prisoner, inclined on their back, by pouring water over their face, and into their mouth and nose..." I think that says what it is with a high degree of clarity and neutrality. I think "intentional suffocation" is more descriptive and more specific than "torture". Obviously, the intentional suffocation of a prisoner is torture. Torture is a somewhat vague word. It has legal meanings, but also colloquial meanings, such as "My mother-in-law's visit was torture."  Jehochman  Talk 18:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, it seems fairly obvious that you're not going to win support for a change to the language of the first sentence, so why don't we focus on other problems with the article? I doubt we're going to get FA, but we could at least try for GA. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly, this will not become a featured article, but yes, please do nominate it at WP:GAC. Jehochman  Talk 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Jehochman, I think the wikipedia link to torture in the first sentence clears up an confusion to the readers that "Waterboarding is a form of torture..." is a colloquialism. --CrazyivanMA (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Jehochman,I like your suggestion, and I believe "intentional suffocation" is correct, at least according to my dictionary. Unfortunately, while suffocating can mean stopping respiration, which can be temporary, it can also mean death.  This might be confusing to some readers. Wakedream (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - "intentional suffocation" is inaccurate. The word "torture" implies motive, however "intentional suffication" maybe a form of assisted suicide, or erotic asphyxiation. CrazyivanMA (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - the legal definition of torture can vary widly, however the medical definition seems to be absolute. I am under the impression the most NPOV way of defining waterboarding of torture would be using the medical definition due to being able to apply the scientfic method to whether or not it can be defined with the word "torture". CrazyivanMA (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support CrazyivanMA This has been my opinion on the matter through all this. ( Hypnosadist )  22:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Torture is a plain English word whose use here is amply justified by sources and common sense. It is the activity that is "morally loaded," not the word. We have numerous articles that use the word torture. See Category:Torture devices. We can and should call things what they are.--agr (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Whether or not the word torture is loaded or not doesn't matter. We are servants and subordinate to NPOV. If the bulk of authority and sources all call waterboarding "torture", that's what we have to do. I know this won't help to appease this endless circle, but NPOV is what it is. NPOV isn't a tool to appease those offended by what an article says; it's a tool that dictates what we do. Lawrence  §  t / e  20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The editors that continue to support that the word torture are staying true to WP:NOTCENSORED. Those that want to have the word "torture" removed are trying to censor the article inorder to raise the chance of becomming a FA.--CrazyivanMA (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel FA status is a nice chestnut, but irrelevant in the face of NPOV. Lawrence  §  t / e  20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i also agree with the sue of the word torture as long as the existnece of dissenting views are acknowleged and given weight proportional tot he number of verifiable sources in relation wto the other one that is mentioned here. Smith Jones (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I would prefer something like, "Waterboarding has been widely regarded to be a form of torture," as suggested by Cdogsimmons, or "generally accepted" as torture as mentioned above, as good compromises. My own edit, "Waterboarding, which has been called a form of torture" was reverted in two minutes. (see here and here). The fact that there's all this debate shows that there is not consensus.  And if 200 experts say it is torture and 10 say it is not, that's about five percent who disagree with it being torture--one out of 20 people, or even one out of 50, seems more than a "fringe."  It's extremely unlikely that the U. S. Congress will get the vote needed to overturn the veto, because the issue is so split.  My main question is this: what's wrong with saying it's been called torture, which I think we can all agree is factually correct, instead of saying it is torture?  Is this an issue of working to make this encyclopedia entry correct, or more an issue of editors' personal feelings on the issue? Wakedream (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An editor said that people want to avoiding saying waterboarding is torture just to get this selected as a featured article. I can say that my edit was an attempt for NPOV and was made BEFORE this article was considered for featured status. Thanks for listening. Wakedream (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wakedream, I didn't mean that editors were censoring the article specifically to achieve FA status. I just ment they were censoring the article to appease the masses, while doing a disservice to the article.--CrazyivanMA (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wakedream, if you read through the sources at the top of the page, you're not going to find 10 expert sources that say that waterboarding isn't torture. There is no debate about this in expert sources. I'm talking about articles in law review journals, the statements of international human rights organizations, the UN committee on torture, statements by former military JAGS, former presidents, counterterrorism specialists, and so on. No one from the Bush administration has stated that waterboarding isn't torture; Mukasey, the Attorney General, has even stated that he believes it would be torture if it were done to him. Yes, we can find a few talk show hosts who say that waterboarding isn't torture, and we can find a handful of sources that say that maybe it isn't torture; but this does not make a debate. Wikipedia is supposed to report what reliable sources say; and the overwhelming weight of reliable sources call waterboarding torture. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * --Akhilleus, as it happens, I have read through it. I've also read Jimbo Wales comment on NPOV that a minority opinion should be presented for NPOV if you can "name prominent adherents." The president of the United States who just vetoed a bill outlawing its use would, I believe, qualify as a "prominent adherent."  And before someone points out that Bush did not specifically say, "waterboarding is not torture," Bush did say he supports its use and also said we do not torture.  And know that over a third of the members of Congress voted against it being outlawed; presumably, they didn't all say, "yes, we support torture." And as I posted elsewhere (forgive me for repeating myself here), saying waterboarding "is" torture means that it is torture in all cases.  This would include it being used to train CIA and military personnel on how to resist its use.  Even if we can agree that it is sometimes torture doesn't mean we can agree that it is always torture, or that all forms of it are torture. What's wrong with doing as several editors have suggested, and write it as "waterboarding is an interrogation method..." and then describe what it is?  If it is torture, then let the facts speak for themselves. Wakedream (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As a form of suffocation of a bound prisoner, who is inclined on a board and has water poured on his or her nose and mouth, it is always a form of torture, in all cases. However, as pointed out not a few hours ago, it is not always an interrogation technique. Interrogation is only one of several reasons waterboarding might be used. As such, our definition is quite appropriate, and interrogation is already mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 06:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The four prominent adherents (one of whom is actually a not-prominent opinion columnist) are already mentioned in the article. Do you want us to mention each of them more than once, so that it gives the illusion that there are not just four, but instead eight or twelve? Badagnani (talk) 06:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Presumably by your logic Wakedream, given that the khmer rouge were the most prolific users of waterboarding the intro should start "Waterboarding is a re-education tool to help the prolitariat be one with brother number ones wishes". That waterboarding is JUST an interogation method is the claim of a few non-expert sources while multiple expert sources (those are doctors who are experts in the treatment and effects of torture) say it is torture. NPOV is made up out of the sources with the most expert getting primacy. ( Hypnosadist )  06:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PS GWBush is not a proponant of "waterboarding is not torture", he just says its needed in the war on terror. ( Hypnosadist )  06:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * PPS "America does not torture" can mean a lot of things including "200,000,000 tonnes of inaniamte rock does not torture" ( Hypnosadist )  06:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Make that "enhanced re-eduction tool"! And no, Jimbo did not say "that a minority opinion should be presented for NPOV if you can 'name prominent adherents'". He stated a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Not to mention that we include the fringe viewpoint, we just don't allow it to influence the basic definition.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My main question is this: what's wrong with saying it's been called torture, which I think we can all agree is factually correct, instead of saying it is torture? -Wakedream.


 * Comment The problem I have in stating it's been called torture is that it is stylistically redundant to do so. The only reason to hedge away from stating directly what the large number of authoritative sources (see above and in the archives ad nauseum) state, i.e., waterboarding is torture, is to raise doubt about the harshness and legality of the technique. I also don't think it's a very effective way to do that either. Almost every wikipedia article could be modified with the it's been called . . . phrase. E.g., Ted Kaczynski has been called an American terrorist. ; George Herbert Walker Bush has been called the President of the United States ; Murder has been called the unlawful killing of a human person. -- Quartermaster (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Question How can you justify using non-medical sources to define waterboarding as torture. The definition of torture includes key features that can only be varified by medical professionals. Also I couldn't find any medical sources listed above that said waterboarding is not torture and backed by medical facts. Please point them out. --CrazyivanMA (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Ive been reading this discussion for a few months, and even though I am not a fan of Blue Tie, I do have to give him credit for a comment he made on the Waterboarding/Definition page. He Said "Is it disputed that waterboarding is torture?". I believe this is the issue, but more accuratly its a question of are there medical sources that state its not torture and have suporting medical evidence to back their claims. --CrazyivanMA (talk) 14:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop
This discussion is going in circles. Several editors appear to be tendentiously and disruptively pushing the idea that waterboarding's status as torture is in question. No, it isn't in question, except by fringe groups. I recommend taking the question of the lead to WP:NPOVN to gain input from experienced editors who have been previously uninvolved. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That was the impression I was under, but I needed to ask for a medical source citing if it was in question. There is alot of info here, and I may have just missed it. I'll just assume there isn't any. --CrazyivanMA (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine with me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

i recommend to 'waterboard' gwb, until he confesses that it is torture. if he doesn't confess, only then i believe it could be safely used on all his millions of hard headed enemies as well......and that would be the most reliable source in the world! --125.24.103.239 (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Call_for_help_on_Waterboarding
Started a thread for that reason. ( Hypnosadist ) 02:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My guess is that no one who responds to that thread is going to bother to read the sources in the article and on this talk page; instead, they're going to give us responses based on their pre-existing notion that there's a debate whether waterboarding is torture. As I've said a bunch of times on this talk page, we've got a situation similar to Global warming--there's overwhelming unanimity among expert sources, but because of the way things have been portrayed in the media, people with a casual knowledge of the subject think that there's a "controversy". --Akhilleus (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. It's one of the drawbacks of our system (inhabited by dilettantes, who like to edit about many things but may be experts in only one thing), but can be transcended if people actually read the sources and history carefully and thoroughly. Badagnani (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm making a good faith attempt to bring a resolution to this issue, two other editors talked about it so i decided to implement that discussion. we will see what happens. ( Hypnosadist )  03:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I made a simple request earlier, when a similar RFC was made--that editors commenting read all the archives before commenting. Not one spent one word to address this request. Badagnani (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since we have never managed to figure out what those in the CIA who are doing waterboarding are doing, no one who knows has determined, and so we can't determine whether or not it's torture. We've had lots (hundreds, even) of reliable sources saying that lots of other water tortures are water tortures, and many of you seem content with the synthesis that says waterboarding is either one of those or something else that's also torture. I don't see any way out of that for at least a decade, if not longer. htom (talk) 04:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't discussing whether or not the CIA's version of using water as part of its "enhanced interrogation technique" is torture, or not, a separate issue from the discussion about using "waterboarding is a form of torture" in the lead? Read "neutral query" as my tone of voice. I confess to a bit of confusion about your statement here. I don't see the logical connection here between what the CIA has/hasn't done, and the direct statement about waterboarding being torture. If the CIA really has just placed a damp wash cloth on an Al Qaeda No. 3's foreheade, I'll posit that is not torture. But isn't that a separate issue? -- Quartermaster (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)No it is for editors who make the "extrordinary claim" that the CIA do nice waterboarding to provide sources that say that. The use or not of plastic has been covered by atleast the physicians for human rights source, stating all methods are torture. ( Hypnosadist )  05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (conflict)Since "water torture" is confounded with "water treatment" and "waterboarding", what the CIA is doing would merely add to that confusion. I see "water boarding" as being different than "water treatment" and "water cure", and it's obvious to me that many of you don't. So I think it's hopeless for me to continue. htom (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I see it, "waterboarding" is fairly well-defined. "Water treatment" has referred to various different methods of torture over time (as well as to some completely harmless and benevolent treatments), and "water torture" is a more generic term. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree and if you look at the water torture article it contains several techniques one which is waterboarding. Therefore it would be correct to lead with 'Waterboarding is a type of water torture'. -- neon white user page talk 20:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of changing "torture" in the opening line to "water torture" -CrazyivanMA (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening Line Edit
"Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person..." to "Waterboarding is a form of water torture that consists of immobilizing a person..." Agree/disagree? -CrazyivanMA (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing "torture" to "water torture"? It seems accurate, as waterboarding would be a subset of water torture (and water torture is a subset of torture). It seems like a good proposal. Badagnani (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks like a good one. Given how contentious that first line is, lets let this stew a day, however. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a source to beef up the validity of the water torture definition so editors can't attack the definition of water boarding as water torture. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Looks good to me, and I can't think how it would be contentious (but experience says wait a day or two as well). The changes that seem to cause the most problems in the opening tend to be ones where the proposer has some ulterior motive to weaken or obscure the general definition. Badagnani's proposal seems to neutrally clarify things and doesn't change the gist - it just accurately clarifies the torture hierarchy. -- Quartermaster (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I dislike it. It's redundant in that the use of "water" is clear from the term itself. I'm not saying it is wrong, but it is ugly, ugly language and makes me cringe a bit. We could solve the aesthetic problem by just linking  "torture" to water torture, of course. But our article on water torture is, honestly, short, mostly unsourced, and just not very good. Our article on torture, on the other hand, is very extensive and well-sourced.  I prefer the current version. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only issue I see is that the article on water torture is weak. I don't care that its "ugly language". -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding as FAC
Here's what I see is stopping this article becoming a FAC based on the comments it received in FAC review. If we work together I think we can resolve many of these issues. Remember (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Come to a formal resolution about the lead that won't be opposed on POV grounds.
 * 2) Make the article stable.
 * 3) Fix the technique section
 * As stated: "The 1st sentence of the Technique section is out of place. The "Two televised segments" paragraph is confusing and poorly worded. And finally the lead does a better job describing the technique than the technique section." The "Mental and physical effects" section would be better if it described the effects and used Dr. Keller's words as the reference. The section also seems wrapped up in mention "testimony" and "open letters" etc. It should simply describe the effects.
 * 1) Resolve whether their should be a split of US waterboarding controversy from the main page.
 * Perhaps cut this section down so it does not dominate the page.
 * 1) Get it to GA status first
 * 2) Make it less american orientated.
 * 3) More details on historical use
 * 4) Explain what a "third degree interrogation" technique?
 * 5) Explain why is the technique termed a "water cure" at one point?
 * 6) Fix all citation and their formating issues. References 6, 9, 14, 28, 43, 49, 58, 64, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 104, 105 and 112 have formatting problems. References always go after a full stop or comma with no spaces in between. I also see a few short paragraphs and unreferenced paragraphs

