Talk:Waterboarding/Definition

I am not arguing that the article should say that waterboarding is not torture. I am arguing that the article should not conclude that it is torture. It should say that the sense of its being torture is disputed.

Here are evidences that the matter is disputed:

1. BBC] outlined, basically the same arguments that have been used on the talk page and ended its news story with the title: :"Debate goes on". It asserts that the debate is not over. I allege that debate and dispute are co-equivalent terms for our purposes here and so we have a reliable source that describes the dispute -- specifically with the intent of not deciding whether waterboarding is torture but to examine whether there is a dispute.

2. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not uniform -- hence disputed).

3. Also in the same article: "Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that ... he could not answer ... whether the technique amounts to torture." This indicates DOUBT that it is torture (depending upon circumstances) in his mind.

4. A 'Tortured' Debate The Wall Street Journal denies that it is torture saying, "No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee." The important thing here is not whether it is or is not torture but that the Wall Street Journal directly DISPUTES with those who say it is.

5. Detainee takes torture debate to court This article declares that the distinction of what is and what is not torture has not been decided: We don't have any case law since 9/11 to give us guidance as to what techniques fall above or below the line of what constitutes torture or ill treatment or cruel or unusual or degrading treatment, said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey F. Addicott, a law professor and director of the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University in San Antonio, Texas. Waterboarding is one of the techniques under question here. This outlines a new unsettled dispute: Legal decisions in the US Courts which have not yet visited this issue.

6. Republican candidates dispute waterboarding Notice that you asked specifically about DISPUTES? This article declares that there are disputes and describes them.

7. At LEAST two Congressmen have said that waterboarding is not torture: Congressman Poe says: "I don't believe it's torture at all, I certainly don't." This does not mean that we should accept his word that it is not torture, but we can certainly acknowledge that he disputes it.

8. Congressman Tancredo also says it is not torture. That's just two I found. There may be more. The lack of evidence is not evidence that there are no more. Again, this is dispute.

9. Of course, as you say, there are pundits who declare that it is not torture just as there are some who declare that it is. Jim Meyers says: "Waterboarding Is Not Torture" and "Torture is normally defined as the infliction of severe pain, and while waterboarding induces fear because it simulates drowning, it does not inflict pain." Again, the issue here is not that someone is claiming it is not torture, but that they are DIRECTLY DISPUTING with those who say it is torture.

10. An interesting comment is by someone who has been waterboarded: Matt Margolis quotes someone who had it done to them: "Waterboarding is hardly torture. It does not maim, cause permanent physical damage,or result in death. It merely simulates the sensation of drowning and having no control over your ability to end the encounter for very brief periods of time." Again, a direct disputation to those who claim it is torture.

Other Issues below:

11. Perhaps it is not always torture... maybe it depends on some circumstances. Whether it is torture or not may depend upon how it is conducted. Human Events declares "Water-boarding, like many other interrogation techniques, could be torture in the hands of a sadist. But -- as the following article demonstrates -- it can be an effective interrogation technique and an essential tool of training, as it has been for US Navy and Air Force pilots. So context and other matters may be important. If that is true, can we assert that Waterboarding is torture or must it be less certain?

12. In that last source, another person who had been waterboarded as part of his training said: "Was I “tortured” by the US military? No. " I would argue, that his views are biased, but this is irrelevant to the point: The idea that Waterboarding is always torture is disputed. Point: Again, Maybe waterboarding is not always actually torture. If there are instances where it is not, or where substantial people would not seriously consider it torture (and there really might be such instances) then we should not conclude that it is always certainly torture.

The argument against training experiences being considered torture is that the "victims" have previously volunteered for the training, knew that such things would be demonstrated on either themselves or other class members, and consented to such. A person who requests to be branded can't then complain that they were tortured by that branding (well, they can, but really!) htom (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. Its not important to my main point. I do have a source that was forced into waterboarding though at the hands of an enemy who probably would say it was torture but, remarkably, said it was painless. Just terrifying. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This RfC is badly constructed. We cannot say if it is torture or not. We can only say what other people think of it. This is per WP:NPOV. Presently it is claimed by some to be torture and that is disputed by others. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Further note: A great deal of the problem with this article would GO AWAY and the edit warring would stop if wikipedia standards were adhered to. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, the Wikipedia article the rack can't actually say that the rack is an instrument of torture. Doesn't that seem a little odd? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We still have yet to see a single source that says something like, "The status of waterboarding as torture is disputed." Lawrence Cohen 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You have one. Well more than one, but at least one. And, it clearly is disputed -- thus we have some saying it is torture and others saying it is not. You are fishing for a way around the problem but it does not go away so easily. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: To my eye, the difference is that no one disputes whether the rack is torture. Per wikipedia standards then, we can state it as a fact. However, if it were seriously disputed (as waterboarding is) then we could not. This is per wikipedia policy. So, using the same policy and the same approach, I come to two different conclusions about the two articles. If that seems odd then you must blame some of it on wikipedia polices.. which have been developed by consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We should disregard pundits and look at what the reliable sources say. If there is a preponderance of one view over another, that is what our article should say. If there are minority views, those should get proportionate representation in the article. Jehochman ^Talk 05:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do you bring up pundits? Irrelevant. The notion of preponderance is one that I agree with. However, I also agree with the wikipedia policy that says that if something is seriously disputed it is not a "fact" in wikipedia. Yet this article says it as though it were a fact. BBC:Water-boarding as torture - or not That is another source that says it is disputed.

People keep getting lost in the argument "Is it torture?" "Is it not torture?". Those questions should be IRRELEVANT to editors of this article. It is not for us to decide. We only report. Why is this so hard to grasp UNLESS one has a need to push a pov? Just the facts ma'am. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument that it isn't torture has only been made in the last five years. For hundreds of years it has been considered torture. Isn't it a case of recentism to feature this argument so prominently? Also, how do you account for the global warming article presenting global warming as fact, when there are people who dispute it? Do you think this is also a violation of Wikipedia rules? If so, are you sure that your interpretation of the rules is correct? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming article is a pov push and suffers from WP:OWN problems. The other issues you raise are non-responsive to the issue, and simply perpetuate the errors, so I will not address them. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so the global warming article is incorrect POV pushing, and the fact that waterboarding has been considered torture for hundreds of years is irrelevant to this discussion. Well done. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's stand by our convictions, then--if you believe this to be true, apply the same principles to global warming's article, and let us know how that reconciles with policy. Go do the same thing at Collapse of the World Trade Center, and JFK assassination as well. Lawrence Cohen 05:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I apply them to all articles I work on. I am on this article now. Please stop with the Red Herring debate process. Wikipedia has a set of policies. Individual article pages, and consensus on those talk pages do not trump that policy -- per the policy. Stop making this about me. Stop making it about other articles. Instead, just edit this article with neutrality. Its very very easy to do. Just let go of your non-neutral pov and follow the NPOV policy. Really. Its easy. try it. But if you don't want to do that, then stop with the pretenses and just say "I do not want to follow that policy". Then we can go right to mediation. But lets stop this useless discussion if you have no intent on doing this from an npov perspective.--Blue Tie (talk)

I should add, that Global Warming and some of the other pages are also favored by policies associated with Science, where this page does not enjoy the benefit of such policies. You are, to a degree, comparing apples to oranges. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage someone to bring this to the official Dispute Resolution process and would support your decision to do so. I fear there may be a complete breakdown in NPOV understanding here, based on people's personal political views. Please post a link once you've initiated the process. Lawrence Cohen 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My personal political views are irrelevant to NPOV. I share the views of the editors whose comment was solicited and who responded at the bottom of the page. I would prefer not to go to dispute resolution, unless you and others agree that the policies as worded do not apply here. Then I think there is a dispute that is not fixable alone. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Unindent I also worry that a dispute resolution will not work. The reason I do not think it will work is because everyone is distracted by things that do not matter. Other pages. Is it torture. Is it not torture. These are all distractions from the issue. But that is where all the discussion goes. Look at how many times I have repeated the issue over and over again, and barely gotten any response. Then look at how many forests of dead electron trees were killed arguing about non-essential issues. The editors here seem unable to focus on the issues that would resolve the problem. This would kill dispute resolution. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, please do not disrupt the process. Let everyone have a chance to present their sources and then we will see the result. Jehochman ^Talk 07:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, please do not disrupt wikipedia with Red Herrings. The sources have been presented already, in sufficient detail. There is nothing new here. The issues have not changed. But the main issue remains ignored by such shenanigans. --Blue Tie (talk) 07:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not "waterboarding is torture", neither the lead nor the article describe the various different techniques that are all called by that name. It may be difficult to find accurate descriptions, and harder to find sources for those, I admit, because little is written about them and their use. Substituting "is torture" for those descriptions is useless, or POV, or both. htom (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone produce sources that state the status of waterboarding as torture is disputed? Not whether it's use is accepted; nothing about it's "legal" status, which is 101% meaningless for what Wikipedia labels it. Are there any sources that say it's status as an act of torture is disputed? Without that as a starting point, given the weight of sources, I think this argument is over before it began. Lawrence Cohen 04:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you not been paying attention to the news and some of the items I have posted? --Blue Tie (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The very fact that there are sources here who say that it is torture and others who say it is not torture, shows it is disputed. That is the nature of dispute. --Blue Tie (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

One more new source saying it is disputed: --Blue Tie (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

