Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Torture/archive1

Extended comments by Ovinus
Sorry for the wall of comments and suggestions. I'd usually oppose, but that seems a bit unfair given I opined at the peer review, and I don't think my concerns are insurmountable. I'll probably move this to talk since there's more than I was expecting. Ovinus (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "Torturers often operate in a permissive organizational environment that facilitates and encourages their behavior." Hm. What is an "organizational environment" and how is it more specific than just "environment"?
 * Rephrased
 * "shown general opposition to torture" I know the article is confined to torture by the state, but for a statement referring to public opinion I'd like to see that explicitly stated—i.e., the public is being surveyed on state-sponsored torture, rather than a general definition. Maybe "shown general opposition to state-sponsored torture", that's pretty concise
 * The cited sources are analyses combining different studies. I imagine that the exact survey questions differ, but a lot of surveys are asking specifically about government programs.
 * Sounds good.
 * Parenthetical definition of tortura should probably be put in a footnote, but that's up to you. It's just a bit long
 * Done
 * "over time, more actions have been considered torture" A bit wonky; is this referring to severity, methods of torture (e.g., certain psychological methods), or both? Does "its interpretation has (generally) broadened over time" work?
 * Sources aren't 100% explicit, but I believe the answer is both. Went with your suggestion.
 * "purposive approach" – if this is a well-known term maybe italicize? I didn't know the word "purposive" though, so maybe that's just me
 * Rephrased to avoid 5 dollar words
 * "the purpose for which it is applied" verbose; how about just "the perpetrator's intent"?
 * I think that would be confusing because here the key point is about the purpose of the torture, not the intent to torture someone. Rephrased
 * "although some historians make a distinction between torture and painful punishments" A bit vague; is this hedge necessary?
 * Not intended to be a hedge but rather an explanation why more information about capital punishment is not found here (it's not included in the cited sources).
 * Makes sense
 * "under exceptional circumstances for a serious crime" Probably put "and" between circumstances and for, iff that's what you mean
 * Done
 * "Torture was still an expensive and labor-intensive process" – Not trying to be facetious, but what made torture expensive?
 * Removed since the cited source says this about both torture and capital punishment, but only details why the latter was expensive.
 * "Islamic law has traditionally considered" – Are qadis' interpretations varying enough to say "traditionally", instead of "considers"
 * Cited source just says "traditional Islamic law considered confessions made under torture to be invalid". I checked out the relevant chapter in Sharia Law In The Twenty-first Century especially p. 157 suggests it's possible there are alternate views.
 * Ah, okay.
 * "During the seventeenth century, torture remained legal" In Europe? I think you clarify this later but I'd say it in the first sentence, just to make it clear
 * Done
 * "A 2016 study examining 16 countries since 1985 found that torture had declined in all of them" – Countries sampled from around the world? Do the authors elucidate any rationale for their choice of countries? I wouldn't be opposed to putting the countries surveyed in a footnote (although there's quite a few... so maybe not) but I would like to know a bit more.
 * "The authors argue that torture has probably decreased in many countries, although it has worsened in some other countries" Very vague, like the previous point. Also, the first clause is essentially redundant with the previous sentence. Maybe expand the second part of their argument?
 * I ended up removing these sentences because the researchers just state, "we believe it is reasonable to conclude that a general decline in the incidence of torture has probably occurred beyond the 16 countries studied", which seems a bit too tentative to merit inclusion. They tried to pick countries with geographical and political diversity, but had to exclude those where it wasn't safe for researchers to operate.
 * Cool.
 * "Available estimates underrepresent torture because they do not include people who are unwilling to report" – Hm. I don't really understand why this is the case; are there no estimates with other methodologies? For example, surely there's been extensive study on the torture during the Algerian war of independence. Unless it's truly an absolute (perhaps it is), I'd say "most available", or clarify "Available current/modern estimates"
 * Rewritten
 * "Although some studies have found that men are more likely to face torture than women, other studies have found that both suffer torture at equal rates" Again, fairly vague. Are there any "meta-analysis"-type studies on this topic? If not, did the studies focus on different groups? (I don't think mentioning that would constitute inappropriate SYNTH)
 * The paper cited is the only one I can find that compares different studies, which as stated have found contradictory results, possibly due to different study populations or different methodology. They state that there is a "long-standing assumption in the field that women are less likely than men to experience torture", which seems more relevant to mention than the details of individual studies.