Dispute resolution
It is evident from the final decision at ArbCom that they did not resolve the content dispute for us regarding the lead sentence. We are expected to resolve it outselves. I suggest WP:RFM, just as I did on February 4, nearly two weeks ago. I would be willing to accept any result that arises from such a process if it will stop the bickering. I know that several editors here, myself included, consider the first six words of this article to be a WP:NPOV violation. I propose removing six words from the lead sentence, from "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back ..." to "Waterboarding consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back ..." It's NPOV. It doesn't take sides in the dispute. That is Wikipedia policy. Neutral Good (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It really isn't a matter of opinion, at all. Per WP:FRINGE, which is indeed what the Bush Administration is, or even the whole of the United States, in the world context, we needn't report their assertions contrary to the most common, most accepted definitions of waterboarding in the same light as the point of view of everyone else. In fact, removing "torture" from the definition would be inherently contrary to WP:NPOV because it's abiding by the fringe POV that it cannot be defined as torture. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole of the United States is not WP:FRINGE. May I ask:  whose constitution says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can show us that everyone outside the United States considers it torture, and provide links to reliable sources proving your claim, I'll shut up and go away. I promise. As it now stands, the notable persons who have expressed an opinion on the matter are self-selected, and probably are not representative. In nearly all cases, it is reasonable to conclude that they have a political agenda of some sort. Neutral Good (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to UN officials, who have unambiguously stated waterboarding is torture, or someone else? ~ UBeR (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've had nearly 6 months to come up with one non-US source that waterboarding is not torture, you have none! The fact you choose to ignore sources that include cross-party commities of palimentarians from the USA's closest military ally (thats the UK) as having a "political agenda of some sort" is not our problem. ( Hypnosadist )  22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As Uber and Hypno have said. Also, United Nations > United States, obviously, for weight of opinion and authority. Global > national. Lawrence  §  t / e  22:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The UN is not a world government. They weren't elected to rule over us.  They have no authority to define words.  All they can do is comment on the interpretations of treaties, and express their opinions like anyone else.
 * I'm not here to bicker. Neutral said that the PTB made their decision, which seems like no decision at all.  I can't say I blame them, but it's still regrettable.  This does need mediation.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * One other thing: if you're claiming that "the UN," rather than its politically motivated human rights activists oh wait, commissars oops, sorry, Commissioners has stated that waterboarding is torture, please link a copy of the UN Resolution -- either by the Security Council or the General Assembly. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you see why we need mediation here? Neutral Good (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of world sovereignty or anything similar. This isn't a matter of who "rules over" the U.S. Start thinking outside of the United States. Two treaties, The Geneva Conventions and the UNCAT, are under the purview of the United Nations. What the Bush Administration, the DOJ, or the CIA say about waterboarding is irrelevant to the bigger picture of what waterboarding is and hence this article. Bush & Company only having jurisdiction over the definition in an American context and has no bearing on the rest of the world. We aren't going to change the article to suit the political rationalizations of the Bush Administration. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But we should change the article to satisfy WP:NPOV. And neither UNCAT nor the Third Geneva Convention defines waterboarding as torture, so please don't wave those documents around as though they prove anything for your position. Neutral Good (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It currently does reflect NPOV (The first sentence, at least). We needn't entertain fringe views. ~ UBeR (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As stated often, many reliable sources explicitly state that waterboarding is torture. No sources of equal weight disagree. The extremely few sources to the opposite we have are usually interviews or opinion pieces, usually by complete non-experts. WP:NPOV includes WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE for exactly this case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "...definition in an American context"
 * Actually, the Bush administration has far less authority than even that. They can define how they perceive waterboarding themselves, but the US Presidency is barred by Constitutional checks from deciding such things in a legal sense, which extends to offices such as the A.G. or DOD, who ultimately also answer back to the House and Senate. The Presidency doesn't make law. They have limited leeway to interpret it. The US Presidency has no real power in this matter legally entitled to them. Lawrence  §  t / e  23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me help you understand the policy. This is a direct quote from WP:WEIGHT, a section of WP:NPOV: "From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents ..." We have named several prominent adherents to the "waterboarding may not be torture in all cases" position, including Rudolph Giuliani, Andrew C. McCarthy, Ted Poe and Michael Mukasey. Since it has several prominent adherents that are easy to name, this is a viewpoint held by a significant minority. Therefore it cannot be dismissed as a WP:FRINGE. There is a significant dispute, and the first six words of the article cannot pretend that the dispute does not exist. Neutral Good (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Giuliani does not say "its not torture", infact he says the opposite, he says it is torture if it is as bad as discribed in the "liberal media" by which i bet he includes us. So it is as bad as it is said to be so Rudi thinks it is torture. ( Hypnosadist )  00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What Giuliani says, in effect, is this: it's unclear whether waterboarding is torture in all cases. Yes, I'm summarizing. But what you've done is to pluck one sentence out of context. Neutral Good (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is right back to the same mess again. Six Right Wingers are not a "significant dispute", and this is again the same ground covered as nauseum before. Someone please file for enforced mediation right now. This is a literal repeat of 2 months ago. Lawrence  §  t / e  00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First, Mukasey has not said waterboarding isn't torture. Second, these are all individuals within the United States, with varying degrees of positions of authority within the U.S. None of these people stop it from being fringe. They are a minority, and we can report what they've said, but we aren't going to substantially change the article to mirror their views. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As odd as it is to say, the US Government is a fringe viewpoint on this matter, with no global standing or backing. Lawrence  §  t / e  00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The opinions of two U.S. politicians and two U.S. columnists (one not particularly notable) does not represent a "significant" viewpoint, enough to actually change the definition of this well-understood term (the suffocation of a bound prisoner by the use of water). However, this does not prevent us from mentioning their opinions in the article (and I believe we do that). Badagnani (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that abduction is not a valid rule of inference. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mukasey doesn't need to say "waterboarding is not torture." He only needs to say "waterboarding may not be torture in all cases." And that, in effect, is what he said. Jimbo Wales himself has said that if I can name prominent adherents to this position, then it is a significant minority position. "Six Right Wingers are not a 'significant dispute,' " but six PROMINENT ADHERENTS, regardless of their politics, make it a significant minority, Lawrence. Badagnani, you keep trying to dismiss them as "The opinions of two U.S. politicians and two U.S. columnists (one not particularly notable)," but all four of them are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles about them; all four are licensed attorneys; and all four currently hold, or have held, prominent positions in government. By the way, where are the "reference[s] to commonly accepted reference texts" that are required for a majority opinion? What you have here is about 120 political partisans from the left who are self-selected. They probably aren't a representative sample. Let's see your "reference[s] to commonly accepted reference texts," please. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did Jimbo say that? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right here: WP:WEIGHT. Neutral Good (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, he did not. You misrepresent his quote. He states a necessary, not a sufficient condition. Ernst Zündel, David Irving, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and still "The Holocaust is...". Ken Ham, Mike Huckabee, Pat Robertson and still "In biology, evolution is ...". Timothy F. Ball, Frederick Seitz, Tim Patterson, and still "Global warming is ..." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what is sufficient, Stephan? Please cite and quote the appropriate policy when you reply. Thanks. Neutral Good (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Shooting someone isn't torture in all cases. Beating someone up isn't torture in all cases. This doesn't mean it always isn't torture. There needs to be a specific context in which an action is done to be considered torture. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All we need here is an uninvolved admin to enforce the article probation. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm discussing mediation, plus a proposed edit, in a very reasonable and courteous manner, Akhilleus. This is not disruptive. What you are suggesting is that ANY disagreement, no matter how courteous, no matter if it involves any editing at all in the article mainspace, is a violation of WP:DE. That is oppressive. Neutral Good (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Which I'm sure would then make them involved. Authoritarianism never works as well as having sensible people talk about the changes on the discussion page. Consensus ought to prevail. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As of this time, this section isn't disruptive. However, uninvolved admins have been encouraged to watchlist this. The history of this article and rampant proven sockpuppetry is an ongoing concern for epic disruption. Consensus also is never unanimous. Those outside of concensus must get consensus to change. Lawrence  §  t / e  00:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus by a few editors on one article Talk page cannot defeat the consensus of 1 million Wikipedia editors and the Arbitration Committee, as expressed in WP:NPOV and ArbCom decisions that enforce it. The first six words of this article are a blatant NPOV violation. Neutral Good (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? Because it doesn't conform to the fringe view you have? ~ UBeR (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it doesn't acknowledge the existence of the significant minority view and its prominent adherents, as required by Jimbo Wales and WP:NPOV. My personal views are of no consequence. Neutral Good (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? The article is almost exclusively within the context of the United States and their denial of its classification as torture. As I explained in the section I created earlier ("Broaden"), there is undue weight given to the United States. If anything, the United States focus should be drastically reduced to reflect WP:NPOV. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But the lead of the article studiously ignores the fact that this significant minority opinion exists. Therefore it violates WP:NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the lead states, "The new controversy surrounded the widely reported use of waterboarding by the United States government on alleged terrorists, and whether the practice was acceptable." The fact the lead mentions there's a controversy surrounding its acceptability in the United States tells plenty. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute here is whether waterboarding is torture, not merely whether its use is acceptable. The dispute over the "waterboarding is torture" claim is what's being studiously ignored here. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not being ignored. In fact, it's being focused on way too much. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that Neutral Good left out the most importnat part of the email from by Jimbo Wales which states


 * "If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then
 * it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should
 * certainly address the controversy without taking sides.


 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then
 * _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it
 * doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary
 * article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."