People, stay reasonable and stop pushing politics. We have a group of people that dispute the Holocaust, nevertheless nobody seriously wants to argue there is a dispute among experts surrounding the Holocaust. Some experts claims Intelligent Design is disputed within the scientific community, nevertheless nobody accepts their logic that among scientists there is any serious debate regarding the scientific merits of ID. There are people that claim the earth is flat, nevertheless for some reason we do not adopt the logical fallacy that the earth being round is disputed. Also we do not accept the fairy tale that AIDS is not caused by HIV merely because some extremists say otherwise. We can go on but for those unfamiliar with WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT the reason we do not accept it as dispute is because the vast majority agrees on what the view of the world is, despite the fact some lone wolf might disagree.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dog does not hunt. The dispute here is not a minority lunatic fringe. It includes notable figures and is not over a scientific issue. You are comparing apples and oranges. There is a real dispute here. To simply wave your arms and say "No, no dispute" is entirely contrary to wikipedia standards for Verifiability, Neutrality and Original Research. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bovine faeces, 2 people disagreeing is a dispute, 1 person disagreeing with a 100+ consensus simply is never a dispute among 101 persons. It is one person refusing to accept what 100+ think is true, such a situation can be described as ignoring consensus, being obstinate, but never as a serious controversy!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have profoundly mis-characterized the dispute here. The people who disagree objectively fit the established definition of a notable minority. And the ratio is not 1 to 100. It is verifiably more like 1 to 2. --Blue Tie (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give a reference for that? henrik•talk 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably [here].--Blue Tie (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. henrik•talk 10:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oddly enough when I look higher up on this page and count the presented sources I am unable to arrive at your 1:2, it is more like 1:100.1Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

this poll linked from the above supports Blue Tie's assertion. However, I'm not sure a recent poll among the American public (especially considering recent efforts to muddy the waters) should be given more weight than the numerous references collected above which pretty much unequivocally supports the assertion that waterboarding is torture. henrik•talk 11:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact people invoke the opinion of US citizens to suggest that among legal experts there is a debate or even that the vox populi in any way determines the existence of a dispute only proves that those opposing it is torture in the lead have no rational argument left.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

THe fact that editors will discount a poll of the largest English Speaking community to nearly zero, in a question of "Whether there is a dispute" is evidence of POV pushing. The poll meets the conditions of Reliability, Verifiability and Neutrality. And ... Within the margin of error, the poll demonstrates a 1:2 ratio of disagreement/agreement. THAT is a dispute with a significant minority disputing -- not a tiny one. Furthermore, the dispute meets the conditions that Jimbo Wales puts forth that it is a NOTABLE minority who are disputing. All other comments of "vast minority" and "overwhelming majority" and "1 to 1000" are all Original Research. I have been asked to provide this piece of information and that piece of information to support my position. Repeatedly, the evidence I present is ignored or discounted on nothing but pov pushing. Never has the information been reviewed by an examination of policy.

And so far, all I have focused on is simply in accordance with wikipedia policy. I have not yet focused on the other problem: There is not just one type of waterboarding. Some versions of it would make most reasonable adults say "That's what people are calling torture? What are they, little girls?" And then there are other versions that are worse than crushing thumbs and that will fold and collapse strong grown men faster than just about anything else. This article does not distinguish between the different versions. THAT is another problem that I have not even addressed yet.

I ask everyone who is seeking to have the article say "Waterboarding IS torture" to consider whether this is their personal view. If it is, then I would suggest that they have a bias that is not permitting them to see clarity on this matter. I happen to think that waterboarding, the way it is sometimes described is clearly torture. I am not so sure about other times, I would have to see it and see how it was done to be sure. And, regardless of whether it is torture, it might be illegal. But my Personal Opinion does not matter one bit. What matters for writing an article are wikipedia policies -- WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:VER. People of different perspectives will NEVER be able to agree if they are unwilling to follow those policies.

I ask people to focus on those policies in order to reach consensus. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First explain to us on what grounds public opinion is relevant to the question: 1 Is the earth round, 2 does HIV cause AIDS, 3 is ID pseudoscience, 4 is alien abduction real, 5 is waterboarding torture, 6 abstinence only an adequate way of preventing pregnancy and STD, et cetera. You will notice that public opinion, however notable, never is an argument to alter what experts think. That is why invoking public opinion is considered a logical fallacy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I will not and do not need to. None of this relates to the key issue. It is entirely Red Herring. Stick to the subject of THIS article and I will reply. --Blue Tie (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Torture

Definition from Webster online dictionary

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle French, from Old French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin tortus, past participle of torquēre to twist; probably akin to Old High German drāhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle

1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain

2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : straining

While this definition shows that torture could be seen as torture, if it is then the same classification would have to be extended to all interrogation techniques or even police questionings. This is simply because even the smallest of stress inducing questioning sessions could cause "mental anguish." BTW People saying that waterboarding is torture is torturing me. ProtektYaNutz (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to this dispute (although I am familiar with the controversy over waterboarding). I just thought I'd attempt to summarise the state of affairs as best I can, in the hope of reaching some kind of neutral consensus here.

To me, and many other people, it seems obvious that waterboarding is a form of torture. However, some people (what I would call a significant minority) disagree, and their views should not be overlooked. However obvious it may seem to me, I cannot claim that it is universally accepted that waterboarding is torture, or that that is an uncontentious statement.

Hence, this article probably can't openly say 'Waterboarding is torture' (however much I wish it did). What it can say is that it is considered torture by considerable majorities of lawyers, judges, human rights groups, laypeople, and victims of waterboarding themselves. Most experts in relevant areas consider it torture; meanwhile, the people who don't think it constitutes torture tend to be (though aren't all) pundits and political commentators with no relevant education in the area.

That's how I recommend this article address the subject: that waterboarding is widely, though not universally, considered to be torture, particularly by lawyers and other experts. It's also worth mentioning that the dispute over it is almost entirely limited to the U.S.; I'm not aware of any major groups outside of the U.S. who don't consider waterboarding to be torture, and insofar as other countries have judged it, most seem to class it as a form of torture or at the very least cruel and inhuman treatment.

Any comments? Terraxos (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You and I see things roughly the same. --Blue Tie (talk) 05:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How does that reconcile with Global warming's precedent, which states that global warming is happening as a fact, when far, far more people dispute that global warming is happening, compared to the small minority that dispute waterboarding is torture? Lawrence Cohen 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Global Warming is an egregious example of pov pushing ownership - not a precedent, but rather a cancer in the system. The bad that happens on other pages should not rule here. Instead, wikipedia policy, should apply. How is it that this question comes up twice in less than a few minutes? Backchannel communications? or are you copying the statement (that was already answered) from above?--Blue Tie (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The question came up because I saw the page and decided to ask. On what basis are you saying the global warming article is a "cancer"? Lawrence Cohen 06:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On the basis of having edited there for six months and having observed the terrible way things happen on that page. It is not NPOV. Mind you, I do not disagree with much of it, but it is not NPOV. I can give you specific examples but it would be IRRELEVANT to this discussion. We are talking about this page. Leave that one for that page. --Blue Tie (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look at Intelligent Design to see how they respond to a perceived dispute. That article clearly states the facts: there is no dispute but a very vocal group of people tries to tell us there is a controversy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that page handles things well. It reads biased... at least in tone. And perhaps in other ways as well. It does not appear to be a good example and in any case, what is done elsewhere (particularly in scientific areas) does not apply here.--Blue Tie (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. We should be careful not to give a fringe view (however vocal) undue weight. henrik•talk 09:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But the issue is not just a matter of undue weight. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely an issue of undue weight. The overwhelming majority of sources cited here say that waterboarding is torture, and a tiny minority say that it is not. This, combined with the fact that waterboarding is self-evidently torture according to the plain English definition of torture, is enough to convince me -- and apparently also the vast majority of posters here -- that the word belongs in the intro sentence. However, I also agree with the other commenters here that the opinions of the small but very vocal minority of people who dispute this are politically significant, and this needs to be mentioned in the article, according to the standard NPOV conventions. -- The Anome (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Objectively speaking, you are incorrect.--Blue Tie (talk) 15:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, do you believe that NPOV requires on any subject that any "expert" dissent from the accepted standard of something, requires that Wikipedia no longer say something definitively? What do you feel is the accepted threshold for this sort of thing according to NPOV? Lawrence Cohen 15:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes, but I can accept that there are some cases where that is not so, and these are going to be more often in the scientific field. For example, in the early 1990's there was a doctor and researcher who was saying that AIDS was only related to HIV and that HIV did not actually cause AIDS. He was virtually alone (as a scientist) in this view.

Using that as an example, I would argue that the article should reflect this teensy tiny doubt by not saying "HIV causes AIDS" but rather "HIV is considered the cause of AIDS". I believe wikipedia should never express opinions as facts. Never. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that HIV does not cause AIDS? -- The Anome (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what I seriously believe is irrelevant. Second, that was an EXAMPLE to help answer a question. Let's not get distracted. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blue Tie, when you say "objectively speaking", I think you mean what other people would say as "in my opinion". The discussion so far suggests strongly that: waterboarding is torture, (a) in the plain construction of the term according to its dictionary definition; (b) in the opinion of a majority of cited sources given here; (c) according to the consensus of the majority of editors of the article, and this RfC. On the other side of the argument, there's a tiny minority of cited sources, and, for the vast majority of comments on the other side of the argument, there's you, and Neutral Good -- and, as far as I can see from this edit history, Neutral Good is a special-purpose account created for the purpose of arguing on this topic, with no previous Wikipedia activity. Yet you claim to have exclusive access to objective truth. Unless you can show that you have some sort of privileged access to Absolute Objectivity, it's hard to see how you expect to prevail in this argument. -- The Anome (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong to think that I mean what other people would say as "in my opinion". I am not arguing about whether waterboarding is torture. If you keep focusing on whether waterboarding is torture you will miss my point. I am arguing that there is a dispute. Objectively there is a dispute. To say otherwise requires a lack of objectivity and a refusal to pay attention to sources provided and even every-day headlines. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that there is a dispute, in much the same way that there is a dispute that HIV causes AIDS. My point -- and that of many other posters here -- is that, much like the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, it is also a tiny minority view, and thus we should give it the exact same degree of prominence as the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS is given in the AIDS article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I would be surprised if it were the same way as HIV causing AIDS. For several reasons. First, I would be surprised to see a poll showing 1:2 differences. I would expect more like 1:10 or 1:20 (there are always weird people in polls). Second, the AIDS issue is scientific. That has a whole different set of considerations. So, you have grabbed something as an example about my thinking and misapplied it. I am sorry I answered the question at all because this is another Red Herring. But I was trying to communicate and be clear. My mistake. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So, a school of law is unscientific, and economics? Clearly you misunderstand what science means.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Where did I discuss a school of law or economics? Clearly you set up a strawman to beat. Yet my position is not in the strawman. And you are engaging in Red Herring. I will not reply again if this is the way you proceed. It is pointless to go into things that are unrelated to the issue. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are the one suggesting that legal matters are non-scientific.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. I have not done that. But to put your mind at ease let me be clear: Law is not a field of study in the Natural Sciences.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