 * Ah okay. I didn't realize it was longitudinal. So to be clear, there are studies—not just educated guesses or assumptions—which show that women are less likely to experience torture?
 * Yes, for example "in a community sample of 1, 134 East Africans living in Minnesota, women were tortured as often as men." "Higson-Smith et al (2010) in their study found that men experienced higher levels of traumatic events and were more likely to have experienced torture"
 * "Homeless Indians under the Howrah Bridge in Kolkata. Poor and marginalized people are at increased risk of torture." – I don't know if this image really belongs. It exemplifies "poor and marginalized people", but unless these people were actually tortured, it seems like more of an emotional appeal than an illustrative example of torture, vs. abject poverty
 * Replaced
 * Ugh... I'd really like examples and/or numbers in Prevalence, but NPOV is damn hard. Even a map with those sixteen countries from the aforementioned study would be nice. I'll keep it on the backburner as I continue reading.
 * As noted, it's an issue quite difficult to quantify.
 * Yeah. I think you've done the best that our article can do
 * "Torture is directed against certain segments of the population, who are denied the protection against torture that others enjoy" Is this not a tautology? I'd probably remove
 * Not a tautology, multiple sources emphasize that some people are exempt from torture while others are vulnerable to it
 * "Relative poverty and the resulting inequality" Is this any more specific and/or helpful than "socioeconomic inequality"?
 * The study specifically says that relative poverty is a greater risk than absolute poverty.
 * "Psychiatrist Pau Pérez-Sales finds" Finds... from interviews with perpetrators? Or are they opining without examining anyone?
 * He is experienced in treating torture survivors, and his book is fulled with citations of research and firsthand accounts.
 * Oh good.
 * "weak or unmanly" – How emphasized is masculinity in the source? The word "unmanly" is a bit vague due to its colloquial use; I'd say "unmasculine" (if that's a word) or "not masculine"
 * Specifically, Rejali cites "competitive masculinity: 'real men torture; and the rest of you are sissies.'" I don't know what colloquial use you're referring to and "competitive masculinity" seems more difficult to understand than what I currently have.
 * Interesting, maybe I haven't understood the word "unmanly" properly; I've never heard it in a formal context. I disagree that "competitive masculinity" is more confusing than "unmanly", and in fact it's more specific. (Fwiw, my roommate thinks it's informal.)
 * Rephrased
 * "Maintaining secrecy and keeping abuses hidden from the public" Same thing? How about remove "and keeping abuses hidden"
 * Done
 * "torture is fueled by moral disengagement from the victims and impunity for the perpetrators" Wdym by fueled? A more precise and less flowery verb would be preferable
 * Done
 * "beyond what is originally intended or desired by decision-makers" Is this a necessary clarification?
 * Yes, it's emphasized in several sources that a relevant aspect of torture is that it's difficult to control and contain.
 * "apprehend young men" Why are we singling out young men here?
 * Removed
 * Is being hanged, drawn, and quartered a relevant entry in Punishment? Or was that rare
 * Capital punishment (not always considered torture) is already discussed as well as gruesome methods of execution.
 * "Many authoritarian regimes choose indiscriminate repression because they cannot accurately identify potential opponents" Wdym by "repression"? Seems vague and mostly irrelevant
 * They use indiscriminate violence including torture in an attempt to repress the opposition
 * "Some armed groups use violence" Violence, or torture? (Or is the classification controversial)
 * Link "widespread rape" to mass rape
 * I ended up removing this sentence
 * "Many insurgencies lack the necessary infrastructure for a torture program and instead intimidate by killing" – Relevant?
 * Yes, because it explains why there is less torture by insurgents than the government.
 * Example of waterboarding in "Confession"?
 * The picture is an example of interrogation so it belongs in that section.
 * How much of a false balance would it be to include arguments which support torture? I suppose there is an "implicit" argument in the fact that it's used by governments, and you do have the "ticking time bomb" thing. I'm sure it's essentially nonexistent among scholars, but for such a broad topic I don't think it's fair to ignore arguments made by government officials simply because they are government officials. Indeed, the "although torture sometimes has obtained actionable intelligence" needs expansion, if possible.