 * This is exactly why arbitration was necessary, constant misinterpretations of policy and taking quotes out of context, ignoring overall views and the spirit of the policy and generally gaming the system. The email is talking about articles overall, this article covers the controversy in detail and in my opinion gives it far too much weight. It's lucky to even get a mention in the lead summary. -- neon white user page talk 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We are in complete agreement then. I've been trying to correct the constant misinterpretations of policy by others, Neon White. The spirit of the policy is that Wikipedia should not take sides. Neutral Good (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not taking sides. We're reporting and labeling based on what the far, overriding bulk of the authorities say. Please do not misquote or try to twist words around like this. It is disruptive, and you were just warned on your talk page for additional disruption. There is no side to take--a fringe minority of local partisans in one lone nation say one thing. Everyone else, world-wide, says another. Taking a side would be to give the fringe minority weight and value they do not enjoy in the real world. Lawrence  §  t / e  05:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

'You've had nearly 6 months to come up with one non-US source that waterboarding is not torture, you have none! ( Hypnosadist ) 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)'


 * So what? The US doesn't decide the issue, but neither does the absence of sources outside the US. All these sources are self-selected, whether within the US or not. Do you understand what that means? Neutral Good (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you still have no non-US sources. ( Hypnosadist )  01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? Neutral Good (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget you also have no medical sources from anywhere that say waterboarding isn't torture. ( Hypnosadist )  01:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What matters here are legal sources. The expert sources that we have are all self-selected, and nearly all of them have political agendas that color and drive their opinions. Wikipedia cannot pretend, in the first six words (or even the first 600) of the article, that the dispute does not exist. It must be neutral. This is mandatory and non-negotiable. It is bedrock policy. Neutral Good (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is NO meaningful dispute, just a case for the defence. ( Hypnosadist ) 01:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then let's go to mediation. Let's see what some uninvolved, experienced editors and admins have to say about it. Neutral Good (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Loads have already turned up and you have ignored them all, what is mediation going to do to make you abide by their decision? ( Hypnosadist )  01:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Mediators are experienced in dispute resolution. The admins who have shown up here have taken sides. That isn't dispute resolution. Neutral Good (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The admins who have shown up here have taken sides" No just one side, they read the arguements and all decided one way, please take the hint. The only problem i have with mediation is wasting my and the mediators time going through the same arguement again. ( Hypnosadist )  01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't. That is a false statement, misrepresentation, whatever; I dare not call it a lie. Walton One is an administrator. He believes that the lead of this article should not take sides in this significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture. Neutral Good (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The dispute is not significant in an historical and worldwide context. You have failed many times to provide any evidence that it is. The lead of the article is a summary of the article in can contain a reference to the dispute but policy says it should represent majority view. -- neon white user page talk 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I find NG's contributions to this thread disruptive: we've been over this, again and again. At some point, the repetition needs to stop. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then consider taking six POV-pushing words out of the lead sentence. This is an encyclopedia that refuses to call either Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Josef Stalin or Saddam Hussein an evil person. It refuses to call Osama bin Laden or Khalid Sheikh Mohammed an evil person; in fact, when I called KSM a "bad person" here on the Talk page, it was refactored by Lawrence Cohen. If we can't call dead dictators bad people, how can we ignore a significant debate, with notable adherents on boths sides, over whether waterboarding is torture? Put the facts into the article and let the facts speak for themselves for a change. Neutral Good (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Evilness is subjective. Legal definitions are not. And don't respond to this using an American example. That won't get you anywhere. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hitler is called a 'totalitarian ruler', stalin is called a 'dictator', becasue we can verify that just as we can verfiy torture. -- neon white user page talk 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We would call a piano a musical instrument, and, similarly, we would call suffocation of a bound prisoner using water a form of torture -- in fact, one of the best known forms. Badagnani (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a worthless analogy the first time you used it, the fourth time you used it, and the eighth time you used it. There is no dispute over whether a piano is a musical instrument. But there is a significant dispute, with several prominent adherents on both sides, over whether waterboarding is torture; and pretending that it doesn't exist, or dismissing the minority view as as WP:FRINGE has been used as cover for America bashing for far too long and with far too much gusto. Neutral Good (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you implying, in contrast, that your comment that you believe editors are attempting to state that waterboarding is "evil" in the lead was of worth? I don't believe, in all the months I have been observing the editing of this article, that any editor proposed to call waterboarding an "evil" activity, yet this is exactly what you proposed just above. Please refrain from calling the contributions of other editors "worthless," thanks. Badagnani (talk) 03:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Significant dispute." That's curious. Surely you don't believe a handful of politicos in Washington--not even one polity--constitute a "significant dispute," do you?


 * Badagnani, the term "torture" carries extremely negative connotations, much like the terms "terrorist," "child molester" and "war crime." In effect, calling waterboarding "torture" in such an unequivocal fashion in the first six words of the article brands the practice as evil, and those who do it as evil, in the eyes of billions of people - even when used to save thousands of innocent lives. Let's try to be honest enough with each other to refrain from pretending that it doesn't. Neutral Good (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we are doing harm to America by labeling waterboarding torture, despite that multiple American sources and global sources call it torture? Why would the views of American Conservatives (or Americans in general) be more meaningful than the rest of the world? Our country is just one lonely nation. We aren't in charge of anything, and aren't the center of the universe, nor even the most important nation on Earth, barring our military. Lawrence  §  t / e  05:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely torture only carries negative connotations if you believe that torture is bad? And that is a judgment call for the reader - Wikipedia has no say in the matter. Some people believe that torture is okay if it's justified, e.g. when carried out by Jack Bauer. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a very interesting opinion. Unfortunately, we cannot base articles on individual Wikipedians' opinions. The views of the four individuals who support your opinion are discussed in the article (including the not particularly notable columnist Jim Meyers, who, contrary to a comment made earlier this evening, does not appear to merit his own Wikipedia article). Not a great number of sources to draw on for this odd fringe opinion (that suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner with water is not a form of torture). Badagnani (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, you have misrepresented the significant minority position and important distinctions are blurred. This position does not claim unequivocally that "waterboarding is not torture." It only asserts that "waterboarding may not be torture in all cases." Neutral Good (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A handful of people, who express no definite view hardly represent a significant alternative view. -- neon white user page talk 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that a technique might save lives doesn't make it any less tortuous. But that's ignoring the fact it has never been demonstrated to ever save lives. Ever. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * John Kiriakou testified that it saved lives. I believe he's in a better position to know than you. Neutral Good (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding has been considered torture and banned by previous US administrations and every civilized nation until until George W. Bush secretly authorized it. It is still illegal under US and international law and although they claim it was "justified" then why did they deny for five years that they did it. Wikipedia should not censor the only US president that authorized torture. 71.139.2.39 (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC) — 71.139.2.39 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I'm not an SPA and resent being painted as such. I edit when I have time and nothing I've stated isn't true. My Internet server assigns a different address otherwise you would see I have many edits. 71.139.10.193 (talk) 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

File an RfM then Neutral This is already filling up this talk page with pointless repitition of the same arguments, and its getting heated. ( Hypnosadist ) 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What good would that do? the result would just be ignored, let's just hope the admins step in. The POV pushing is just getting ridiculous. How many more experienced ediotrs do we need to point out that WP:NPOV does not mean no point of view? it means representing with due weight. This is not about improving the encyclopedia, it's about one editor trying to use wikipedia as a platform for political propaganda. -- neon white  user page talk 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will you participate? And will you accept the result, whatever it may be? Neutral Good (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just start it already. ( Hypnosadist )  12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree to the change, and to the RfM. htom (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Likewise. Either option would end this endless argument. Both would be even better. Shibumi2 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

United States bill is current event as of March 2008--please update
I added a box (hopefully correctly) that President Bush is planning to veto a bill against waterboarding on March 8, 2008. Somebody please update this as he either does or does not. And if I've formatted it incorrectly, please fix it. Thanks! Wakedream (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yellowdesk was kind enough to not only fix it (in this case, remove the box) but provided me with a link that described what to do. It's at Template:Current.  The box I added should be used when many edits are expected in a single day on a current event, not for an event that's currently in the news.  So many editors will just say, "you're wrong I'm cutting it out," or even, "you're a vandal!"  Thanks, Yellowdesk for your help! (By the way I'm updating the news on this.) Wakedream (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If this event gets the media going like I expect it will, everyone ought to be ready for lots of IP edits, new users, and possibly some old friends returning (again). Lawrence §  t / e  14:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bush vetoed, and the house failed the override (225-188, 17 not voting) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.209.107 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is/isn't torture -- list all sources here
No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture, so far, based on the mini-rfc above. Let's get a collection here of all sources that assert waterboarding is torture, just a collection of links and sources. This is the -the- main bone of contention basically. At the same time, lets also do the same thing with sources that say it isn't torture/isn't considered torture, in the interests of NPOV, and to see what turns up. Anyone who considers it not torture, this is your time to demonstrate that with evidence. • Lawrence Cohen  16:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Updating to ensure this is not archived yet. Lawrence Cohen 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is rather disingenuous to not note that there are a variety of ways of doing waterboarding and that the method the US government has used is in certain respects markedly different than what the Japanese and others have done. The failure of this article to note the differences (and also to claim that the method is torture) is profoundly disappointing for a source which is supposed to present a neutral point of view. As someone else correctly noted "[t]his articles is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue." And the listing of those who do not consider waterboarding to be "torture" including "Santa Claus" is both stupid and insulting. ShawnM (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is an interesting opinion. However, the suffocation of a bound prisoner with water, whether "nicer," "harsher," "less cruel," "moderately cruel," or any other variation is still the suffocation of a bound prisoner with water -- i.e., a form of torture by definition. Whether you wish to believe in such a "nicer" version that only one nation has developed and uses (but which nevertheless produces good results) is immaterial to this article, as no source bears this out. Badagnani (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to the "Comment" of "Badagnani":

You are missing the point as no actual suffocation takes place with the method used by US interrogators. Here is how the methodology used by US interrogators is explained by the CIA:

"The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt." [LINK]

Now then, compare that to the method used by the Japanese during the war which was conducted in the following manner according to court documents of three of the sentenced Japanese:

Charge...That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them; by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.

...That in or about July or August, 1943, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number Three, Fukuoka ken, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Seitaro Hata, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.

...

Charge...That in or about July or August, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Morris O. Killough, an American Prisoner of War, by beating and kicking him; by fastening him on a stretcher and pouring water up his nostrils.

...That on or about 15 May, 1944, at Fukoka Prisoner of War Branch Camp Number 3, Kyushu, Japan, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O Cash and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses; and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies.

...That between 1 April, 1943 and 31 December, 1943, the accused Yukio Asano, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture John Henry Burton, an American Prisoner of War, by beating him; and by fastening him head downward on a stretcher and forcing water into his nose.

...

Charge...That in or about August, 1943, the accused, Genji Mineno, together with other persons did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture George De Witt Stoddard and William O. Cash, American Prisoners of War, by strapping them to a stretcher and pouring water down their nostrils.

...That in or about 15 May, 1944, the accused, Genji Mineno, did, willfully and unlawfully, brutally mistreat and torture Thomas B. Armitage, William O. Cash, and Munroe Dave Woodall, American Prisoners of War, by beating and kicking them, by forcing water into their mouths and noses, and by pressing lighted cigarettes against their bodies. []

Now while you could claim that source is taken second hand, I can respond to that by noting that I took the quote and the link being quoted from a site that does not support my view on this -to the extent that I have even made my view known here which I have not. My underlying point all along is that this article is not demonstrating neutral point of view in treating on the issue fairly which means (by definition) not taking sides or appearing to take sides.

Now then, you claimed "Badagnani" that there are "no sources" which posit a difference in the methods that I claimed there was. But as noted above, the Japanese were pouring water into noses and throats of those so subjected to their method and according to the CIA's instruction manual, the CIA method did not do this. And whatever trick the CIA method plays on the body there is nonetheless no actual suffocation that takes place with the CIA method; ergo no "torture" takes place even by your own definition of that word. The same cannot be said for the method utilized by the Japanese during the war where water was poured into the nose and throat. Or other methods of waterboarding where the person's head is dunked in water.

In other words, arguments can be made that some uses of this method could constitute torture and others may well not. But then again, Matt Sanchez (aka "bluemarine") already said that this article "is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of [the] issue." And while *you* may not like the CIA method "Badagnani" there is nonetheless a difference and a marked one that that and what I noted initially is not at all "immaterial to the article" but gets to the heart of the problem with not showing NPOV. Present both sides, present the nuances in the approaches accurately, and from there let people draw their own conclusions. But it is obvious with that stupid mention of "Santa Claus" among those who do not think this method is always and in every case a form of torture that we are not seeing NPOV in this article.ShawnM (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - When the cellophane is placed over the face and water is poured on the face, the prisoner is suffocated ("suffocation" meaning that air is cut off, and breathing interrupted). Thus, your underlying assumption (that the U.S. practices a manner that is "less cruel," "less harsh," "better," "not as bad as the Japanese," "isn't really a form of torture like when those other, bad countries do it," "isn't suffocation," etc. is unsupported by the sources. Badagnani (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked under the assumption that my comment would not be left alone for long without comment by you and indeed that assumption was correct. Let us see if that assumption proves to be correct again.