In other words, there is no dispute among the experts!Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure there is. Ignoring it and putting exclamation points after your statements does not make them go away!--Blue Tie (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You still have to explain why public opinion is even relevant in determining the legalities involved.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No. That has been discussed. Anyway its a Red Herring. Irrelevant to the issue. --Blue Tie (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not discussed. You refer to public opinion to prove there is a dispute and I am interested to hear why public opinion is even relevant. You refuse to explain why this is not a logical fallacy.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are not paying attention. The issue is not "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?". That is your focus. The issue is: "Is it disputed that waterboarding is torture?". Public opinion gets a say on what the public thinks. This is not a matter of science. It is a matter of opinion and policy. How does this evade you unless you are continuing to mistake the issue? --Blue Tie (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. It is not "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?" but whether "Is it disputed that waterboarding is torture?" To me the alleged dispute concerns the question "IS WATERBOARDING TORTURE?" Second, since when is a legal matter, i.e. is such and such torture, open to debate by the public? Again, how is public opinion relevant to the question of 1 did the Holocaust happen, 2 did OJ murder his wife, 3 is torture of PO's a war crime?Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That is correct. The issue is NOT whether Waterboarding is torture. And torture is not just determined legally, but if it is determined legally then waterboarding is not always torture per U.S. Law. You can't have it both ways. But really... this is not about whether Waterboarding is torture. Its about whether the issue is disputed. That is the only issue. You keep ignoring that. We are not here to blog or give an opinion. We are here to write an article. The article must be written according to wikipedia policy. That is all.--Blue Tie (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We need no external source that says the alleged American Conservative view is a fringe viewpoint; read WP:FRINGE:

• "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study."
• "Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas."

Next, read WP:WEIGHT:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth doesn't mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Regrettably, the viewpoint that Waterboarding isn't torture, based on all available sourcing, is a minority viewpoint. We would be derelict in our duties to promote this obscure viewpoint, and I would hope anyone would be wise enough to revert efforts to POV push such a fringe viewpoint down to the level it is entitled to, based on sourcing--passing reference. As always, put up the sourcing to contradict this, and I'll be happy to update my viewpoint. I've bolded the most important part. If this upsets some political sensibilities: too damn bad. NPOV is non-negotiable, ever, and bending, yielding, or giving room on NPOV is non-negotiable, it's required to be all or nothing all the time. Lawrence Cohen 17:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is regrettable. Thats a weird idea. I agree that it is a minority view. I can source that. Can you source that it is a Non-notable minority? I can provide references and comments by Jimbo that say it is Notable. Can you find references that it is a Fringe theory other than original research? Can you provide references that show that the debate is between obscure persons? I can provide references that show otherwise. I agree that NPOV is non-negotiable. But I believe you are negotiating it away. Here are my assertions:

1. It is disputed. I have provided reliable, verifiable sources that say that it is disputed.
2. It is disputed by a minority of 1:2. I have provided reliable verifiable sources that give this general ratio. You have agreed that a ratio of that size makes it reasonably large.
3. It is disputed by notable figures. I have provided cites and quoted Jimbo.

My approach is entirely within the confines of policy, especially NPOV. If you are seeking to dismiss, you should address each of those points and you should provide references as I have done. Please note.. I have NEVER said that the "Not Torture" view was not a minority. See the points above... those are my points. For the moment, anything else is irrelevant (I reserve the issue related to types of waterboarding for later). --Blue Tie (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is disputed by a minority of 1:2. Not according to the sources presented above. There we have a very tiny and extremely small minority, which is known as WP:FRINGE.Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

According to sources I have already presented 4 times. There is no need for me to do it a fifth time. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A bit more:

WP:FRINGE is a guideline, not a policy. WP:ASF is Policy. WP:NPOV is policy. WP:VER is policy. So, where can we find the verifiable source that declares "The idea that Waterboarding is not torture is disputed is an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." Where is it? Because it must be a fringe idea that there is a dispute before fringe guidelines can even begin to trump NPOV policy. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite regrettable, and if you want a clue why my stances here feel bipolar sometimes (like you asked on my talk page once): I personally feel that if the need or situation demands it waterboarding is acceptable and not torture. However, I'm willing to suck it up and yield because you're simply not getting our rules. You and I both need to stop and let others respond now. I advise that you and I both do not edit these pages for the rest of the weekend until Monday, to let others in. Do you agree? Lawrence Cohen 17:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Yes, sometimes you confuse me. I think that sometimes it might not be torture but usually is, even if people find it "acceptable". I think it is likely to be illegal, even if it is not torture, but that is my personal view. I think the torture kind should be illegal if it is not .. and if there is ever a public emergency need to break the law, then it still needs to be handled in a court and I hope that the situation will support leniency toward the lawbreaker.

As far as your proposal, I have not seen you edit very much. I have edited far more. I do not agree that my position should not be vigorously advanced by my responses here, but I may not have the time anyway. So it may happen largely by default, but if I get a chance I may return. However, I will try to be circumspect. I will confess... I am annoyed at the confusion or conflation o of the issues. The whole matter to me devolves to this one point: It is disputed. --17:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's let others weigh in. I have conviction in my stances, and believe they will stand without having to micro-challenge all of them. Do you have that faith in your own positions? As for whether or not you've seen me edit isn't really relevant, is it? But if you want to know, do featured article nomination, Good Articles, DYKs, and about 4-5 other featured articles I have my eye on lining up count? See you next week sometime. Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not able to stop others from weighing in even if I wanted to. Though I have faith in my position I do not see any evidence that anyone here wants to edit the article from the perspective of the policies. It appears to me that editors feel it is utterly important that we either prove or disprove that waterboarding is torture. This is a path to bad editing and edit wars in the article. As far as the statement about your editing... I was referring to THESE talk pages on Waterboarding.. and the notion that we should stop adding our comments here. I have no doubts about your editing skills in other areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Tie (talk • contribs) 01:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If you check the talk page history, I've been discussing this issue for months. You were newer. ;) Lawrence Cohen 02:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Without researching it, I believe you. Yes I am newer. Some folks think that means I am some sort of pov warrior. Maybe they are right, but they would misinterpret the pov I edit for. --Blue Tie (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we can all agree on these six facts:

F1. The topic of the article is Waterboarding, not Waterboarding in the United States.

F2. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is a form of torture is held by a majority of the public and a very strong majority of experts in law, medicine, and torture.

F3. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is not torture is held by a minority of the public and a smaller minority of prominent politicians.

F4. We have found no qualified experts on torture or the law who claim that waterboarding is not torture, period. The closest we have is Andrew McCarthy's statement that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others.

F5. There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States. (revised, see F5a)

F5a. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

F6. There was no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000. (revised, see F6a)

F6a. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

(If you accept these facts, please indicate your agreement. If you dispute them, please indicate which one(s) and present verifiable evidence of the contrary.)

Therefore:

• "Waterboarding is not torture" is a recent, U.S.-centric, minority viewpoint.
• "It is disputed that waterboarding is torture," without additional qualification, is not a supportable statement. In order to be presented in a supportable manner, any dispute must be presented as local to the United States and the present day.

Now, see Wikipedia:WEIGHT:

• 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;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

Also according to Wikipedia:WEIGHT:

Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Therefore, there are two clear consequences of policy:

A. The viewpoint that "waterboarding is not torture" does not belong in Wikipedia because it is held by a vastly limited minority. It is held by no qualified experts or authorities on the record, it is local to a single country, and it is a recent viewpoint at odds with the historically established understanding of waterboarding.

B. The viewpoint that "waterboarding may or may not be torture" is held by one expert. Since the article must present this minority view "in proportion to [its] representation among experts on the subject," any mention of this viewpoint must be (a) balanced against the strong majority of expert opinions, (b) clearly confined to the United States, and (c) clearly confined to recent times.

The implementation of these two things is straightforward.

A. It is acceptable for the lead to start out "Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of...".

B. It can be mentioned, briefly, in the body of the article that there is a dispute in the United States. For example, "Although waterboarding has been historically considered torture, and is considered torture today by a wide range of authorities (including legal experts, politicians, war veterans, intelligence officials, military judges, and human rights organizations), the matter has recently been the topic of dispute in the United States."

—Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the points you consider to be unanimous:

Point 1, I agree

Point 2, I do not agree with the second part.

Point 3, I consider the second part to be original research.

Point 4, I believe that there have been legal experts who have said it is not torture.

Point 5, I believe that is original research. Have you taken a poll of all people world wide and all governments world wide?

Point 6, I believe that is original research.