 * The issue here is that most of the pro-torture arguments relate to interrogation torture only, which is less common than the other kinds. No one is arguing for the use of torture to force someone to falsely confess to a crime, although it is more common in practice. Detailed arguments that about the validity of this particular type of torture belong on the interrogational torture article, but not here.
 * Understood, and I agree.
 * "The ticking time bomb scenario is extremely rare, if not impossible in the real world" Why is "in the real world" needed
 * Removed, although it is commonly cited in thought experiments about torture.
 * "In some countries, political opponents are tortured to force them to confess publicly as a form of state propaganda" Maybe North Korea's torture of US citizens as an example? Although "political opponents" is a bit of a stretch there. Anyway, that example probably fits in this section in general
 * Examples here were removed per comments at the FAC because the cited source only mentions 20th century events. We don't know if Warmbier was tortured.
 * "have fueled misconceptions that justify the use of torture" This deserves expansion to a sentence or two. What false conceptions are often held, and (maybe) by whom? Does the source elucidate that info?
 * I don't want to expand this section as it would give undue weight to interrogational torture. The main misconception, as stated already, is that torture is a highly effective interrogation method, and it is propagated in various fictional works popular in the Western world.
 * "As they faced more pressure and scrutiny, democracies led the innovation in torture practices" – Er... extremely vague. Why democracies? When exactly?
 * Clarified timeline. Democracies are more transparent and subject to public pressure than autocracies, for reasons that I'm not sure it makes sense to spell out.
 * "Psychological interventions have shown a statistically significant but clinically minor decrease in PTSD symptoms" Is this poor efficacy contrastable with more effective treatment of PTSD that is caused by different experiences (war, rape, etc.)? Or is severe PTSD generally clinically intractable, independent of its origin from torture?
 * I have not seen any such comparison in MEDRS sources, so I'm afraid it would be original research.
 * "erodes professional competence" – No kidding... but this seems fairly vague. Considering you clarify in the next sentence, I'd probably remove.
 * Done
 * "inaccurate beliefs about the effectiveness of torture" Similar to the "misconceptions" bit above, so if that point is addressed then cool, but if not in that section, then here works too
 * The authors of the study cite various "biased beliefs": "The belief in a ticking time bomb scenario", "The belief that torture is effective", and "The belief that one’s group is good" (this is already covered under Social dominance orientation, I guess). I've rephrased.
 * "public support for torture against certain groups" – So... the public does support torture against these groups? In which countries?
 * "In the case of the general public, there may be pressure to find and charge those responsible for crimes and to punish people that publics feel ought to be punished. In our research in both Nepal and Sri Lanka, security sector personnel and representatives of civil society organizations told us that it is not solely police, but also members of the general public who believe that torture ought to be used in some instances and may even demand its use." Since it's not based on opinion polling, I've moved it to the perpetration section.
 * "Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which was widely condemned" I'd suggest removing the latter phrase, since you immediately discuss its condemnation and reaction in the next sentence
 * Done
 * Plenty of stuff on torture in intl. law, but do any countries or unions of countries have their own laws addressing torture?
 * Yes (for example, the European, American, and African human rights systems all forbid it), but I don't think it's WP:DUE. Discussing every country's law would take a lot of space and individual countries' laws against torture in practice have little effect.
 * Is it undue weight to have a single sentence stating that there do exist more national and/or local torture laws? I think it's relevant
 * I think it's already covered? "The CAT specifies that torture must be a criminal offense" Clarified that this refers to national law
 * Have there been any other (major) international cases against torture since the Greek case worth mentioning?
 * There have been many cases, but I worry about WP:UNDUE.
 * "Because legal provisions may not be applied in practice, procedures actually implemented correlate much better with the incidence of torture than legal rights" Er... this is just saying that the law has to be enforced? Probably rephrase to "In the absence of enforcement of legal procedures, the establishment of legal rights alone is not as effective at reducing torture", something like that
 * Rephrased
 * Thank you so much for all these comments; I'm sure they will greatly improve the article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A few remaining responses above. One other thing: should "ticking time bomb" be put in quotes? Or is it common enough to not need them? Ovinus (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would come across as scare quotes, which are not allowed per MOS. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. Read through most of the article again, and I think I'm happy with it. Will support. Ovinus (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)