All I am aware of with the way the cellophane is used is that it prevents water from getting into the nose and throat (the reaction created is psychological) but that does not mean that air is cut off from the person subjected to the method. You are the one that is merely asserting that it is. In fact, for all this talk about providing sources, I am the only one doing so among the two of us. And however you want to try and caricature my presumed "underlying assumption", as no one is actually drowned or in danger of being drowned by the US method (unlike with the other methods I mentioned), my source-substantiated assertion that there is a distinction with a key difference between the two stands.ShawnM (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if "the gag reflex sets in" for whatever reason, the victim cannot breathe, i.e. is suffocated. Moreover, nobody, apart from you, claims that with the US technique no water enters the mouth or nose. Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, seems to think otherwise: "If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture."--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that he is 'imagining' the pain; his imagination may be more powerful than the practice. Which is one of the reasons to not talk about such things in public. htom (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note i don't care about the mythical CIA "nice waterboarding", but if is going to be used as an argument the "method" is going to have to be examined. ( Hypnosadist )  01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "No one seems to dispute at all that waterboarding is considered torture". Except for the government of the United States.  Although this article attempts to be diverse and multi-cultural, no attempt is made to distinguish Cambodian waterboarding from any other type.  What about dunking a common form of torture used in Europe?  Is that waterboarding?  if not than how do you justify the inclusion of the Spanish Inquisition rack?  This articles is taking sides in a controversial issue while simplifying the nuances of that issue.


 * As for a "human rights group" Who the hell elected them and what jurisdiction do they have??Matt Sanchez (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to believe that the references here to the Spanish Inquisition are referring to their use of the rack, however, this belief is mistaken - the references here are to the Tormento di Toca, a form of waterboarding. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I think Chris may have mean to write Tormento de Toca above. The BBC's Spanish-language news reports certainly seem to use this term as the direct Spanish translation of what their English-language reports call "waterboarding". -- The Anome (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From Innertia Tensor

 * 100 U.S. law professors. In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez., more than 100 U.S. law professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.


 * What do law professors know about waterboarding? And how are these "100 law professors" more valid than the 1000s who did NOT sign this statement?  Did JAG officers sign it? Matt Sanchez (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not care about sources that do not exist, is why they are more important as sources than people who did not sign this statement. Lawrence Cohen  14:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The defininition of torture is largely a legal one, on both the domestic and international levels. Therefore, I believe law professors' views are relevant. -Lciaccio (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * False and somewhat naive. The definition of torture is political.  If the American government has not defined waterboarding as torture, what right does Wikipedia have to take that step?Matt Sanchez (talk) 08:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely wrong. Firstly, torture is defined by a physical process. Politicians try to hide the truth of torture for political reasons. Secondly, Wikipedia is not an organ of the US government. Thirdly, waterboarding has been defined as torture by medical practitoners, torturers, victims, law enforcement officers, and - yes - politicians including those of the US government and even - gasp - in a moment of enlightenment, the US government itself. docboat (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the definition of torture we are concerned with is a linguistic issue. Legal definitions often try to clearly delineate semantic categories for purposes of clarity and consistency. Politics has nothing to do with the definition per se, although some people bend over backwards to avoid calling something by unpleasant terms. And it may be surprising to "NG", but the US government does not yet have the exclusive right to determine reality. I don't think they have an official position on gravity, and yet I dare to stay on Earth. And even if they ever claim it has been abolished, I will continue to attract other masses. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stay focussed. There is a legal definition of torture as applied under US and International law. Establishing whether waterboarding meets the legal requirements to fall under that definition evidently is a legal matter and not a political one. Of course, politics are relevant to why a straight forward determination is impossible without a very small group of individuals attempting to create a dispute. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 10:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * John McCain. According to Republican United States Senator John McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, waterboarding is "torture, no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank" and can damage the subject's psyche "in ways that may never heal." - Torture's Terrible Toll, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.
 * reiterated stance in youtube debate on November 28 - stating "I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention."


 * Lindsey Graham. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a member of the Judiciary Committee and a Colonel in the US Air Force Reserves, said "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding ... does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal."
 * Comment: Graham did not say it was torture but rather "illegal"--Blue Tie (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't he in the USNR? Not USAFR?  Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * U.S. Department of State. In its 2005 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State formally recognizes "submersion of the head in water" as torture in its examination of Tunisia's poor human rights record, . (ED: There's more to waterboarding than that (dunking) - but it does also involve a form of submersion. Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC))
 * Comment: The US State Department was not talking about Waterboarding but submersion -- which is different.--Blue Tie (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * U.S. Law 18/2340. Chapter 18 United States Code, section 2340
 * On two counts in plain English.
 * (1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from— (C) the threat of imminent death Inertia Tensor 09:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This law does not mention waterboarding and it is disputed that waterboarding must produce those effects. Furthermore it permits some acts suffered incidental to lawful sanctions.


 * UN Convention. UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984 Signatories 74, Parties 136, As of 23 April 2004
 * For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.


 * Benjamin Davis. Benjamin Davis, a professor at the University of Toledo College of Law writes "Waterboarding has been torture for at least 500 years. All of us know that torture is going on." in an OpEd in Jurist, Endgame on Torture: Time to Call the Bluff
 * Jimmy Carter. Former US President Jimmy Carter stated "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law" and continued "I don't think it.... I know it" in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007
 * Comment: Jimmy Carter did not say that waterboarding was torture. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mississippi Supreme Court. In the case of Fisher v. State, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction of an African-American because of the use of waterboarding. "The state offered . . . testimony of confessions made by the appellant, Fisher. . . [who], after the state had rested, introduced the sheriff, who testified that, he was sent for one night to come and receive a confession of the appellant in the jail; that he went there for that purpose; that when he reached the jail he found a number of parties in the jail; that they had the appellant down upon the floor, tied, and were administering the water cure, a specie of torture well known to the bench and bar of the country."
 * International Military Tribunal for the Far East. The Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, Chapter 8 "The practice of torturing prisoners of war and civilian internees prevailed at practically all places occupied by Japanese troops, both in the occupied territories and in Japan. The Japanese indulged in this practice during the entire period of the Pacific War. Methods of torture were employed in all areas so uniformly as to indicate policy both in training and execution. Among these tortures were the water treatment, burning, electric shocks, the knee spread, suspension, kneeling on sharp instruments and flogging."
 * Evan J. Wallach, US Federal Judge states that "we know that U.S. military tribunals and U.S. judges have examined certain types of water-based interrogation and found that they constituted torture."

From Lawrence Cohen

 * Washington Post, Malcolm Wrightson Nance, a counterterrorism specialist who taught at the Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE), said "As the event unfolded, I was fully conscious of what was happening: I was being tortured.".
 * CBS News, Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA's executive director. "Its own State Department has labeled water boarding torture when it applies to other countries." - On Bush administration.
 * Public letter to Senator Patrick Leahy, "Waterboarding is inhumane, it is torture, and it is illegal." and "Waterboarding detainees amounts to illegal torture in all circumstances.". From Rear Admiral Donald J. Guter, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 2000-02; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, United States Navy (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Navy, 1997-2000; Major General John L. Fugh, United States Army (Ret.) Judge Advocate General of the Army, 1991-93; Brigadier General David M. Brahms, United States Marine Corps (Ret.) Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant, 1985-88.
 * Jewish human rights group, "Waterboarding -- an interrogation practice associated with the Spanish Inquisition and prosecuted under U.S. law as torture as much as a century ago -- is unquestionably torture."
 * Galloway, famous war correspondent, Bronze Medal winner in Vietnam, "Is waterboarding torture? The answer to all of these questions, put simply, is yes."
 * Mike Huckabee, Republican Presidential nominee, "He said the country should aggressively interrogate terrorism suspects and go after those who seek to do the country harm, but he objects to "violating our moral code" with torture. He said he believes waterboarding is torture."
 * I found these tonight. That's 15 notable views sourced. I think I can find more yet. This was just a casual and fairly lazy search. Lawrence Cohen  08:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Also from Hypnosadist, on these three. NYT, ABC News, BBC News. An ex-CIA interrogator is interviewed. Does not address questions of right or wrong, because the interview shows he believes the act of waterboarding is torture.
 * Now retired, Kiriakou, who declined to use the enhanced interrogation techniques, says he has come to believe that water boarding is torture but that perhaps the circumstances warranted it.


 * "Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get after using the waterboarding technique," Kiriakou told ABC News. "And I struggle with it."

More sources yet on this. Lawrence Cohen 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Badagnani

 * The Washington Post (December 9, 2007): "Waterboarding as an interrogation technique has its roots in some of history’s worst totalitarian nations, from Nazi Germany and the Spanish Inquisition to North Korea and Iraq. In the United States, the technique was first used five decades ago as a training tool to give U.S. troops a realistic sense of what they could expect if captured by the Soviet Union or the armies of Southeast Asia. The U.S. military has officially regarded the tactic as torture since the Spanish-American War."

Badagnani (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Law review articles