I do not think you have hit upon a list that are all agreed upon. --00:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As to F2 and F3: the evidence is on this page. If you want to convince anyone otherwise, it is up to you to show that there is no majority of opinion among experts (F2) or politicians (F3). —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As to F4: for us to take seriously your claim that you "believe there have been legal experts who have said it is not torture", you need to present evidence. A search for sources has been open for many weeks (months?) now, and has turned up nothing. If you have a source we haven't seen yet, by all means go ahead and post it. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see your sources in support of propositions F5 and F6 at the top of this section. Not sources that say, "Waterboarding is torture." I'd like to see reliable sources that say, "Every human being in the entire world agrees that waterboarding is torture." We have seen very little evidence of opinion, expert or otherwise, outside of the United States or prior to 2000. And for much of the little bit that we have, there are equivocations and qualifications. Since you are presenting these as statements of fact, the burden of proof is on you.

You also claim, "The viewpoint that 'waterboarding may or may not be torture' is held by one expert." Variations of that viewpoint are held by Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Judge Advocate General Thomas Hartmann, former US prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, and former US prosecutor Mary Jo White. All four are attorneys and therefore experts. All four of them are noteworthy experts. McCarthy and White were appointed by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and left service in the Justice Department shortly after Bush became president; therefore they have no personal allegiance to the Bush Administration.

In his frequently discussed memo, John Yoo stated that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA did not violate the prohibition against torture in international law (Including UNCAT). At that time (2002), the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques happened to include waterboarding. Therefore, although Yoo didn't specifically mention waterboarding, it is unreasonable to assume that he was not discussing it. He was the deputy assistant attorney general at that time. That makes five prominent legal experts. In fact, all five of them are more prominent than the law professors who signed the letter to Gonzalez.

Ted Poe, in addition to being a congressman, is also a licensed attorney. That makes him a legal expert. He has stated unequivocally that waterboarding is not torture. Kindly stop pretending that Andrew McCarthy is the only legal expert who undercuts your arguments. I count six. Neutral Good (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"I would like to see your sources in support of propositions F5 and F6 at the top of this section...reliable sources that say, "Every human being in the entire world agrees that waterboarding is torture." Another straw man argument. Neither F5 nor F6 claimed that "every human being in the entire world agrees that waterboarding is torture."

"We have seen very little evidence of opinion, expert or otherwise, outside of the United States or prior to 2000." This is not true and you know it; at least six of the references in Talk:Waterboarding/Definition are prior to 2000, not just individual references but major court findings like the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. But if this is honestly the only point of contention, I'm sure people can dig up many many more references prior to 2000. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Mukasey, Hartmann, McCarthy, and White: McCarthy is the only one of these four, as far as I know, to have stated that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others (I'm referring to [his article in the NRO]). Mukasey and Hartmann have specifically refused to answer the question, which is not the same thing. (If you have other sources, please give them.) White merely argued in support of Hartmann, without giving any opinion of her own on whether waterboarding is torture. So:

• This doesn't bear on F4, since F4 says Andrew McCarthy is the closest thing we have to a legal expert who says that waterboarding is not torture (he says it is not torture if done only once or twice). That's still the case. Are you willing to accept F4, then?
• I admit that my statement at B is a bit ambiguous. More clearly stated:

• B. The viewpoint that "waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others" is held by one expert.

If you prefer to identify both these categories, I have no problem with that.

• B. The viewpoint that "waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others" is held by one expert, and two other legal experts have refused to state an opinion in response to direct questioning on the issue.

This doesn't affect the argument or the conclusion, though: it can be mentioned, briefly, in the body of the article that there is some recent dispute about the issue in the United States. No problem with that. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding evidence for F5 and F6: Let me be clear about what we're trying to achieve here. It doesn't matter whether I convince you that there is no historical dispute. What matters is what can be stated in the article. If I want to put into the article the sentence "There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States, nor was there any such dispute prior to 2000," then yes, you are correct: I would have to back that up with verifiable evidence. But that is not my intention. The argument is that the implication of a worldwide dispute, or historical dispute, would have to be backed up by RS if placed in the article. Since we do not have RS, the article cannot give such an implication.

To make this crystal clear, consider the following revised statements:

F5a. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

F6a. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

Are you willing to accept these? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, my.

F1. The topic of the article is Waterboarding, not Waterboarding in the United States.

agree (although what this waterboarding consists of is not defined)

F2. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is a form of torture is held by a majority of the public and a very strong majority of experts in law, medicine, and torture.

c/is held/is now held/ and c/experts/publicly published experts/

F3. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is not torture is held by a minority of the public and a smaller minority of prominent politicians.

agree

F4. We have found no qualified experts on torture or the law who claim that waterboarding is not torture, period. The closest we have is Andrew McCarthy's statement that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others.

Most of those cited I would not classify as "qualified experts on torture".

F5. There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

I have no idea if this statement is either true or verifiable.

F6. There was no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

I would agree with this, but only because before then it (whatever "it" is!) was not publicly discussed at all. It was considered to be an example of very harsh treatment in some military training in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was not considered to be torture then by either those subjected to it or subjecting others to it. I've got no source for this statement and doubt than anyone can find one; it's not something that was talked about outside of that group of people, and I don't know of any publications.

See F5a and F6a above. Better? —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll try revising them.

F5. There is no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States. (revised, see F5a)

F5a. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.(see F5b)

F5b. We have found citations that there is a present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture in the United States, but no evidence saying what form(s) of waterboarding are being disputed.

F6. There was no significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000. (revised, see F6a)

F6a. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000. (see F6b)

F6b. We have found no citations for a significant dispute or discussion of waterboarding prior to 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 17:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I still do not necessarily agree with F5. Where is the source that has researched this matter?

I agree with F5a, but this cannot be used to support F5 without a violation of WP:OR.

I agree with F5b entirely.

I still do not necessarily agree with F6. Where is the source that has researched this matter?

I agree with F6a, but this cannot be used to support F6 without a violation of WP:OR

I agree with F6b, but this cannot be used to support F6 without a violation of WP:OR

So still a problem. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Progress. It appears to me that we are in agreement about the following (revised) six points:

P1. The topic of the article is Waterboarding, not Waterboarding in the United States.

P2. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is a form of torture is held by a majority of the public and a strong majority of the sources we have found who are experts in law, medicine, and torture.

P3. In the United States, the view that waterboarding is not torture is held by a minority of the public and a smaller minority of prominent politicians.

P4. We have found no qualified experts on torture or the law who claim that waterboarding is not torture, period. Andrew McCarthy has stated that waterboarding is torture in some cases and not in others. Other legal authorities have refused to state an opinion.

P5. We have found no evidence for a significant present-day dispute over whether waterboarding is torture outside of the United States.

P6. We have found no evidence for a significant dispute over whether waterboarding is torture before 2000.

Perhaps we can use this as a starting point, then. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 10:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with P1.

I would agree with P2 if the word strong were removed

I would agree with P3 if the word smaller were removed. The word "Notable" per wikipedia policies should be added to at least the politicians part.

I would not agree with P4. I would also add that we cannot edit on what we do not find. Only on what we find. It would be a useless agreement.

I would agree with P5, but consider it irrelevant since we cannot edit on what we do not find only on what we find. It is a useless agreement. In addition, I would note that not finding disagreement outside of the US does not mean that there was none. Dissent is not something found world-wide. Governments restrict it and more have done so historically than not.

I would agree with P6 but it has the same problems as P5.

In summary the only substantive agreements I would see are P1, P2 and P3 (the latter two with minor edits). No agreement on P4. And P5 / P6 are useless. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There are also other areas where we may be in agreement:

We have found a variety of ways to conduct waterboarding

We have found citations that say it is effective.

We have found citations that question its effectiveness.

We have not found statute relating to waterboarding and so we cannot comment on that, but we have found case law that relates to waterboarding.

There are also cases underway now, that may further define the laws in some countries.

We might be able to agree on how long it has been observably conducted. I would not presently agree to "Spanish Inquisition". Even though some people have said that, it is possibly the repeat of an "urban legend" type of thing. I would value a study of that history that shows it to have been that long. I do not consider a reporter who flippantly reports it as an aside in an article -- without showing the evidence in some way -- as a reliable source for a tidbit of information. But since that rumor has been stated several times, it may be true and may be verifiable. We might be able to get agreement on that. --Blue Tie (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There is constant argument on the waterboarding page about whether or not we include the words "waterboarding is torture" in the lead. While I understand the contentiousness of this issue, it seems that everyone is overlooking the fact that later on in the article there is a section that specifically addresses this issue. We should be focusing on making that section better so that it fully describes all of the issues surrounding this subject. Wikipedia can easily deal with the nuances and intricacies of this debate since it is not limited in size and can be revised as further information becomes available. Thus, I would suggest that those who wish to flesh out the complexities of this issue do so in the article in the section space specifically dealing with this issue. As for the lead, I think the best solution (as I have suggested before) is a link to the section so that people who want information on the classification of waterboarding as torture can easily find it (i.e., "Waterboarding is a form of torture (see classification as torture)"). While this may violate the standard style of wikipedia, I believe in this case it would address everyone's issues and therefore be a justified deviation from the stylebook. But truthfully, whatever the lead states will be fully fleshed out later in the article and so anyone who wants a full understanding of this issue should be able to easily grasp it. As one other alternative, we could simply have one throw away sentence in the lead that states something like "Recently, some conservative commentators and politicians have debated whether the specific use of waterboarding by the United States against certain suspected terrorist suspects should qualify as torture." That sentence, I believe, accurately states that current minority opinion while not giving it undue weight. Remember (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with Remember on this. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 16:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should flesh out the section that describes all the issues.

I do not agree with violating wikipedia style

And I think the lead must also accord with wikipedia polices. Presently it does not.

I also think that the rest of the article needs fixed as well.

--Blue Tie (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

A style change would not be necessary if we simply said "waterboarding is generally torture." (That's close to the term Jehochman used when creating this discussion page.)

