Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uses of torture in recent times


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Uses of torture in recent times

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is inherently WP:POV and can never be WP:NPOV - this is the type of article that would have an NPOV and cleanup tag forever since much of this data is at the level of pure allegation. My suggestion is that the article be deleted and whatever relevant information is there about each country be taken to that country's article on human rights, and anything else to articles on torture, which I think is unnecessary since the information is just a rehash of info from other Wikipedia articles. Khorshid 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment where have you found that WP:NPOV is reason to delete? Also, could you eleborate on what you consider POV, especially with those notorious unreliable and biased sources as HRW, AI, WaPO, The Telegraph, et cetera. The article was started in Nov 2004. Strange this sudden and poorly substantiated AfD. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 19:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:DELETE - this article is not in any shape or form encyclopedic. It is inherently POV can never be neutral - please also read WP:NPOV. Furthermore, HRW, Amnesty, and other such groups are not in any way "neutral" or unbiased - on the contrary, they are political action groups like any other, often relying on second and third-person accounts which cannot be verified. Like I said, country-specific items can be taken to the respective human rights articles for those countries. An article simply listing uses of torture in various countries can never be neutral. Khorshid 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore there is no conspiracy or "cabal" at work here so don't start with that nonsense please. Khorshid 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly advocating human rights is not equal to being biased. HRW, AI and others do not limit their comments to one country. Since they respond to every instance of human rights abuse the suggested POV sounds hollow. Also, you failed to explain the bias of WaPo, Telegraph, et cetera. Could you explain the cabal logic? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton


 * Delete, pending further checks . I find it troubling that the article makes claims of torture in some places without proper citations (or any for that matter). These are extremely serious accusations that must be backed up by rock-solid references. Wikipedia is not a blog and alleging torture without double- and tripple-checking one's sources (which must obviously be provided) is bordering on defamation. In any case, it's not appropriate. -- Seed 2.0 19:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did some more research (particularly relating to the non-US sections) and I'm afraid I'll have to stick with my original vote on this one. WP:NPOV is a huge problem here and it's likely to stay that way. Accusations of this magnitude must be backed up by serious, confirmable sources, every step of the way. In addition to that, I would like to point out that Wikipedia articles are not a place to voice one's opinion (and articles are not essays) - there are plenty of places on the Internet to do that but this Wiki's mainspace isn't one of them. -- Seed 2.0 21:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not sure this could ever be encyclopedic. Arkon 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Divide the article into Torture and Foo articles, it is a valid subject country-by-country because there is no indication that one country's practice is based on or relies on anothers. There is an article Torture and the United States and so we can take whatever's sourced and put it separate articles. The collection just seems to muddle the facts. Carlossuarez46 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The topic discussed is clearly encyclopedic, contains a great deal of well-sourced content (and some which badly needs sourcing), and is verifiable in principle.  There seems to be a major problem with the structure, insofar as the country-by-country structure keeps the article consistently too long.  Torture in, and torture and foo articles would be a big help.  However, I have to add that there are major patterns of regional use of torture (for example in the Warsaw pact and Operation Condor countries historically).  Several early sections of this article could be retained together with an attempt at a global summary.  See, for comparison, Use of capital punishment by nation. We could also have a productive conversation (on talk, not here) about how to clearly and concisely represent different types of sources: conclusions of judicial review and governmental inquiries, human rights documentation, refugee reports, medical documentation, press reports, etc. Of course, NPOV and sourcing concerns should be taken up in the article itself.--Carwil 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. FYI, here are the unsourced statements I found:
 * In 2002, in Cologne, Germany, a history of physical torture at Eigelstein police station only came to light because the victim died, and a post-mortem examination unearthed the facts.
 * Under Enver Hoxha's Communist dictatorship, torture was widely used.
 * The government headed by Baathist Saddam Hussein made extensive use of torture, including at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.
 * Israel has used "moderate physical pressure" on terrorist suspects defined as "ticking bombs" for their knowledge of imminent terrorist attacks against civilians which the information they possessed had the power to prevent, at least since the 1970s. In 1987 the Israeli Supreme Court formed a special commission headed by retired Justice Moshe Landau, to review the whole question of physical pressure during investigations of this kind. In their report they reinforced the criteria for the use of "moderate physical pressure".
 * Russian army is believed to use torture extensively in Chechnya and the surrounding districts, as investigative tool, and as a deterrent/punishment for captured fighters.
 * Torture was widely practiced in the Soviet Union prior to its transformation to a federation in the 1980s, to extract confessions from suspects, especially in case of alleged plots against the security of the state or alleged collaboration with "imperialist powers".
 * Note I'm not the author of the comment above but I'd like to add that I am concerned about some these sources being cited out of context. As I mentioned above, serious alligations warrant serious research and serious sources. Some of these sources are a tab bit outdated and some are less than objective. -- Seed 2.0 22:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per Carwil. --Rayis 23:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is very important and notable human rights issue. Having POV label is not a reason for deletion but for improvement. Proper "pro" and "contra" can be provided. Unsourced statements can be removed, in agreement with existing policies.Biophys 03:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * keep nom gives no valid reason for deletion & topic is obviously encylopedic in its own right so shldn't be dispersed among 'human rights' articles. query splitting, uneeded until article is too long & as it stands, gives a comparative overview. &rArr; bsnowball  11:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, no valid arguments presented for deletion. Clean-up maybe, but deletion? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 13:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was thinking about that as well but I don't think cleanup is the way to go here for two reasons. Number 1: A lot of the material has a certain bias, which is fine. Balancing that bias (encyclopedias deal with facts, not opinions) is a 	Sisyphean task and, therefore, I don't forsee the cleanup tag ever coming off. Number 2: There are some good parts but the article itself is in need of a neutral rewrite (I'll admit that the line between a major, major cleanup and a rewrite is somewhat blurry and more of a technicality, ie. delete and rewrite vs. keep and cleanup). If this article is kept, it's only appropriate to mark the parts that need reliable sources since we (I think) can all agree that the article isn't exactly FA-material at this point. I think it would be easier to just wipe the slate clean and rewrite the article (using the good parts, of course and replacing the bad parts with something that isn't pushing a point). -- Seed 2.0 10:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Article could be cleaned up, but it should not be deleted. This is a serious subject and it hsouldn't be deleted just because it is difficult to present it objectively.--Darth Borehd 01:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sorry but I strongly disagree with your second point. In fact, I believe it is the other way around. It is a serious subject and making allegations of torture is extremely serious indeed. Therefore, at least a best-effort to reliably source every single claim must be made. And, frankly, I don't see this here at all. Without reliable cites, the unsourced parts are plain and simple in violation of WP:NPOV and since this is true of large portions of the article, it could make the entire thing unencyclopedic. -- Seed 2.0 10:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Important and quite wikipedic. Verifiability is a big challenge, but human rights organisations such as Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch may provide respectable (if not infallible) sources. Stammer 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete -- Impossible context. There is no way to tackle torture worldwide in an article. It can't be balanced because it is always looking down from on high to specific locales. I would suggest a list in place of an article. Make a list of allegations of torture by locality, with links to articles (contexts) in which this can be addressed in a balanced way. Bus stop 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete- reads more like a current events article than an encyclopedic one. very POV... even if I agree with some of the POV.--Dr who1975 20:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.