 * Adeno Addis, "'Informal' Suspension of Normal Processes: the 'War on Terror' as an Autoimmunity Crisis," Boston University Law Review 87 (2007) 323ff.: "Although prohibited by the U.S. Army and likely illegal under detainee legislation, 'waterboarding,' the torture technique in which a prisoner is secured with his feet over his head while water is poured on a cloth covering his face, is reportedly still practiced." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * George J. Annas, "Human Rights Outlaws: Nuremberg, Geneva, and the Global War on Terror," Boston University Law Review 87 (2007) 427ff.: "One such memo was prepared for the CIA and is reported to authorize the 'use of some 20 interrogation practices,' including waterboarding, a torture technique in which people are made to believe they might drown." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * M. Cherif Bassiouni, "The Institutionalization of Torture under the Bush Administration," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 (2006) 389ff.: "Among some examples that may illustrate what was deemed permissible and which were actually carried out are: forcing a father to watch the mock execution of his 14-year old son; placing a lit cigarette in the ear of a detainee to burn his eardrum; bathing a person's hand in alcohol and then lighting it on fire; shackling persons to the floor for 18-24 hours; shackling persons from the top of a door frame to dislocate the shoulders, and gagging persons in order to create the effect of drowning in one's own saliva; 'waterboarding,' which is placing a cloth on a person's head and dousing it with water to create the effect of drowning...These practices sanctioned by the Administration are exactly what Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention prohibits, and what the CAT drafters of Article 1 wanted to avoid. 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.'" --Akhilleus (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thomas F. Berndt & Alethea M. Huyser, "Student Note: Ghost Detainees: Does the Isolation and Interrogation of Detainees Violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions?" William Mitchell Law Review 33 (2007) 1739-1740: "Waterboarding is alleged to be the most extreme measure used by CIA interrogators. It is a technique in which the prisoner is "bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him." The effectiveness of the technique relies on creating in the mind of the detainee the feeling of drowning, essentially operating as a mock execution. Mental health professionals report mock executions to have significant mental effects on detainees. Mock executions have been cited by both domestic and international authorities as constituting torture."
 * Cristián Correa, "Waterboarding Prisoners and Justifying Torture: Lessons for the U.S. from the Chilean Experience," Human Rights Brief 14.2 (2007) 21-25: "Despite its recent prevalence in the Western news media, waterboarding, or 'the submarine' (as it is known in some Latin American countries), is anything but novel in the realm of torture. Waterboarding entails many different methods of torture, each using water to suffocate detainees and provoke the sensation of drowning. The effect results within a few seconds or minutes and leaves no external injuries, thereby eluding a definition of torture which requires proof of injury, bleeding, or other physical harm. Waterboarding has been designed to cause intense psychological pain while granting technical impunity to those administering the punishment." --Akhilleus (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Christian M. De Vos, "Mind the Gap: Purpose, Pain, and the Difference between Torture and Inhuman Treatment," Human Rights Brief 14 (2007) 4ff.: "Categorizing levels of ill-treatment and their respective criminality is a work of legal fiction that can confuse as often as it clarifies. For better or worse, these distinctions exist in law; however, if they are to serve any purpose, it should not be to permit states to evade criminal responsibility through artifice and technicality, the normative effect of which exceptionalizes torture when, in fact, it remains distressingly common. Indeed, it is a telling sign of our impoverished discourse on the subject that we are now left to wonder whether 'water-boarding' (or, in the more modest characterization of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, a 'dunk in the water') is perhaps not as bad as one might think." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Owen Fiss, "Law Is Everywhere," The Yale Law Journal 117 (2007) 260: "It suggested that two practices until then universally understood as torture - the use of scenarios designed to convince detainees that death is imminent, and use of a wet towel and dripping water to induce fear of suffocation ('water-boarding') - though forbidden 'as a matter of policy ... at this time,' nonetheless 'may be legally available.'" --Akhilleus (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Lisa Graves, "Ten Questions: Responses of Lisa Graves," William Mitchell Law Review 33 (2007) 1620: "The truth of our real policy is only amplified by the infamous Justice Department memos by John Yoo and (now judge) Jay Bybee asserting Geneva does not apply and construing 'torture' to allow numerous ineffective and appalling techniques that readers would rightly consider torture if imposed on them, such as waterboarding to near drowning, which passes Yoo-Bybee because the pain caused is not equivalent to organ failure. Although that part of the memo was withdrawn due to public outcry upon its discovery years after it was implemented, the Administration has refused to disavow the severely flawed underlying legal reasoning arguing for virtually unchecked power for the President." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Amos N. Guiora and Erin M. Page, "The Unholy Trinity: Intelligence, Interrogation, and Torture," Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 (2006) 427ff.: "Water-boarding, a Category III technique, induces the detainee to believe that death is imminent. This technique requires that the detainee be strapped or held down to induce the sensation of drowning as either water is repeatedly poured down the individual's throat or the head is immersed in water. Detainees who have experienced water-boarding have universally expressed an overwhelming fear because the method prevents breathing. Furthermore, according to some reports, a number of individuals have died as a result of water-boarding. There is little doubt that this technique represents torture,..." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jonathan Hafetz, "Guantanamo and the 'Next Frontier' of Detainee Issues," Seton Hall Law Review 37 (2007) 700: "Meanwhile, the administration has held other prisoners at secret CIA-run detention centers, also known as 'black sites,' and subjected them to 'enhanced' interrogation techniques - the new euphemism for torture - including hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation, long time standing, and water-boarding, where the subject is made to feel he is being drowned." --Akhilleus (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter Jan Honigsberg, "Chasing 'Enemy Combatants' and Circumventing International Law: A License for Sanctioned Abuse," UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs 12 (2007) 38: "In fact, Mohammed was presumably subject to the torture method known as water boarding." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Scott Horton, "Kriegsraison or military necessity? The Bush Administration's Wilhelmine Attitude towards the Conduct of War," Fordham International Law Journal 30 (2007) 576ff.: "A specific practice of torture identified and punished by the United States as early as 1902, was a device known as "waterboarding" in which a detainee was through various means made to sense that he was drowning." --Akhilleus (talk) 05:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seth F. Kreimer, "'Torture Lite,' 'Full Bodied' Torture, and the Insulation of Legal Conscience," Journal of National Security Law & Policy 1 (2005) 194-195: "At the same time, CIA operatives undertook what might be called 'full bodied' torture of suspected terrorists in secret locations, including denial of pain medication, beatings, sensory assaults, and "water boarding." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Christopher Kutz, "Torture, Necessity and Existential Politics," California Law Review 95 (2007) 235ff.: "The current administration of George W. Bush has decided not to pay those costs. Instead, it chooses to use coercive interrogation techniques that would conventionally be thought of as straightforwardly torturous, including water-boarding, false burial, "Palestinian hanging"...Insofar as the statutory definition of torture includes acts "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering," which pain or suffering can result from "the threat of imminent death," orders to deploy waterboarding (which by design arouses a sensation of imminent death by drowning) would clearly have focused the minds of U.S. personnel on the consequences of the Torture statute." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * David Luban, "Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb," Virginia Law Review 91 (2005) 1431: "And torture terrorizes. The body in pain winces; it trembles. The muscles themselves register fear. This is rooted in pain's biological function of impelling us in the most urgent way possible to escape from the source of pain - for that impulse is indistinguishable from panic. U.S. interrogators have reportedly used the technique of 'waterboarding' to break the will of detainees. Waterboarding involves immersing the victim's face in water or wrapping it in a wet towel to induce drowning sensations. As anyone who has ever come close to drowning or suffocating knows, the oxygen-starved brain sends panic signals that overwhelm everything else." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jamie Meyerfield, "Playing by Our Own Rules: How U.S. Marginalization of International Human Rights Law Led to Torture," The Harvard Human Rights Journal 20 (2007) 89ff.: "The government, though it balks at the word "torture," has acknowledged the use of coercive methods. In a highly publicized speech on September 6, 2006, President Bush defended what he called 'an alternative set of procedures' used in a 'CIA program for questioning terrorists.' He refused to describe the authorized techniques, but several of them are common knowledge: waterboarding (or near-drowning),...Much of this abuse is rightly called torture...Several of the techniques--including sleep deprivation, forced standing, and waterboarding--are infamously associated with the Gestapo, Stalin's secret police, and the Inquisition...In State Department reports on other countries, sleep deprivation, waterboarding, forced standing, hypothermia, blindfolding, and deprivation of food and water are specifically referred to as torture." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mary Ellen O'Connell, "Affirming the Ban on Harsh Interrogation," Ohio State Law Journal 66 (2005) 1231ff.: "Waterboarding involves tying someone to a board and dunking him underwater to the point he fears he will drown. It is plainly a form of torture." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Jordan J. Paust, "Above the Law: Unlawful Executive Authorizations Regarding Detainee Treatment, Secret Renditions, Domestic Spying, and Claims to Unchecked Executive Power," Utah Law Review (2007) 352-354: "Moreover, some CIA personnel have reported that approved Agency techniques include 'striking detainees in an effort to cause pain and fear,' 'the "cold cell"... [where d]etainees are held naked in a cell cooled to 50 degrees and periodically doused with cold water,' and '"waterboarding" ... [which produces] a terrifying fear of drowning,' each of which is manifestly illegal under the laws of war and human rights law and can result in criminal and civil sanctions for war crimes." --Akhilleus (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, this article is lengthy (pp. 345 - 419) and is available here, if anyone wants to read it. Jay*Jay (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Leonard S. Rubenstein, "First, Do No Harm: Health Professionals and Guantanamo," Seton Hall Law Review 37 (2007) 740: "According to the New York Times, psychologists also advised the CIA in devising its 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, or feigned drowning. Indeed, because of their familiarity with, and authorization of, these forms of torture, it is entirely possible, even likely, that the participation of BSCT psychologists in the design of interrogation techniques significantly expanded the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in the interrogation of terror suspects and in the infliction of severe or serious mental harm."
 * Jon M. Van Dyke, "Promoting Accountability for Human Rights Abuses," Chapman Law Review 8 (2005) 153ff.: "To give just one of a number of possible examples, the United States has acknowledged utilizing the practice of 'water-boarding,' which involves strapping detainees to boards and immersing them in water to make them think they are drowning. This activity is clearly an example of 'torture' that violates the Torture Convention, but no one has been charged or prosecuted for authorizing or conducting this practice." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Evan Wallach, "Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts," Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 45 (2007) 468ff.: "'Water cure,' 'water torture,' 'water boarding.' Under whatever name, extreme interrogators have long prized the technique, which, unlike other interrogation methods, imposes severe mental trauma and physical pain but no traces of physical trauma that would be discoverable without an autopsy....Certainly, the United States has made it clear, in its courts, both civil and military, and before the national legislature, that water torture, by whatever name it is known, is indeed torture, that its infliction does indeed justify severe punishment, and that it is unacceptable conduct by a government or its representatives." --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

articles in magazines and newspapers

 * New York Times. Rather than cite a specific article, I'll note that the NYT has a webpage where info about waterboarding is collected here. Notice that the Times has classified waterboarding as a topic within the general subject of torture--a directory line near the top of the page says "Times Topics > Subjects > T > Torture > Waterboarding". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Charles Krauthammer, "The Truth about Torture," The Weekly Standard, 12/05/2005, Volume 011, Issue 12: "Less hypothetically, there is waterboarding, a terrifying and deeply shocking torture technique in which the prisoner has his face exposed to water in a way that gives the feeling of drowning." --Akhilleus (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Darius Rejali, "Containing Torture: How torture begets even more torture," Slate, Oct. 27, 2006: "Which brings us to the most notorious torture: waterboarding, or choking someone in water. In 1968, a soldier in the 1st Cavalry Division was court-martialed for waterboarding a prisoner in Vietnam. In fact, the practice was identified as a crime as early as 1901, when the Army judge advocate general court-martialed Maj. Edwin Glenn of the 5th U.S. Infantry for waterboarding, a technique he did not hesitate to call torture." --Akhilleus (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * William Safire, "Waterboarding," New York Times, Mar. 9, 2008: "If the word torture, rooted in the Latin for 'twist,' means anything (and it means 'the deliberate infliction of excruciating physical or mental pain to punish or coerce'), then waterboarding is a means of torture. The predecessor terms for its various forms are water torture, water cure and water treatment." --Akhilleus (talk) 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Books and articles in books

 * Christopher Kutz, "The Lawyers Know Sin: Complicity in Torture," in Greenberg, ed. The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 241: "The government lawyers who produced, reviewed, and apparently endorsed these memoranda, including lawyers at both the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, spent their creative energies shaping a policy whose aim and effect was to legitimate previously illegitimate forms of interrogation and captive treatment--forms ranging from the cruelty and degradation of forced nudity, sexual humiliation, sensory deprivation, and prolonged use of stress positions--to the clearly torturous, most notably including the practice of 'waterboarding,' wherein interrogees are submerged in cold water so as to create the impression of imminent suffocation."
 * Kutz (same article), p. 243: "Waterboarding clearly fits the statutory definition of torture, as possibly do techniques of profound humiliation, fear inducement, and physical stress, notwithstanding the memoranda's cramped argument that the later techniques would be merely cruel." --Akhilleus (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

From Hypnosadist

 * Gary Solis Adjunct professor, Georgetown University Law Center and former Marine Corps judge advocate and military judge. "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." ( Hypnosadist )  06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mike McConnell Director of National Intelligence "Asked if waterboarding -- the practice of covering a person's face with a cloth and then dripping water on it to bring on a feeling of drowning -- fit that definition, McConnell said that for him personally, it would."  ( Hypnosadist )  06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 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” . ( Hypnosadist )  10:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

From Edison

 * Attorney Andrew Williams, on resigning from Navy Judge Advocate General corps (Knight Ridder pres wire service, Dec 27, 2007.) called it torture. Williams in his resignation letter said waterboarding was used as a form of torture by the Inquisition, and by the Gestapo and the Japanese Kempietai. He cites the post-WW2 conviction of Japanese Officer Yukio Asano for waterboarding resulting in a 15 year sentence. Edison (talk) 14:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The first Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, said ""There's just no doubt in my mind — under any set of rules — waterboarding is torture," in an interview with the Associated Press, and at a conference of the American Bar Association. He further said "One of America's greatest strengths is the soft power of our value system and how we treat prisoners of war, and we don't torture," ... "And I believe, unlike others in the administration, that waterboarding was, is — and will always be — torture. That's a simple statement." A week previous to the Ridge statement that waterboarding is torture, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnellsaid that he would considere waterboarding torture if it were used against him. Reproduced at . Edison (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

From GregorB

 * American Civil Liberties Union press release: ACLU Outlines Ways Waterboarding has Already Been Declared Illegal by the Federal Government. Says that "American Civil Liberties Union presents indisputable evidence that waterboarding has been repeatedly classified as torture and is banned by U.S. law." Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel for the ACLU Washington Legislative Office says: "it is hard to find a more clear-cut form of torture than waterboarding". Another text from ACLU, What is Waterboarding?, describes it as "a paradigmatic torture technique that has long been considered a war crime". GregorB (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Malcolm Nance, a "counter-terrorism and terrorism intelligence consultant for the U.S. government's Special Operations, Homeland Security, and Intelligence agencies": Waterboarding is Torture… Period. Nance has already been mentioned here as a source. In this article he makes three main points: 1) "Waterboarding is a torture technique. Period.", 2) "Waterboarding is not a simulation.", 3) "If you support the use of waterboarding on enemy captives, you support the use of that torture on any future American captives." Says also: "There is No Debate Except for Torture Apologists". GregorB (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Amnesty International: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Slippery slopes and the politics of torture. Says that "there should [...] be no doubt in any [U.S.] official’s mind that waterboarding is torture".
 * Amnesty International: USA: Destruction of CIA interrogation tapes may conceal government crimes. Says that "“Waterboarding” is a form of torture".
 * Human Rights Watch: U.S.: Vice President Endorses Torture. Says that "Cheney’s comments on the legality of waterboarding contradict the views of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Defense Department, as well as fundamental principles of international law".
 * Cristián Correa (Senior Associate, International Center for Transitional Justice): Debate on waterboarding is artificial; it is clearly torture. The title says it all.
 * This is an interesting source as it can add the Pinochet regime to the Historical uses section, though i would like more sources on that if anyone has them. ( Hypnosadist )  15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. There's also a HRW resource, Waterboarding through history that mentions Hissène Habré, former president of Chad, who was indicted in Belgium for torture. Although drawings are described as "waterboarding", they apparently represent water immersion and water cure. I'm not sure that there is a meaningful difference between those techniques, though. GregorB (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Given the number of sources in favor of this position, we should perhaps consider restricting ourselves only to people named Steve. GregorB (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