This prepares the reader to understand that some might say there are exceptions.

The point about "conservative commentators" isn't accurate. It is CIA lawyers who had looked close at definitions and treaties and then drew a line as to where rough treatment ends and where torture begins. The commentators are simply explaining what their rationale might be.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, we have no idea what CIA lawyers have stated about this practice because they have no statements on the record. Thus, the only people that we have sources for that say waterboarding may not be torture is conservative commentators and politicians. If you have other sources of people who state otherwise, please provide below and put the sources into the list of sources we have on this debate. Remember (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to add another two from the USDOJ: Daniel Levin and Steven G. Bradbury.

We already knew from various sources that they approved it. The McCarthy ref (and common sense) says this cannot happen without a finding that it doesn't violate UNCAT.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Good find. Money quote - "A footnote to the 2004 interrogation opinion signed by Mr. Levin, insisted on by the White House and the C.I.A., said that despite the shift in legal reasoning, interrogation techniques authorized under previous Justice Department opinions remained legal. Those techniques included waterboarding.". This information should be included in the article. Remember (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

--Badagnani (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Yes, it is correct that the handful of "not torture" folks are all conservative politicians or commentators from the United States. These folks are often quite influential, even if what they say is wrong, even outlandishly so, as in this case (i.e. changing the meaning of an English word, in Newspeak-like fashion, reinforced with political jingoism). This would likely explain the recently cited poll poll in which a minority of Americans also apparently agrees with these commentators. Badagnani (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll confess to being an American, but the idea that I'm a conservative is ... interesting. "Tea tossing liberal" one of my friends calls me. The Newspeak is in declaring that putting a woman's panties on the head of a detainee is torture. htom (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Badagnani had more in mind treatments such as the rapes and homicide that also occurred as part of the regime in Abu Ghraib; I presume you would regard these as torture? -- The Anome (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Presumably he can extend his own statements (in my opinion rape and homicide are more in the nature of a criminal act than a torturous one; there could be circumstances where they were torture, though. I have not paid enough attention to the alleged acts at Abu Ghraib to really have an opinion, but have noticed that there were a bunch of folk convicted.) I don't think that putting panties on someone's head is torture, but it has been called that in the press. htom (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here except you is talking about panties. I can't understand your distinction between "torture" and "criminal acts" -- all physical torture is, by definition, a criminal act, since it constitutes assault. -- The Anome (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Somethings might be torture but legal. It would depend on the laws. Some things might be illegal and yet not torture. It would depend upon the laws. Not all torture is, by definition, a criminal act unless the laws say so. Every country is different. --Blue Tie (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I talk about panties because there are verifiable sources where it is claimed that putting them on someone's head is torture. I think that our society has become so sloppy in the use of language that it's entirely possible that many people think that a good definition of torture is "I would not like someone to do that to me", and they would justify that definition with the claim that since assault is in the mind of the victim, it would indeed be torture. In this process of defining down torture (some have called it "torture light" or "torture tease"), our society destroys the meaning of "torture". There no sharp line between torture and harsh treatment, and the all-or-not approach taken by the majority of editors here is disappointing to me. Not torturous, though. htom (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Waterboarding#New_Lawrence_Cohen_proposed_compromise_lead. Lawrence Cohen 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear why you are proposing this. I don't see any problem with the current lead, and I don't see how this one differs. Badagnani (talk) 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Cohen had said a few days ago, "The Bush administration has no public stance on this question."
While it turns out that we do have sources reporting a U.S. position, this still highlights a point: How many governments do we have that say it's always torture? It seems to me that it is other governments and their intelligence agencies who have taken no public stance on this issue.
Could it be that they're silent because they want to keep waterboarding on the shelf as a legal alternative to real torture?
Please hold off the inevitable reply that this lack of a public stance means that we can't use it. I am not using it as a source to say that other governments might also say it's not torture. Rather, I am saying that there is a huge gap in what we know, and we cannot use that gap to say that everyone calls it torture when so many are silent.
-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that what you are doing is arguing for a perspective in editing rather than arguing for content. I agree that this is appropriate for a talk page. Only reliable cites can be used in content, but rationale is helpful for people to understand your perspective. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't necessary for the government of every nation on Earth to state an official position on whether waterboarding is or isn't torture. You are reading some motivation into this that may not exist; rather, it is more probable that the governments of most countries concern themselves mainly with national affairs, and the topic of waterboarding simply isn't a relevant concern in their national politics.

In a democracy the government can change quite rapidly. The official position of a government one year, may not be the same as the next. There is no unified U.S. position, so Cohen's wording of "the Bush administration" is more accurate. The position (if any) needs to be kept in perspective; that of a single administration at a particular point in time.

Incidental, but maybe interesting question: should Wikipedia state that the activities of the Chinese or Uzbek authorities regarding political dissidents and pro-democracy activists are torture? There are verifiable incidents of electric shocks, burning, and even boiling alive, but they are all conducted under the auspices of a national government enforcing the law. What is the value of silence here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Some of what you've said sounds a lot like when I said that "foreign opinion doesn't matter" because they're not operating under the same conditions.

I agree that it's not necessary for every government to state it's torture but the point really is that few (if any) have done so.

Whereas you're technically correct that democracies can change their positions on things, there too, most do not. Clinton and Gore had both sanctioned extraordinary rendition. Hillary Clinton gave interviews where she hasn't even ruled out actual torture, which is absolutely illegal. Obama made similar statements on not withing to limit how far he'd go in "an emergency situation". The next administration might try to pretend it's different, but they won't actually be different if the times call for it.

But it's not about where people stand. It's that the "everybody agrees waterboarding is torture" meme simply isn't true. They're not agreeing if they're silent.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not "foreign opinion doesn't matter", but "an encyclopedia should take a global and historical perspective, not the perspective of a certain political group in a certain country in a particular year". Nobody has claimed that "everybody agrees waterboarding is torture". You're fighting a strawman argument. What they have said is that there's a huge body of evidence that waterboarding was considered torture by many, if not most, reliable sources who commented on the issue before 2001. You have presented absolutely no evidence that it either wasn't considered torture, or that there was any debate regarding the issue, before 2001. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to make an argument in behalf of policy -- especially NPOV -- which cannot speak for itself and needs to have defenders.

I believe that if you read carefully, you will find that there are a great many people and sources who declare water boarding to be torture. I fully accept that this is true: Many, perhaps most think so.

I would encourage you also to recognize that there is a notable (per Jimbo Wales rules) and significant (polls show a 1:2 ratio) minority who disagree. And in some cases they have explained reasons for this. In some cases they have not.

Bottom line is that the statement: "Waterboarding is Torture" is disputed. Not just by minor players but also by notable people including the Vice President of the US, at least two Congressmen, (maybe more but I have not searched), legal scholars including a respected judge, people who have undergone waterboarding, and recognized pundits. (Also by people on wikipedia -- that should be obvious).

In this regard I quote wikipedia policy: Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." ... By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute."

Based upon this policy I assert that this is not a matter that can be declared firmly one way or the other. There is no "fact" that "Waterboarding is Torture". That statement is a value or an opinion, but not a fact. The dispute must be recognized. Even if all of the other editors on this page do not agree, it should be pointed out that per WP:CON "When consensus is referred to in Wikipedia discussion, it always means 'within the framework of established policy and practice'. Even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies."

I assert that the consensus can only be: "It is disputed." "It is not a fact." And per WP:NPOV wikipedia cannot lend its voice to an opinion as though it were a fact. Thus, the lead cannot unequivocally announce a fact: "Waterboarding is a form of torture". It must say something else like "Waterboarding is (factual description)."

I further add that this divides the baby evenly without having to weigh in on one side or the other and it does so in the framework of firmly established policy. No new ground is broken here. But wikipedia's policy on NPOV is kept in highest esteem. --Blue Tie (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears, from this Google Books search, that up to 2006 most books describe "water-boarding" (usually spelled with a hyphen) as actually strapping a prisoner to a board and immersing, submerging, or dunking the head under water. It has been claimed earlier that this is not a variation of waterboarding, but source after source gives this definition. WP is based on sources, so this alternate definition (as contained in the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy") does seem legitimate, as it was based on the available government sources as presented up to 2006. Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the definition, I definitely think a review of the definition is in order and using Badagnani's approach makes sense. Also, if the term should be hyphenated we should change the article. We need to avoid conflating with water cure though. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason why the definition was different before 2007. I am beginning to think that the half-dozen variations (all done while strapping the subject to a board, giving it the name "water-boarding") were all described as "water-boarding" before the current controversy. But I don't know if this was being done due strictly to the writers being mistaken or having poor sources, or simply because these variations were never standardized. Badagnani (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason may be that much, if not all, of the research and writing is classified by the respective governments, and those who know can't talk, or write. Or at least they shouldn't. htom (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Further reading of the various testimonies convinces me that (intentionally or not) waterboarding (flooding) can become watercure. Look at the number of reports of waterboarding that include descriptions of striking the stomach to expel swallowed water, which is a "feature" of watercure, and not of waterboarding (immersion). Other forms of waterboarding do not seem to have this effect on the victim, and may be the cause (I'm thinking, here, not citing) of some of the disagreement. htom (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point! Shou;d the articles possibly be merged given their close association? — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been wondering if they should be combined, but I have not convinced myself that they should be. Here is my thinking:

1. There seems to be a distinct difference in the intent of the process. One is to cause excess ingestion of water which may "accidentally" result in inhalation of water. The other is to cause the sensation of drowning which may "accidentally" result in the ingestion of water. (Not as likely if the person is in a head down position).