From Henrik
Navy Lt. Cmdr Charles Swift (ret.) is interviewed on MSNBC's Countdown, broadcast January 17, 2008, (available here) is quoted as saying the following
 * Plus we have reports, that are credible, that waterboarding, forced nudity, prolonged isolation, are what we are doing. We may parse it legally, they are not in Europe or Canada or Great Britain. They call it for what it is, torture. This debate, which for us, continues politically in Congress is over in Europe. It's over in Canada. We're losing it there, it's done."

henrik • talk  19:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A Navy Lt. Cmdr in his role as JAG is definitely an expert authority on whether waterboarding is or is not torture. A verifiable legal authority. Lawrence Cohen  20:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just to make it clear for those who missed it while reading the article: He is retired from the US Navy and currently working as a law professor. henrik  • talk  20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A Navy Lt. Cmdr Jag who is speaking for JAG, may be a reliable source for JAG. However, if he is speaking for himself, he is only speaking for himself. Was the interview one in which he represented his views as those of the NAVY Jag or as his own?  Or did he not say?  If he did not say, we may not presume that he speaks for anyone other than himself. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He's speaking for himself being a retired Jag, anyone going to call him anti-american? He can be added as yet another source. ( Hypnosadist )  03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Complete bullshit. We don't devalue sources in this way. Once your an expert, you're an expert, period, full stop. Lawrence Cohen  06:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

From neon white

 * Richard Armitage, 13th United States Deputy Secretary of State. Interviewed by By Matt Frei for the BBC in washington. He states that he was water-boarded in trainng and answers when questioned as follows "Of course water-boarding is torture," he said bluntly. "I can't believe we're even debating it. We shouldn't be doing that kind of stuff." -- neon white user page talk 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * From the same article above an unnamed cambodian survivor of the Khmer Rouge describes it's use. -- neon white user page talk 21:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews by James Carrol describes the 'toca' used by the spanish inquisition as torture. -- neon white user page talk 21:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Vann Nath, cambodian painter and human rights activist, painted and published memoirs of the Tuol Sleng prison including depictions of water torture. -- neon white user page talk 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Theodore Roosevelt,
 * Henry Kamen The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. New Haven: Yale University Press (1998)

From Ofus

 * Press release from Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Durbin
 * " The United States has always repudiated waterboarding as a form of torture and prosecuted it as a war crime.  The Judge Advocates General, the highest-ranking attorneys in each of the four military services, have stated unequivocally that waterboarding is illegal and violates Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Yet, despite the virtually unanimous consensus of legal scholars and the overwhelming weight of legal precedent that waterboarding is illegal, certain Justice Department officials, operating behind a veil of secrecy, concluded that the use of waterboarding is lawful." Ofus (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is acceptable

 * Not exactly, but pretty close. See below. Remember (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "..NEWSWEEK has learned that Yoo's August 2002 memo was prompted by CIA questions about what to do with a top Qaeda captive, Abu Zubaydah, who had turned uncooperative. And it was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney's counsel, who discussed specific interrogation techniques, says a source familiar with the discussions. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding," or dripping water into a wet cloth over a suspect's face, which can feel like drowning; and threatening to bring in more-brutal interrogators from other nations."Link to article.

Not Relevant - whether a form of torture is acceptable or not has more to do with the ethics of a government. This still does not deny that waterboarding is torture.Nospam150 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just about everyone on Fox News, including both the right and left pundits on The Beltway Boys. See, both sides agree. Obviously, it must be fair and balanced to say that people in the US believe it isn't torture it is torture it's acceptable if it gets results, whatever it's called. Thompsontough (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If we cite McCain and Graham assertion that it is torture, shall we quote Dick Cheney and other politicial, Military, and intelligence officials who assert it is not? Ryratt (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So far this is only a list of sources. So yes, if you can find unambiguous statements by Cheney or other notable sources, list them here. Of course weighting the sources is a separate process. But so far the "is not" side has been extremely weak in finding any sources, let alone sources of a comparable weight to peer-reviewed medical and law journal articles, explicit statements by law professors, and even JAGs, and actual legal decisions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The United States is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture. The main text of the Convention defines torture as follows:

''For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. ''  (emphasis added)

Under this definition, it is clear that waterboarding is torture if used on a detainee who does not know that they will not be allowed to drown. (By contrast, as used in training, it is not torture, since the trainee knows they will be rescued).

However, in signing the Convention Against Torture, the United States made some reservations. Among them was the following:

'' . . . the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality. ''  (emphasis added)

Subject to this reservation, it is equally clear that waterboarding as it has been used on detainees is not torture. There is no severe physical pain; the severe anguish is mental. And the United States, in ratifying the convention, has said that it will only consider mental anguish to constitute torture if it is prolonged. Since KSM allegedly lasted about 2 minutes, and the others for less time, the mental suffering was not prolonged, so it was not torture. 76.118.179.214 (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 76.118 that is Andrew C. McCarthy's position and it is noted, dispite being based on his flawed (as in totally wrong) medical opinion. That is waterboarding does not cause severe physical pain when it does due to the oxygen deprivation (as noted in the many sources we have from people who have been waterboarded), and that short exposure to to torure does not cause long term harm (when it does and we have the medical evidence to say so). ( Hypnosadist )  15:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)Some remarks: First, the convention explicitly defines the term "for the purposes of this Convention", not in general. Secondly, I will absolutely maintain that being slowly drowned - even if you know you will be rescued - is "severe physical suffering". Just try to dive 25 m without equipment. If you are reasonably fit, you will feel as if your lung is about to burst (if you are unreasonably fit, substitute 75 m ;-). There is nothing "mental" about this, it is simply the body telling you it wants oxygen. Of course, an additional mental component can make things worse - if at the end of the dive there is a swimmer above you (so you cannot immediately surface), you will very likely experience quite some mental anguish. Finally, if you look at the medical sources, it is very obvious that waterboarding can and does result in long-lasting mental trauma. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources that say it is unclear whether waterboarding is torture or not

 * Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White say it's not certain. Both are notable attorneys.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, again, quote where White says that? I don't see it. Lawrence Cohen  17:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FOUND ACCEPTABLE is OBFUSCATION. That is a different question altogether. Is it acceptable to euthanize the whitehouse, probably these days; is it legal, no. Big difference. Therefore we do not do it. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll repeat here for the sake of continuity: Although, as a civilized people, our immediate and commendable instinct is to declare waterboarding repugnant and unlawful, that answer is not necessarily correct in all circumstances. The operative legal language (both legislative and judicial) does not explicitly bar waterboarding or any other specific technique of interrogation. Instead, it bars methods that are considered to be "torture," "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" or that "shock the conscience."
 * And for those who doubt that the CIA would take this seriously, they've been known to rule against other important operations.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This of course is nonsense. See above for links to articles that better explain why. In short, UNCAT does not specify which acts constitute torture, nevertheless you will have great difficulty explaining to a judge that pulling out fingernails and applying electricity to the genitals is not torture. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And additionally, it would be a violation of WP:SYN for us to use this, in this way. Lawrence Cohen  15:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely sure which element of my post you're pointing to wrt WP:SYN. If you mean my link to the the "other important ops" then, sure, but I was only using that preemtively.  There are those who aren't willing to accept that the CIA's lawyers are serious lawyers.
 * Or, were you referring to Nomen's reply to me? That does seem to be something akin to synthesis.  After all, much of the "is-torture" POV rests upon a group aggreement about what opponents merely believe to be torture.
 * UNCAT provides an interesting item that says of the European court, "the use of the five techniques of sensory deprivation and even the beatings of prisoners are not torture." If it's possible that beatings aren't necessarily torture then who's to say that properly controlled waterboarding is?  I'm not sure I understand that yet but it may be worth looking into.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't being clear. I'm basically saying, it's not our place to analyze whether it is or isn't torture, at all, ever. Wikipedia is a teritiary source, only. We aren't going to analyze and conceive of research over whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. We don't care. We only care what sources say. If the overwhelming weight of the sources say, "It's torture," we report as a fact in the article that its torture, full stop. If a minority fringe viewpoint exists that goes contrary to accepted society consensus, which says its not torture on that line, then we can report that, "But such-and-such person considers it not torture." If the weight of sources we reversed, the situation would be reversed, and we'd say "Its not torture, but such and such says it is." A good comparison might be articles on Intellegient design. They say that ID is not accepted as valid science (because its not, based on the overwhelming volume of sources) but the articles fairly make clear who considers it to be valid. That's all we can do. We will not under any circumstances advance a particular minority viewpoint or the viewpoint of any government over everything else in the article. Lawrence Cohen  17:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you just hit on why you have that wrong. For example, what you're saying would be perfectly true if the question was merely about whether it's intended for water to go into the lungs.  It either does or it doesn't.  The answer (which I won't argue here) should be an objective fact based on medical science and observation.
 * I don't see any of your sources that are factual like that. They are all opinions.  Some are better than others, but they're still opinions.  Add up all the opinions and then you might have a consensus of opinion but that doesn't make it into scientific truth.  In fact, this is exactly why intelligent design meets the fringe category.  Just imagine if somebody found 100 lawyers and politicians to assert that ID is valid science, and see how far that flies.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a contrasting example, and nothing more. Irregardless of anything else, Wikipedia does not report anything that is not sourced, full stop. If all we have are opinions--which isn't the case, and false for you to say, as we also have court decisions listed here, then we go with the overwhelming weight of notable views and opinions. Please provide a weight of sources that indicate waterboarding is not torture, from reliable sources, or else we're just spinning in circles that won't change the fact that per policy we're only going to be saying "waterboarding is torture". I suspect some people have some sort of personal reasoning or external to Wikipedia reasons to want this, but that doesn't have any value for us and thankfully never will. Lawrence Cohen  19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * When have I ever asked for something to be included that it not sourced? I've disputed the relevance of some sources we have here.  I may have also disputed items or suggested a view without mentioning a source but I never thought about adding something for which a source couldn't conceivably be found.
 * I'm sorry if you have something that's not an opinion but I don't see it. As I understand it, court decisions are legal opinions.  For example, the case for evolution lost in the Scopes Trial.  That was merely a legal opinion.  It didn't change the facts of the science of evolution.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This entire runaway thread is based on a false premise, it is OBFUSCATION. Among the methods they found acceptable: "water-boarding,". There is a big difference between acceptable (in some cases) and is or is not torture. Some people are confusing the concepts of Waterboarding {is/is not} torture Vs Waterboarding {is/is not} okay under some circumstances. This confusion has been accidental in some cases, and very deliberate obfuscation in others (certain politicians).