2. I am starting to notice that we have a great deal of "Original Research" in assuming what is and what is not Waterboarding. Many of the instances used for describing waterboarding do not declare the process that they are discussing to be waterboarding. This is particularly true as we look into increasingly older sources. This leads me to think that waterboarding may be a recent label. And if it is exclusively associated with certain processes, it may not be the label but also the process that is recent.

3. We may not have a great definition for what waterboarding is. Yet this is a topic of great focus. To merge the two articles without a clear definition of what waterboarding is, may be a dis-service to readers who are interested in looking up what they read about or hear about in the news.

I recently (yesterday) also had a sort of nirvana about this subject. And this is now working its way through. I will discuss it on the regular talk page soon. --Blue Tie (talk) 03:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to the debate, but from what I can tell, this basically boils down to a question of whether the opinions of those saying it might not be /isn't torture raise the debate to the level of a true dispute. In other words, do they meet the threshhold for putting the "waterboarding is torture" claim out of the realm of fact and into the realm of opinion? Obviously not all opposing will meet this threshhold, such as fringe positions.

Yet it appears to me that some of the opinions cited seem to stem from a defintion of torture itself that contradicts what Wikipedia and international law have apparently accepted, namely the inclusion of mental anguish. At least one of the sources cited above claiming a dispute use a limited definition of only physical torture. Does this invalidate these opinions, and remove them from counter-examples If so, do we need to check whether the other sources stem from corrrect definitions?

Especially if this limited definition is operating widely in the US, this seems to me a point that must be settled before a consensus can be reached as to whether the threshhold for dispute is met. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The original request called for legitimate sources presenting evidence of a valid dispute. It appears to me as if this section contains several sources that qualify. I therefore think that a changed wording to "Waterboarding is an extreme interrogation technique generally considered to be torture." is justified based on the non-fringe opinions evincing a genuine dispute. Opinions? -Lciaccio (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. as per above. -Lciaccio (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed. The original article on waterboarding contains a substantial discussion of the current debate on whether waterboarding is torture. Classification as Torture. Given the discussion of the debate in the Wikipedia article itself and the legitimate sources linked to by nom and presented by other commentators, I think modified wording away from "waterboarding is torture" is appropriate. The language proposed by nom modifies "waterboarding is torture" into a less conclusory statement, but retains a strong statement that waterboarding is "generally considered to be torture." Shamulou (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Shamulou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Agreed. For the reasons I cite above in Comments on note to the closing admin. In addition, #1 and #4 cite both the BBC and the Wall Street Journal. Both are credible sources that indicate the issue is at least considered to be disputed in at least two countries. Pri2008 (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Pri2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. I agree, these were the sources I found most compelling, despite misgivings about the credibility of some of the other sources cited. I firmly believe waterboarding is torture, but at least these two opposing views are informed and non-fringe, making this an opinion, not fact.. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Not so bad. But I would prefer a summary description of the practice instead of "extreme interrogation technique" (I used to favor something like that but have been persuaded its not such a good idea for the present). I would also like to see the phrase "generally considered torture" to be a separate sentence stating "It is often considered torture". Partyly, I am not so sure that I agree with "generally" since a fair number of people apparently do not consider it torture. About 2/3 consider it torture. To me that is "often", but not quite "generally". Using the word "often" also implies some sort of temporal aspect to the issue, which many people seem to raise: "how its done and when its done" matters to them when deciding if it is torture. (By the way, thanks for the suggested lead). --Blue Tie (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Acceptable. The current language really does need to be changed, if for no other reason than the fact that the existence of the "Classification" sections makes the statement "waterboarding is torture" seem conclusory, regardless of the facts. So long as the word "considered" is included, though, I feel like the point is made that there exists some debate, and given that, the strong presumption from "generally" seems fine. There really DOES seem to be numerically overwhelming consensus (a minority of the citizens of a single country, even a hugely important country, notwithstanding). I'm less sure about "extreme," if only because that's a indisputably subjective term, and probably shouldn't be included in the first line of a Wikipedia article. Although I certainly agree that waterboarding is "extreme," there aren't objective reasons why it must necessarily be considered so. Theokrat (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Theokrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I would also agree to wording that removes the word extreme from the proposal. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. "Extreme" is a subjective term, and the statement that "waterboarding is an interrogation technique generally considered to be torture" is strong enough without "extreme." Shamulou (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I like that change. I also think "generally" is also a subjective term, but I find myself only weakly objecting. The problem I have is that I do not think generally is exactly right, because it conveys the notion of "as a rule". But, on the other hand, what other adverbs are appropriate? "Frequently" almost makes it sound like it might not even be half of the time. The same goes with "often". "Popularly" might almost be more accurate than anything but I am not sure it sounds right to sort of indicate that it is popular for people to be thinking about torture! I do not like the word "generally" as much as I do not like these other words I have mentioned above. The word "widely" seems pretty good and I would favor that. Also, as I have said previously, I think that ultimately the lead should be re-written when the details in the article are right, but I think that this lead is very close to one that might have a consensus. I praise this effort. --Blue Tie (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Weasel words: "considered to be". By whom? Newspeak: "interrogation technique". No, waterboarding is verifiably a torture technique, per the reliable sources. Do not change the article from a plain statement of verifiable fact. Wikipedia is not a political battleground. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • They're only weasel words if used in lieu of references. Considering the extensive sources in the article pointing to those who consider it to be torture, that is not the case here. I agree that Wikipedia is not a political battleground, but the change I propose is, in light of the evidence of dispute, the most factual and encyclopedic statement of what waterboarding is. That is what we're aiming for, ne ce pas? -Lciaccio (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's inappropriate to classify the question of whether or not something is torture as a 'verifiable fact'. The very nature of the question implicates human conceptions, and it would still be a concept even if there was unanimous agreement. What this proposed change to the lead statement attempts to do is reflect the general direction in which (credible reports of) human conceptions lean, while acknowledging (a) that it is a concept, and (b) that it is not universally shared. Vhettinger (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed with the edit that removes the word "extreme" (mainly because in a sentence that includes the word 'torture' the word 'extreme' seems redundant). I slightly prefer 'generally' to 'widely', but don't feel strongly one way or the other. Vhettinger (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) — Vhettinger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• No. The current lead is fine. "considered to be" is weaselly, "interrogation technique" comes straight out of recent political discourse. Encyclopedias shouldn't be written according to recent political controversies. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The question should be Is it NPOV to state 'Waterboarding is torture,' in the lead sentence of the article when several expert legal authorities state that it is not torture in any case; that it is torture only in some cases; or that they cannot themselves be sure? Ra2007 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's like asking "is it NPOV to state 'The 9/11 attacks consisted of a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda' in the lead sentence of the article when several demolition and munition experts state that the attacks may have been carried out by, or with the complicity of, the US government?" Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Or even "is it NPOV to state 'The Holocaust is.. the killing of approximately six million European Jews' in the lead sentence of The Holocaust when some historians say it didn't happen? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree The lead seems fine as it right now. As waterboarding fits the definition of torture and there are many reliable sources stating waterboarding as torture. Also there is a site devoted to it, with links to legal definitions on what constitutes torture here → GeeAlice ♥ 04:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Hmm, I see this is a class project, from which I am not a part, therefore I strike my "opinion". → GeeAlice ♥ 05:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is NOT a class project. It's a live Wikipedia page. Several editors came here as a class assignment, but that matter has been discussed and resolved. You, and any other editors are welcome to express your opinions. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No majority reliable sources that it is considered just an "extreme interrogation technique". The majority say torture. Suggestion doesn't take into account the "debate" of it possibly not being torture is only post-2001. Should be more like "waterboarding was considered torture for hundreds of years, has been prosecuted as torture under international and US law, but after 2001 some American lawyers and politicans tried to justify its use by claiming that it might not be torture." Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. What on earth is an 'extreme interrogation technique? WP should be clearer than that. Relata refero (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

"Extreme interrogation technique" is a euphemistic political term for torture -- legal doublespeak, you know, to soften the blow as to make an act appear not as bad as it really is, in order to instill doubt. Lawyers/politicians do it all the time. If the glove don't fit, you must acquit. ;p → GeeAlice ♥ 19:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI. Please weigh in on this matter on ANI, at this thread, rather than here if possible. Lawrence Cohen 22:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This was somewhat paranoid and shameful. Actions initiated way too fast without talking to the people about it. --Blue Tie (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of conflict of interest concerns, I obviously I will not edit the title of this section. However, I ask interested editors to follow the above links and read the defenses of the involved individuals (a group that includes me), particularly those written by LCiaccio, to the effect that the involved individuals were neither pre-selected for their views in violation of WP:CANVASS, nor did anyone express views that were not their own individually sincerely-held beliefs in violation of WP:MEAT. I hope that these unbiased editors will recognize that the issue is murky at best, and that the "confirmed meatpuppetry" title of this section is wholly inappropriate. Again, owing to my obvious conflict of interest, I realize that perhaps my hoped-for response of unbiased readers is incorrect. However, I do not believe it to be so. Theokrat (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the evidence what was going on (see Talk:Waterboarding/Definition#Another Attempt at Consensus). This page has seen a disproportionately large amount of "gaming" of our system, this simply being the most recent example. Transparency was nowhere to be found in the off-Wiki discussions. Kindly spend more energy showing full transparency rather than defending this behavior. Badagnani (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that anything is inherently clear from several users voicing general agreement. However, to avoid cluttering this page any further, I invite comment on my talk page (I don't know if there's a more appropriate location; I obviously haven't been around long) rather than here. I do, however, ask again that the title of this section be changed, either now or at the end of some further discussion. Theokrat (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was very clear when I said "transparency was nowhere to be found in the off-Wiki discussions." Some of those discussions may be found here. Badagnani (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but that seems unresponsive to my concern, as a lack of transparency does not a meat-puppet make, and as the Wiki policy there listed makes clear, "meatpuppet" is "derogatory and should be used only with care." Again, I'd like to move this discussion to a more appropriate location, wherever that might be, but so long as this heading remains, I feel obliged to at least make some efforts to clear my name and the names of the other involved individuals. Theokrat (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you are forgiven. Please do not do something similar again without full transparency, as per our community norms, thanks. Please don't move this discussion anywhere, thanks. Badagnani (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and thank you. Unfortunately, this section of the talk page continues to have a title that I believe to be inaccurate, but which I will not myself edit for reasons of conflict of interest concerns. If someone else would please change it, my issue would be entirely resolved. Theokrat (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are entirely correct, the section title was inaccurate now that the matter has been fully explained and resolved. Apologies for the harsh welcome, I hope you may still consider sticking around. henrik•talk 20:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That section was already archived.:-/

If this is the same as in other years, basically it's several groups of Harvard law students acting as a kind of impromptu mediation cabal. These are REAL law students, not wikilawyers, and they are applying the skills they are learning on wikipedia. This is a Good Thing (tm).