 * There are some interesting points in all this text such touching on the fact that EUCOJ putting the brits use of sensory deprivation on Irish Republicans under "cruel and unusual" as opposed to "torture" however, there is nothing in all this block about a source saying waterboarding is not torture. This thread is as relevant to it's cat "Sources that say it is not torture" as the Uncylopedia entry I have below on Waterboarding in the Gaza Strip, or Santa. This is not a source, it is a debate over nothing. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ding! I've never once talked about whether it's acceptable, just whether it is/isn't torture based on the sources. And Randy, actually, I'm quite aware of what an opinion versus a fact is. However, unless you're prepared to counter every single source listed with evidence and analysis of why the views expressed are not valid for us to use to state that waterboarding is torture, there's nothing else to be done. It is not our decision. We can only report what sources say. If we have essentially one pundit/ex-United States prosecutor saying, "Waterboarding isn't torture," and volumes of other other sources and experts saying it is, where do you suspect that leaves us? Lawrence Cohen  20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not disagreeing with every source. I'm merely saying that every source appears to represent an opinion.  (If I'm wrong then please point to one that isn't.)  The cumulative weight of all these opinions doesn't turn them into a fact.
 * It would be factual to say something like "waterboarding is considered torture by most legal experts.". It is merely expressing an opinion to say "waterboarding is torture."  That could even be a good opinion -- an opinion held for 500 years -- but it's still an opinion.
 * I suggest we look here for guidance: WP:NPOV
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is also, then, by this reasoning, an opinion to state that macaroni is a type of noodle, or that Easter is a type of holiday. Again, you should probably try to change the title of Rack (torture) if you want to so radically redefine the term "torture" Badagnani (talk) 21:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Waterboarding is a type of controlled drowning, that has been long considered a form of torture by numerous experts." ? Lawrence Cohen  21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better. I wouldn't even argue if you used "most experts" but I would prefer we found another term for expert.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. In place of expert, let's use people who know what they are talking about instead —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can Not (talk • contribs) 03:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a SOURCES discussion on two VERY NARROW issues. Sources that say that WB (or a reasonably read torture definition that would cover it) IS, or IS NOT torture. Not a debate, Andrew C. McCarthy and Mary Jo White do not go there at all - they are seeking to cast possible doubt or questions on whether it is not torture - but nothing more. It's all part of the same deliberate US obfuscation tactics I mention above. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Patrick Lee, "Interrogational Torture," The American Journal of Jurisprudence 51 (2006) 143n43: "Whether water-boarding is torture in the proper sense is not clear. It seems to be a very effective practice for obtaining desired information, but it does not seem to cause at least any long-lasting harm. One might at first think that it is an instance of mock execution, but it does not cause the detainee really to think that he will die. One might argue that it does not reduce the detainee to a 'dis-integrated' state, because the process seems to be effective so quickly. It seems to bring about in the individual an almost intolerable feeling of impending harm or even death. On the other hand, one might argue that being in such a state is being in a severely 'dis-integrated' state. If the first argument is correct then I think it is not torture and that it is (in some cases) morally permissible. If the second argument is correct, then it is torture and it is morally wrong. I am not sure which argument is correct." --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Heather MacDonald, "How to Interrogate Terrorists," in Greenberg, ed. The Torture Debate in America (Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 92: "Later, the CIA is said to have used 'water-boarding'--temporarily submerging a detainee in water to induce the sensation of drowning--on Khalid Sheik Mohammmad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Water-boarding is the most extreme method the CIA has applied, according to a former Justice Department attorney, and arguably it crosses the line into torture." (This is in an article that generally defends the Bush administration's interrogation policies, so it's all the more notable that MacDonald is uneasy about waterboarding.) --Akhilleus (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources that assert waterboarding is not torture
Add sources here. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and Joseph Farah, notable conservative pundits; Congressman Ted Poe, a licensed attorney. 209.221.240.193 (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Joseph Farah is widely considered an extremist. -- neon white user page talk 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity count? Thompsontough (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

 * Uncyclopedia. 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. [] Inertia Tensor (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Santa Claus. Though he has not stated it is not torture, there is no record anywhere of him saying waterboarding is torture, on monday, when the trees grow, or when the sun is low. We are still checking whether he said it at other times, and until we can confirm, we should not say waterboarding is torture. Inertia Tensor (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to mock the process. I share your opinion that waterboarding is torture, but I think Lawrence is making sincere efforts to find a consensus and we should respect that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe this is not mocking the process, but (some of) its participants... What Lawrence is doing here is really exemplary. GregorB (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Anyway, if this gets resolved, I will be calling on all participants to push an RfA for Lawrence. Inertia Tensor (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this arguement clearly deserves mocking. Simple logic leads to the direct conclusion that waterboarding is torture. Some group of people WHO ARE USING IT say its not torture. That reeks of bias. We can rely on the US government for laws, but we can't rely on them for facts.--Can Not (talk) 01:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And a group who are not using it are saying that it is; more bias! Relying on the US (or any) government for facts is usually not indicated. htom (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how it could not be torture. Even if it causes no "pain" in the traditional sense, if it is capable of making someone so physically uncomfortable that they will do something against their will, then what is it? It is also true that something like the forced Russian Roulette games in the Deer Hunter were not causing "pain" in the traditional sense, but would that not be considered torture? If the captured American soldiers were being waterboarded by Al-Qaeda, would that be okay? The intellectual dishonesty of not calling it torture astounds me 98.207.98.174 (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead
Okay, I'd like to pick up this hot potato, because I believe there's a rendering (horrible pun kind of intended, sorry) that hasn't been considered, that is more in line with WP:NPOV, and that will serve the reader better all-around. (If this has been considered, my apologies; there is a LOT of history to review, and I may have missed it.)

My reasoning is based on this foundational principle: Wikipedia is not, and should not strive to be, an authority on anything. If there is significant controversy, regardless of how small a minority is represented on one side, Wikipedia's role is clear: do not take sides, but rather provide tools to the reader to understand the sides of the controversy.

So what I would like to see is a lead of the following form. (I am not tied to the exact phrasing.)


 * Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique, classified as a form of torture by most medical and legal experts, that consists of immobilizing a person on their back with the head inclined downward (the Trendelenburg position), and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages.






 * Waterboarding is considered a form of torture unanimously by the medical community, and with near-unanimity by the legal community. Recent American employment of waterboarding has brought this classification under renewed scrutiny, and has caused controversy among American lawmakers and attorneys.

-Pete (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's one problem, in that "regardless of how small a minority is represented on one side" is not accurate to what we do at all. Go edit in that we never landed on the moon, that the US Government knew about the World Trade Center attacks, that the British Royal Family are reptilians, that the Earth may be flat, that abortion may be murder, and that global warming is widely considered "bunk", and see how long the edits stick. All of these positions likely have several thousand supporters at a minimum. Lawrence  §  t / e  19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawrence, the point is, many viewers come to this article because of the controversy. It's not merely a small minority, it's a minority that's presently making a major push to push their POV into the mainstream. Ignoring that fact will not "make it go away;" one advantage of a "living encyclopedia" is that it's possible to present information in a way that takes note of the world it inhabits. This issue is in the news, in the U.S. and elsewhere, on a daily basis. Having the lead fail to acknowledge the very reason for this extensive coverage strikes me as a significant shortcoming. I am not contending that the article should give credence to the view that waterboarding is not torture, but rather that the lead should acknowledge and shed some light on the indisputable fact that there is significant questioning of that classification going on. It's not the size of the minority that matters; yes, it's a tiny minority; but when that tiny minority is in a massively influential political position, that makes its position pretty worthy of note. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a news article. It has been stated many times that there is a only a tiny amount of sources representing a very narrow spectrum. This is still a fringe theory. It doesnt matter how loud the fringe shout. A fringe theory is one that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view. It doesnt matter who it is and what their occupation is. I would highly recommend reading up on WP:NPOV policy and also WP:RECENTISM. Articles are written to be balanced, they are not based on how much the subject is in the news at the current time. -- neon white user page talk 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Neon, I am well familiar with the policy and guideline you cite. The policy is what I believe requires a lead along the lines of what I wrote; I don't believe the guideline applies, and I am in complete agreement with you that WP is not to be confused with a news outlet. When the executive branch of one of the world's foremost and most assertive superpowers challenges the accepted definition, and faces repeated criticism from foreign and domestic entities for that position, that is a highly notable event in the story of waterboarding, worthy of being explored to some degree in the article's lead. The lead section may evolve a bit depending on what the event develops into, but that does not make this a news story. It is to be expected that an article on a certain topic would evolve a bit as the context evolves. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, here's Conservapedia's lead for their waterboarding article (16:54, 11 March 2008):


 * Waterboarding is a controversial method of interrogation which simulates the sensation of drowning. Its use by American forces against terrorism suspects as controversial. Opponents of the practice call it "torture" and on this basis argue that it is illegal. Supporters of the practice acknowedge its coercive nature but say it is not torture and therefore not illegal.


 * Compare to the suggestion:


 * Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique, classified as a form of torture by most experts . . .


 * The Conservapedia lead (and entire Conservapedia article) make it appear that there are two equal and opposing opinions, as does the suggested revision. The body of repeatedly cited evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I adjusted my proposed lead to eliminate the misleading word "most." The important issue, I believe, is that the present version does not acknowledge the basic fact that it is by virtue of human judgment that waterboarding is considered torture. That a circle is round, or that a man walked on the moon, or that a tree fell in the forst are a priori truths that have nothing to do with human judgment; the fact that waterboarding is torture (which I don't dispute) has a different basis: the classification that humans give to it. The fact is under continuous questioning, which is one of the chief things that will bring readers to this article. To fail to acknowledge that insults the reader's intelligence.