Boy is it ever. I just wish we could keep them on after their assignments! \o/

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually love to stay and keep working on this, although it looks like it might have gone to ArbCom and I am not familiar enough with this process to know whether and how I might still be able to participate. I have participated in Wikipedia for several years, although this is my first foray into such a contentious matter. Although I at first shied from staying involved, further reflection has convinced me that I was allowing the reactions of a few Wikipedians scare me away from something I am nonetheless entitled to do. Although I did chose my initial participation based on a (completed) assignment, I do not see my lack of strong opinions on the matter as a hindrance, but a help, to the appropriateness of my contributions. -Lciaccio (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! ArbCom generally has no problems with the editors trying to resolve the issue themselves even after a case has been filed. Au contraire, if we manage to resolve the problem before they have to, saving them some work, they'll probably appreciate it. henrik•talk 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Having read some more. I'd like to note that I do not support Badagnani's position on this matter at all. It is *vitally* important that people can discuss stratagems to solve conflicts away from others.

What if I'm suspicious that someone is a sockpuppet, for instance? I might like to get a sanity check with someone, but if I voice such a concern in public, it might be seen as an attack on that person, and then no-one would believe I'm neutral anymore. (this would be a double tragedy if it turns out that the person in question is *not* a sockpuppet)

In conclusion, closed discussion is vital to mediating disputes. If Badagnani feels that this is not the case, I invite them to join the mediation cabal, and try on some real cases themselves, as opposed to merely attacking other people who are actually doing the hard work!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about an entirely different thing. Mediating disputes is not the same as editing a general article. There are editors involved in this article from all over the world, and who have been participating for weeks or even months. Whilst fresh opinions are welcome, a small group of new editors deciding offline what position to represent is not a good example of the transparency a collaborative endeavour like Wikipedia requires. Other editors need to understand why they came to their positions, not just what that final position is. Other editors also need to be able to present their own positions to them. An offline consensus is not going to automatically translate into an online consensus. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing what was done in several ways. I have already posted ad nauseum what actually happened, so I will not repeat myself here, but suffice it to say I suggest you read the accounts more thoroughly before drawing such conclusions -Lciaccio (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Lciaccio this "closed discussion" is another hot topic you've landed yourself in accidently (you can pick them :-) ), first just ignore the people "shouting" at you as you did nothing wrong. Second if you want to know why this topic is so hot read on, some very Badpeople(tm) have created forums just to disrupt wikipedia and harass editors. On these forums they have "closed discussion" designed to push a POV against concensus or policy, even just flat out trolling, NONE OF THIS YOU DID! But this is why your innocent off-wiki work caused you to cop flakk, good luck out there and come to my user page if you or your classmates need any help. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Lciaccio (and the others from Harvard) -- I, too, would welcome your return to Wikipedia, anywhere you would care to contribute. Thank you for your efforts at waterboarding, even if we did blow up at you; I am sorry that I bit newcomers. You may find it interesting to watch the ArbCom case, if it proceeds. htom (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to say welcome to all those from Harvard, you just chose a hot LZ. We do need minds of your quality to help push wikipedia to the next level. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 23:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This unclosed RfC is now cited in the request for Arbitration Committee filing at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Waterboarding

Since I have been told it is appropriate to keep trying on the issue while the ArbCom request is pending, I thought I would give it another shot.

As stated before, my view of the sources above lead me to the conclusion that there had been sufficient reliable sources cited in favor of a dispute on the issue. However, after reading these sources more thoroughly, I realize that a closer examination of the sources themselves might prove helpful in determining their weight.

Here is my idea: post the best sources that state either that there is a dispute, or that waterboarding is not torture. Underneath each cited source, people may weigh in on their opinion of its weight. For example, it is my view that an opinion poll might not be as useful as it appears on first glance, since many of those responding are operating under an incorrect definition of torture, specifically one that excludes mental anguish. Or, some may be presenting opposition only from those with political reason to dispute its status as torture, such as from an administration who has used the technique, and is thus entitled to less weight.

Similarly, I would argue that statements that waterboarding is sometimes "acceptable" are not completely on-point, as it is possible to hold a view that torture is justified in some cases. Ergo, it is possible for someone to approve of waterboarding while still believing it is torture. These are just some examples of reasons why a listed source may be discredited, I am posting this because I would find it useful to have others' views on the matter for the sources that have been listed.

Please do not post sources stating that waterboarding is torture. I do not think it is being contested that there are many reliable sources that state as such. (Please let me know if I am wrong on this) Therefore, if we can concede that they exist and that many have weight, we can focus on what many have stated to be the real question here: whether the other references meet the threshhold that lies between "fringe views" and those views that present enough evidence of a dispute to move the conclusion out of the realm of fact.

Thanks. -Lciaccio (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The only problme is that this isn't how we evaluate consensus for contentious content, because it will devalue the weight of the number of sources, and by selecting the "best" it disregards sources, and rewards minority viewpoints to have a fake weight they are never entitled to. This isn't a tenable way to do it. Its a clever outside the box way to go about it, but not appropriate for Wikipedia or supported by policy. Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree - it is a useful way to move the debate to concrete issues that can be discussed. Lciaccio isn't suggesting that the article be based on that single source, only that we discuss its claims. For what it's worth, I'll throw this BBC Q&A out there as a candidate. henrik•talk 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I misunderstood. Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We do not weigh what the different sources say and then decide if there is a dispute as to whether waterboarding is torture or something else. If a reliable source, such as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal says there is a dispute, then we can report that as verfied fact. We will not read different arguments and then publish our own conclusion that a dispute exists. That would be synthesis, which is a form of original research. Encyclopedias do not include original research.

The legitimate question is do we describe waterboarding as: (1) torture, (2) a legitimate interrogation technique, (3) an illegal and discredited interrogation technique that is so coercive that the subject will say anything to get it to stop. (4)...something else? These are not mutually exclusive options. Depending on the number of reliable sources that say each, we can formulate a presentation that gives proportional weight. Jehochman ^Talk 16:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as it is a verified fact that it is disputed, then wikipedia can report the dispute as a fact but must ALSO not report the subject of the dispute as a fact but rather as an opinion.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. Just naming a source is not enough, we still have to look carefully at what the source is actually saying. For example, is the reliable source reporting on a legitimate dispute, or on a fringe dispute? I would hold that the latter is entirely possible. I think that picking apart the sources in this way might enable us to flush out what is really there. -Lciaccio (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

2. Poll results: Waterboarding is torture Asked whether they think waterboarding is 
a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29
percent said no. (you will notice that this indicates that the belief that it is torture is not 
uniform -- hence disputed). 

I observe that Reuters calls waterboarding an "interrogation practice". Perhaps this controversy could be reduced if we changed the first sentence to substitute "interrogation practice" for "torture". We already have a very specific description of the practice that leaves no doubt as to its nature. The bitter dispute is whether the US should have performed waterboarding on detainees, and whether those who authorized this should be considered war criminals. The dispute can be summarized in the article, though I do not think it should be in the lead. We could probably create a daughter article to cover the dispute in detail because it has received widespread news coverage. Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Something similar has been proposed several times. It's unfortunate that it has taken this long for some of us to realize that the statement, "Waterboarding is torture," does not belong in the lead. This article must be NPOV. Neutral Good (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

In my proposed lead I was careful not to say it was just an "interrogation practice", since that suggests it is just about questioning and answering. My wording "been popularly used as a covert third degree interrogation technique" left open the possibility that it could be used for other things, and made clear that it was "third degree" ie. involving a lot more than just talking. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead never said "waterboarding is torture," as you most likely know. It describes it as "a form of torture," the way the Piano article describes that item as a musical instrument. As a form of suffocation with water being practiced on a bound prisoner, it has been regarded as a form of torture since the 15th century, as the sources (147 of them) clearly bear out. Badagnani (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguing that there's a significant difference between "waterboarding is torture" and "waterboarding is a form of torture" is really splitting the hairs, don't you think? Neutral Good (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was just responding to Jehochman's query as to whether any kind of compromise wording is possible. I would be happy to use the US Army language of "almost certainly an act of torture". However, as with the Holocaust, if >95% of experts say it happened, then I'm happy for Wikipedia to report it as reality, even though it is not a fact, and is disputed by some. As for weighting, I note that the Holocaust article doesn't even mention the debate, let alone priviledge it by mentioning it in the lead. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And I would argue that the Holocaust article SHOULD mention it. Other articles are not necessarily good indicators of how this article should be done. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but criticising the Holocaust and global warming articles, when most editors think that they're pretty good, puts your viewpoint in a small minority. Other controversial articles have gone through exactly these debates, and those who ignore the precedents that these articles set for Wikipedia are bound to be disappointed by the outcome of current process. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Global Warming article was put up for Featured Article Review and garnered either exactly or one vote less than 50% support. But it was favored so it remains feature. But 50% is not a small minority as you assert. Also, Global Warming is more scientific. This article is not scientific. The Holocaust, is not an article I am familiar with and do not know the details, but if it is handled wrong, that is not an excuse for us to go against policy here. Do you realize that your position on this is a logical fallacy? --Blue Tie (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