There are essentially two things I proposed to fix this: (1) change the lead sentence, and (2) change the content of the lead section. Can I request that future commenters state specifically which they're commenting on? Thanks, -Pete (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reasons this was opposed three months ago, two months ago, and one month ago. Are people not reading the discussion archives? There are only four notable individuals (one actually not particularly notable) who have stated publicly their belief that this practice is not a form of torture. They are mentioned in the article. The practice is torture by definition, and their fringe point of view does not get to actually change the well-understood definition of this practice of suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner by the use of water. Badagnani (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not voting (WP:NPOV is non-negotiable, leave alone outrankable by a vote) – I do think Pete's approach has much to say for it. I don't think the conservapedia straw man argument has any merits. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like Pete's approach for the first sentence. As Badagnani states, and as I've said in a post just above, we don't have evidence of prominent adherents saying that waterboarding isn't torture.
 * The Bush administration has never stated officially that they believe waterboarding isn't torture. The closest we get is Cheney's statement about a "dunk in the water." But the Attorney General's refusal to answer the question is more typical. I don't think the administration is seriously questioning whether waterboarding is torture; it's muddying the waters so that it won't have to acknowledge that the U.S. has tortured people in the recent past and reserves the right to do so in the future.
 * However, if even President Bush were to state clearly that he thinks waterboarding isn't torture, I would still oppose changing the lead sentence, because we have a huge number of sources, many of which are of high quality, that say that waterboarding is torture. NPOV requires us to report what the sources say, and thus NPOV requires us to say that waterboarding is torture.
 * As Pete points out, most readers will be coming to this article because of the current political controversy in the U.S., and the article needs to cover that. But one aspect of the controversy is that there isn't significant questioning of waterboarding's status as torture--at least, not outside the world of cable news and right-wing blogs. For instance, when I did a Lexis-Nexis search of legal review articles, I found not a single article that said that waterboarding isn't torture--I did find one that wasn't certain whether it was or not, but the argument that "maybe it is, maybe it isn't" is quite weak. As I've said before, I think an analogy here is global warming--among experts, there is near-unanimity that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, but because of political controversy and poor reporting in the media, many people believe that expert opinion is divided. With waterboarding, there is a robust consensus among experts (represented by the sources listed on this page, and more could be found) that it's torture, but because of political controversy, many people believe that its classification is under question. And yet so far I haven't found even a single prominent expert who will say that it's not torture.
 * I would be open to covering the U.S.' use of waterboarding and the ensuing political controversy in the lead, but I don't favor Pete's verison of the opening sentence. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm not tied to the phrasing I used, but I do think there is need for some improvement. I think I have found the right word for my concern: I would like to see more transparency regarding why waterboarding is torture. No amount of parsing could change the fact that a circle is round, so such a claim would not need explanation in the circle article. But when numerous prominent people deny or simply decline to assert that waterboarding is torture, it becomes important to the introduction of the subject to expose why it is torture. In a transparent manner, not a blindly assertive statement. -Pete (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This can easily become dangerously close to WP:OR. The normal way would be to cite reliable sources - e.g. the JAG letter, the Physicians report, and one of the many law journal articles, to give a good spread while avoiding to overdo things. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were true -- and I don't think it is -- then the existing opening sentence itself, stating that waterboarding is torture, would itself be original research. If we cannot state why an assertion is true without conducting original research, then we cannot make the assertion. -Pete (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. We do have reliable sources that say that waterboarding is torture, and we do reflect those sources. If we want to explain why it is torture, we need to find reliable sources that give us this explanation - we cannot make one up ourselves (and I find it deeply depressing that there is a need to explain why the slow, deliberate suffocation of a helpless prisoner is torture). It's quite possible that several sources exist, but so far we have not looked at them with this intention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This source is the most detailed medical discription of waterboarding as torture. Have a look in there and i'm sure you'll find info that would not be OR.  ( Hypnosadist )  20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - See torture, as well as the sources linked at the top of this page. The suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner on his or her back, by pouring water over his or her mouth and nose, is torture by definition (as acknowledged by the U.S. military, all branches of which court martial individuals who practice it). Those few American individuals equivocating on such a definition are likely doing so because they wish to avoid liability for having done it. Badagnani (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Badagnani, I can see no liability for waterboarding that I would face. What if the prisoner is not suffocated, only tricked into the panic that suffocation would produce? htom (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Badagnani, I in no way dispute your point, but it has no bearing on mine. In fact, simply including what you say in the lead would address my concern completely (though it would likely bring up other concerns, I'm not saying it's a viable alternative.) -Pete (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think there are people here for changing the opening line as soon as someone gives us at least one credible MEDICAL source, that says water boarding IS NOT TORTURE. Legal sources do not count, and medical sources that say it may not be torture do not count. I am asking for just one source, thanks. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Legal sources do not count ... This confuses me. Does this imply that if there is one credible MEDICAL source that says waterboarding is not torture that that trumps the large body of legal opinion that waterboarding is torture (including the US Military itself and the precedent of legal prosecution for doing waterboarding)? I see both legal and medical opinion as being complementary. I am honestly getting confused at this turn towards examining medical definitions of torture. Truly, just confused. This isn't a challenge to your stance, rather, I think you're expressing the stance of others vis a vis medical vs. legal definitions. -- Quartermaster (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Legal sources don't actually need to have verifiable facts that waterboarding is/not torture. If for example if a country had a bill passed that stated waterboarding is offically not torture than legally its not torture. If you review the torture article all the points that discribe what torture is have a medical basis. Legal experts can't verify these medical characteristics of what torture is so I don't consider them WP:VERIFY. Also I don't consider legal experts to be WP:NPOV because the people in power of where the legal experts are weighting in about may be able to declare it is/isn't torture without any facts. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is a wikipedia policy that makes sure articles are written in a non-biased way. It doesn't apply to source articles because we do not edit those. -- neon white user page talk 16:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:RELIABLE is a wikipedia policy that requires us to use sources that back their argument with facts. In this case the facts would be medical evidence. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Or rather in my opinion, the only way to determine which sources are reliable are to examine the facts that are presented with the sources. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Give me a WP:RELIABLE source that says it may not be torture/is not torture and we can talk about changing the lead. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Firstly WP:RS is not a policy it is a guideline. The policy on sources is WP:V, it does not require 'sources that back their argument with facts'. Verifiability means that the info is cited from a reliable source. The reliability of a source is largely based on reputation for fact checking and accuracy within a publication. It certainly is not based on whether we think the source is correct or not. There are a handful of reliable sources that report that certain politians have stated views contrary to the mainstream status as torture, however they only represent a fringe view.  -- neon white  user page talk 16:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Neon thanks for the correction about WP:V. I think the policy is stupid, but I now understand why people were collection sources that say its torture to suport that it not torture is a fringe view. Can you point out which politians state against the mainsteam view, thanks. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Quartermaster, I just ment that there is no argument without a medical source that says it is not torture. All the legal experts that say waterboarding is torture is based on medical evidence. All the legal experts that says waterboarding may not be torture/is not torture, becasue they say so. This argument has been presented by several people. The torture debate is purley medical and not legal. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification of your point. I'm not sure I agree with it. The fact that the term torture occurs in so many legal documents (and we can debate about specific documents) indicates to me that there is an undeniable legal aspect to torture. Medical terms and definitions may come into play in a legal setting, but the legal setting would take precedence. Additionally, medical definitions are as fungible as legal definitions. Especially when you're talking about something like pain. A medical definition of torture that utilizes the term pain is a definition with inherent ambiguity. I can see that medical definitions of torture clarify the issue, but I don't think that such definitions are necessary and sufficient conditions to ignore the legal wangling. I'll state again that legal and medical issues appear to be intertwined when it comes to torture. -- Quartermaster (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "I'll state again that legal and medical issues appear to be intertwined when it comes to torture" I agree, but medical opinion applies to all humans every where/when but legal opinion is tied to the laws of one place at a given time. So this is why i think medical sources should be given primacy. Also pain is not all that is mentioned, long term mental harm such as PTSD and hydrophobia has been studied and noted as an effect of waterboarding. ( Hypnosadist )  14:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Policy says we represent all views with due weight. -- neon white user page talk 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many people seem to be misunderstanding my concern. I will step back from this. I have repeatedly explained that I am in no way suggesting that waterboarding is not torture. My interpretation is that this topic is too sensitive in the wake of the recent disruptive edits, and that a kind of rigidity has set in that is not healthy to the development of the article. This is fine, I'm sure this will pass. I've cast my !vote opposing this article's promotion to FA. I still think it's a high quality article in many respects, but the present difficulty of good faith collaboration is holding this article back from presenting a suitable overview of the subject to the uninformed reader. Thanks Francis and Akhilleus for taking my comments in the spirit in which they were intended. -Pete (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not neutral and adversarial
Who is responsible for complaints about neutrality? This is not correct or right and puts American lives and interests in danger. If USA government people are held liable for their actions, men women and children could DIE. Why am I not allowed to fix errors? This is a site hosted in the US, and needs to be held accountable for risking LIVES. What page here handles complaints to the Wikimedia people? I wish to notify State about this so they can follow up with the people who are legally responsible for this attack. 12.197.217.242 (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. -- neon white user page talk 16:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The General Council of the Wikimedia foundation is Mike Godwin, here as User:Mikegodwin. For more contact information see . Yes, I agree that waterboarding (as well as extralegal "rendition" or keeping prisoners without charge or legal council) puts American lives and interests in danger, due to the large amounts of hatred and ill will it generates, as well as by serving as an example to other countries in showing a general disdain for human rights and international law. However, issuing legal threats against Wikimedia is not going to help. We are doing the best for a neutral description of the issue anyways. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
My question is, if it's not interrogation, as consensus on this page seems to have decided, why would the CIA bother with it? I thought the purpose was to extract information, and even waterboardings fiercest critics have not, to my knowledge, alleged it was done just to be cruel and for no other reason. Right or wrong, wasn't it done to extract information, and doesn't that make it an interrogation technique? Thanks. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The CIA is not the only historical user of waterboarding. The Khmer Rouge used it to extract confessions, not information. In US prisons, similar techniques were used as punishment. Your question is akin to "if a hammer is not building material, why is the carpenter bothering with it?" Waterboarding is a form of torture, and it can be used for much the same purposes as other forms of torture - extortion, interrogation, intimidation, punishment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh, that makes sense. At minimum, I think the wording you had put up calling it a form of torture should be used as it is not always as you explained. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Read the torture article. For the most part the purpose of torture is to extract information. The other rare uses would be for the joy of torturing someone. But in general, torture is an interrogation technique. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that is incorrect, as many sources have said, information gained from torture is inaccurate and largely worthless. It's purpose is always been largely political rather than for intelligence. -- neon white user page talk 19:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with "information gained from torture is inaccurate and largely worthless". I never said it was an effective interrogation technique. But I still believe its mostly used to extract information. Forcing someone to say something true or not, accurate or not, is irrelevant this still makes it an interrogation technique . -CrazyivanMA (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (EC) Well, information gained from a subject during torture should not be considered to be reliable. It can be evaluated, though, and may lead to useful information. However, other subjects may be more willing to disclose information if they know -- or imagine -- that one of their fellows has been tortured, or might be tortured. As well, after the torture, the subject may be more inclined to talk. Whether or not these subjects actually have information that is worthy of protecting is another question. Interrogation is primarily a mind game, only slightly a physical process. htom (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When you state I still believe its mostly used to extract information I have to point out (as neutrally as possible and I don't always succeed but I'm trying) you are stating an assertion and an opinion. Mind you, that isn't a hanging offense, but in wikipedia land it should require some documentation and backup (i.e., stating why you believe it's mostly used to extract information - please share your sources that lead you to that conclusion). Should you find documentation to support your belief I urge you to bring it up for scrutiny herein. We could then discuss the authoritativeness and veracity of a specific cited source, rather than haggling over countering beliefs. I'll say that the STATED reason for torture (stated by the torturing authority) is ALWAYS for interrogation. To torture for any other reason would be redundantly cruel and inhumane. -- Quartermaster (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm lazy I don't want to look for documentation. I prefer to have people come up with documentation against what I say. For water boarding during the Spanish Inquisition, getting people to confess to their sins is extracting information, therefor an interrogation technique. Getting a political prisoner to lie on camera for proper gander purposes is still a form of extracting information, therefor an interrogation technique. Torturing someone as a punishment I would argue is corporal punishment. And torturing someone for shits and giggles is not using it as an interrogation technique. For based on these united facts I would say "I still believe its mostly used to extract information". It shouldn't be hard to find sources for these, I'm just don't see a necessity to cite sources people are aware are out there. I would only cite obscure sources needed to prove my point. -CrazyivanMA (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Spanish Inquisition, and most fascism regimes that have used it, did not use it primarily to gain information. The used it to create the climate of fear necessary to maintain their ideals. It was never used to interrogate. Propaganda is in no way related to military intelligence. -- neon white user page talk 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

On this note, a section on the history of waterboarding as both interrogation and torture could be a very good idea. Given our absurdly massive pool of sources (I want to go through them again and sort them someday soon) we could easily get 1-3 paragraphs on this. Lawrence §  t / e  21:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's highly implausible to suggest that the technique was not used for both purposes during both periods. Badagnani (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's why I think a section like this could be quite an interesting and dynamic read, if put together. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Is/isn't torture?
The fact that there is even a discussion of whether it is or is not torture says that a truly neutral POV would not assert that it is. Maintaining a neutral tone is not about using resources as method to vote on what is true. If even one credible source says something is, it does not matter how many say it is not. Being neutral means you must accept all credible sources and write an article that either does not contradict any credible point of view or gives an unbiased appraisal of the varying points of view.

Asserting the waterboarding is torture in the opening paragraph asserts than any other POV is wrong, regardless of credibility. It is most certainly not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termyt (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Waterboarding (the suffocation of a bound, inclined prisoner by means of water) is torture by definition. Badagnani (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See? My statement was not even about waterboarding at all. I can see by the long history that neutrality does not really matter as much as getting one's point across no matter the cost.  If we want to talk about "by definition" then you are even further from neutral unless you can supply a complete, unabridged, and universally accepted definition of torture.  Torture is a very old word that today is used more to invoke emotion than convey a definable concept.  To apply waterboarding to it by definition is to allow any incarceration be defined as torture "by definition."  Termyt (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your statement was not about waterboarding? What was it about, then? I also don't see how you go from waterboarding (a torture technique used for centuries and considered as such or centuries) to "any form of incarceration". Anyways, while I agree with Badagnani on the definition issue, that is not what this article is based on. It is based on a huge number of reliable sources claiming so, and no single remotely comparable source denying it. If you can bring "even one credible source", we can start debating. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (additional reply) There has been extensive discussions on this topic over several months, and the consensus view is that according to the sources that exists, the phrase "waterboarding is a form of torture" is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources. For further details on how this conclusion was reached, I refer you to the discussion archives. henrik  • talk  20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Posting the content you did, on the discussion area of the Waterboarding article, and discussing the core issue discussed on this page for the past 6-7 months... it might be expected to assume you were talking about waterboarding, based on those factors. Lawrence  §  t / e  20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I also took the phrase "Asserting the waterboarding is torture..." as a hint... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not. It was about neutrality in an article about waterboarding.  I said "asserting that it is" because that's what the article says.  If the article said it was not, I would have said "asserting that it is not."  I consider myself to be capable of writing what I mean, so please read my words instead of assuming my position.  I agree that it is torture, but that's my opinion.  I've read a lot of the discussion now and I see NPOV is whatever a majority of people think is NPOV.  Sorry for the OP.  Termyt (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What next? (3-6 month view)
Might as well toss this out, as it's been fantastically quiet on this article for the most part since certain parties were asked politely to move on. Whats our next goal with this article? Babysit it? Build it up? Build it out laterally into some forked article? Rather than a big old dissertation from each of us on what we want and why, how about just a short summary of what each of us could want to see in the next 3-6 months here. I'll go first: Good Article status, to start. Lawrence §  t / e  20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I vote GA too. I would like to get it up to FA, but I am afraid that may still be impossible with such a hot button issue. Remember (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think another go at FA status would be worth it. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it, nice to see that something constructive is going on here, though the IPs are back again.Inertia Tensor (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How about fixing the article first. Take out the redundant refs from the intro. Anything found there should also be found and elaborated upon in the body, which is where the references belong. Fix the references and use appropriate templates. Fix the grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Balance the article; far too much discussion is centered around America and their sensibilities. Expand on tiny sections; two sentences does someone hardly any good. Remove unnecessary use of quote templates, and follow other style guidelines.


 * After that, I think it would be appropriate to consider GA. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)