And before anyone says, "We don't have to do on this article what happened elsewhere on Wikipedia," you're wrong. That's not how it works. Precedent is precedent is policy. Lawrence Cohen 18:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the policy that says this? According to approved policy, it is the policies that govern. Particularly NPOV. But maybe there is a policy that says precedent trumps all. I have not seen it. Can you cite it?--Blue Tie (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Waterboarding is torture, but is that the best way to describe it? Upon long reflection, I think "Waterboarding is an interrogation practice that involves (list of heinous steps and severe results)" might be better. As a comprehensive article, we definitely must explain that "waterboarding is considered to be torture by (list of sources), although this is disputed by (list of sources)". Keep in mind that we don't usually describe terrorists with the word "terrorist". The usual NPOV term is "paramilitary" and then we describe what they've done, like blowing up buses full of civilians. I suggest that the reader will be more informed and impressed by an NPOV word and the details of the atrocities, than by a label like "terrorist" and "torture". Jehochman ^Talk 17:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so! I agree with what you have said. But still very hard to do -- because of source problems and the strong temptation to go into OR. --Blue Tie (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Mr. Bainbridge's proposal (now buried in the archives) is the best we've seen in that direction. I rather like the idea of dispassionately describing the act. henrik•talk 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated here earlier, waterboarding is not used only for interrogation, but also for punishment and other purposes. It would be good if you would read all the discussion archives before contributing here. Badagnani (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this type of approach you're suggesting (describing the procedure and its effects dispassionately, but in enough detail that any reader with a similar perspective to ours will immediately see that it is torture) is all right. I proposed something along those lines myself a little while ago, and it was fairly well liked among the participants in this discussion. I avoided "interrogation technique" because waterboarding is not about asking questions, instead skipping straight to the mechanical description of the procedure. While it would be my preference for the article to simply say that waterboarding is a form of torture, I am willing to take this approach in order to find an acceptable compromise. I proposed it specifically for these pragmatic reasons: in the hope that it would last longer, even if it is not ideal in my personal opinion. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am -- or rather I should say, I WAS strongly pushing for this approach all along. THAT view... describe it and let the reader decide has been my position ALL ALONG. However, I have become concerned that we do not have a good definition or valid descriptions. This is a concern to me. In about 10 days, I will be in a position where I can do some serious research (I hope). --Blue Tie (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding (aka "water boarding") is the practice of immobilizing an individual on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face to force the inhalation of water and induce the sensation of drowning. Waterboarding has been used to obtain information, coerce confessions, punish, and intimidate. In contrast to merely submerging the head, waterboarding elicits the gag reflex,[1] and can make the subject believe death is imminent while leaving no physical damage.

In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, 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.</ref>[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

The practice garnered renewed attention and notoriety in September 2006, when further reports charged that the Bush administration had authorized the use of waterboarding on prisoners of war, euphemistically termed extrajudicial prisoners of the United States, often referred to as "detainees" in the U.S. war on terror.[12] ABC News reported that current and former CIA officers stated that "there is a presidential finding, signed in 2002, by President Bush, Condoleezza Rice and then-Attorney General John Ashcroft approving the 'enhanced' interrogation techniques, including water boarding."[13] 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."[14]

Waterboarding has become an issue in the nomination of Michael B. Mukasey to be the next U.S. Attorney General. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Mukasey refused to say whether or not he considered waterboarding a form of torture, claiming he did not know the details of how waterboarding was conducted. Several Senators have indicated they will not vote for him without an affirmative answer.[15]

The word "torture" doesn't occur until the second paragraph, and there the use is attributed, in the form "waterboarding is torture". —Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs) 08:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Apart from being massively US centric, that lead also ignores all historical context. Why mention the US and not the Khmer Rouge? Why mention some "opinion" from the current day and ignore the fact that every court of law that's been faced with the issue has recognised waterboarding as a form of torture? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a better lead than the one we have now. Reading it over I saw only one word I would remove or change. It is possible that this might be US Centric because it is only the US that has done waterboarding. But we need more research now. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"it is only the US that has done waterboarding" - why do you keep saying this stuff when you know it isn't true? Khmer Rouge? Photos of actual waterboard in this very article? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it was true. I said it might be true. Let me explain.

1. We do not have a firm definition for waterboarding

2. Thus, if the original source does not say it is "waterboarding" it may not be waterboarding. It may be OR to call it waterboarding.

We need a definition of waterboarding. There have been several points of discussion on this. Have you missed them, or the implications? --Blue Tie (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I wondered the same thing myself. Any statements that waterboarding is a "US matter" are patent fiction. Lawrence Cohen 18:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not fiction. Just a rejection of OR. Besides I did not say it was a "US matter". I said it might be. You may see no difference in these statements. I see a very big difference.--Blue Tie (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are we suggesting that foreign viewpoints, opinion, and history are irrelevant again? This isn't an encyclopedia about the United States. We're heading down the blatantly unacceptable "foreign is irrelevant" road again, here. The very image in the article is "Painting of waterboarding at Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison, by former inmate Vann Nath." Lawrence Cohen 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the discussion, given that I was the first one who actually questioned (before I had researched any other sources) exactly what the definition of waterboarding was back in '07. However, you appear to be trying to use the discussion to push the point that anything that wasn't explicitly described as "waterboarding" in the original source should be excluded from this article, so that the USA isn't listed in the same breath as the Khmer Rouge, Spanish Inquisition, and other nefarious regimes. Regardless of what I think of this, there is no way that you are going to get a consensus to remove historical sources of what we all agree is the same technique, based on the technicality of it not being called "waterboarding" in sources that date back hundreds of years. Please work towards an approach that has some hope of being accepted by consensus. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - It appears that this editor is claiming that if waterboarding is called long turk in Khmer, we ought not even discuss it in this article, but we'd need to make an article called "Long turk" and put it there; in fact, we would need a different article for each foreign language name for strapping a prisoner to an inclined board, covering his/her face with cloth, and pouring water into the breathing passages to induce suffocation. I have never heard any editor propose such an idea in any Wikipedia article, ever. Honestly, I cannot understand what the motivation could be for such an illogical request. Nearly in the same breath, the same editor makes a brutal "joke" about the recent comments by McConnell, leading me to question his/her seriousness in this matter. Badagnani (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No, we're saying that a source article about waltzing. You look at the article, and it describes the steps in a tango, and claims that those steps are a waltz, or the same as a waltz. That article in that source is not reliable on the topic waltzing. "The map is not the territory" problem. htom (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

New article here. He thinks it's torture if done to him, but isn't sure whether it is when done to others. Badagnani (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite as ridiculous as that, actually. He said: "Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture." Also that the legal test for torture should be "pretty simple: Is it excruciatingly painful to the point of forcing someone to say something because of the pain?" But the retired vice-admiral declined for legal reasons to say whether the technique should be considered torture by the US government. - From the BBC. He's said its torture, and then takes the fifth, because "If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it." Relata refero (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to say whether waterboarding is torture or it isn't. We can describe the procedure in detail, and the conclusion will be obvious to any sensible reader. We can also say who thinks it's torture, and who does not, and why there is a dispute (Hint: this recent dispute is related to cover your ass and command responsibility.). Jehochman ^Talk 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, you should attempt to change the title of the article Rack (torture), because that would allow the readers to better assess whether it is a form of torture. In the Violin article, we don't state that the violin is "...a hollow box of wood, covered with four wires"; we say "The violin is a musical instrument..."--giving first the definition of what it is, then describe it succinctly. The fringe is attempting, for political reasons, to change the well understood definition of what this practice is, and according such undue weight as to change the actual definition is inappropriate at Wikipedia (although likely quite appropriate for some other online Wikis that do take political POVs). Badagnani (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I must not be part of that fringe, because I have no political reason for changing the lead. Maybe I'm part of a different, NPOV fringe? I am trying to get the lead to describe how waterboarding (which is an activity, not an object) is done, rather than what society's label and reaction to it is, or should be. If you look at List of torture methods and devices], many of them do not start with "x is a form of torture". Perhaps you should start changing those. htom (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I did that. If you cannot see why the articles that don't outright state that the subject is a form of torture are different from the ones that do, then there is no hope here. Hint:

• Tooth extraction - primarily dentistry
• Bastinado - "a form of torture"
• Beatings - redirects to Strike - primarly combat/martial arts related
• Binding/Contortion - Primarly acrobatics and circus acts
• Blinding - disambiguates to "Blindess" - primarly about blind people and their condition
• Boiling - redirects to Boiling to death - "a very slow and painful form of execution by torture."
• Bone breaking - redirects to Bone fracture - primary article is medical treatment, healing etc.
• Branding - redirects to Human branding - primarily marking slaves as property
• Burning - redirects to Execution by burning - a form of capital punishment
• Castration - primarly use is religious / social (eunuchs) / medical.
• Chinese Bamboo Torture - links directly to torture article
• Choking - primarly medical, Heimlich Manoeuvre, first aid etc.
• Dry drowning - calls it torture and links to waterboarding as an example
• etc.etc.

Maybe you could name the substantial non-interrogation uses of waterboarding? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Jehochman, but I am unable to respond in any normal level of detail because I am way too busy at work, with travel and with all kinds of things. I will try to get back soon. --Blue Tie (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding has now opened. Lawrence Cohen 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

President Obama on his second day of office has banned waterboarding and has clearly named it as torture. Peggyanne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.241.232 (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)