Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:16, 14 November 2010

Template:Article probation

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

	Waterboarding is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 20, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed March 17, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Intelligence This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Intelligence task force Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities

view · edit Frequently asked questions Does the lead with the phrase "Waterboarding is a form of torture" follow Misplaced Pages's neutrality guidelines? There have been extensive discussions on this topic over several months, and the consensus view is that according to the sources that exist, the phrase "waterboarding is a form of torture" is an accurate assertion, supported by an overwhelming majority of sources. For further details on how this conclusion was reached, the interested reader is referred to the discussion archives. Isn't the current debate enough to call the status into question? Misplaced Pages tries to fairly represent the published views of relevant experts in an area. In this case, the vast majority of experts found so far have been of the opinion that waterboarding is torture. Almost no experts have stated the opposite position, while a few have expressed the view that it might not be torture in all circumstances. See here for a list of all sources that we have collected on this topic. I still do not agree that this article's lead is neutral—how can I change it? If you wish to change the assertion that waterboarding is a form of torture, please first propose to revise the lead on the talk page. You should support your proposal with high quality reliable sources, such as from medical or legal scholars, supporting why it would not be an accurate description. Even a single new high quality source would be enough to revisit the debate. Then please add that source to here and mention the addition on this talk page.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Loretta Keller (16 Nov 2007). "Torture harms more than the victim ". Pasadena Star-News.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Waterboarding and the media

Interesting paper here - . Remember (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Waterboarding your girlfriend

Evidently, this activity has caught on in Nebraska See . Perhaps their should be a crime area in this article. Remember (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bush says "Damn right" he ordered waterboarding

Evidently, Bush's new book states that he said "damn right" when asked to authorized the use of waterboarding on KSM. Here is a link to the article . Maybe it should be included. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed. --John (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely, given there is an entire article about it and there is even a slight chance he will have to pay for this confession. Hans Adler 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Sure, but with proper attribution ("Bush claimed..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
• Probably best to wait until the book is released so we can lift the actual quote. That article hedges a little with the 'according to someone who has read the book' part. Arkon (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Lauer interview

Bush talked pretty extensively about waterboarding, its legal justification, and his use of it with his interview with Matt Lauer. Here is a link to the transcript . Here is the excerpt below. I think this should be incorporated somehow into the article. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

BUSH: Let-- let-- let's talk about waterboarding.

LAUER: Okay.

BUSH: We believe America's going to be attacked again. There's all kinds of intelligence comin' in. And-- and-- one of the high value al Qaeda operatives was Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the chief operating officer of al Qaeda… ordered the attack on 9/11. And they say, "He's got information." I said, "Find out what he knows.” And so I said to our team, "Are the techniques legal?" He says, "Yes, they are." And I said, "Use 'em."

LAUER: Why is waterboarding legal, in your opinion?

BUSH: Because the lawyer said it was legal. He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I'm not a lawyer., but you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do.

LAUER: You say it's legal. "And the lawyers told me."

BUSH: Yeah.

LAUER: Critics say that you got the Justice Department to give you the legal guidance and the legal memos that you wanted.

BUSH: Well—

LAUER: Tom Kean, who a former Republican co-chair of the 9/11 commission said they got legal opinions they wanted from their own people.

BUSH: He obviously doesn't know. I hope Mr. Kean reads the book. That's why I've written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this. Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did.

LAUER: You talk about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. There's another guy you write about in the book, Abu Zabeta, another high profile terror suspect. He was waterboarded. By the way, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded, according to most reports, 183 times. This guy was waterboarded more than 80 times. And you explain that his understanding of Islam was that he had to resist interrogation up to a certain point and waterboarding was the technique that allowed him to reach that threshold and fulfill his religious duty and then cooperate. And you have a quote from him. "You must do this for all the brothers." End quote.

BUSH: Yeah. Isn't that interesting?

LAUER: Abu Zabeta really went to someone and said, "You should waterboard all the brothers?

BUSH: He didn't say that. He said, "You should give brothers the chance to be able to fulfill their duty." I don't recall him saying you should water-- I think it's-- I think it's an assumption in your case.

LAUER: Yeah, I-- when "You must do this for--"

BUSH: But…

LAUER: …"All the brothers." So to let them get to that threshold?

BUSH: Yeah, that's what-- that's how I interpreted. I-- look, first of all we used this technique on three people. Captured a lot of people and used it on three. We gained value-- information to protect the country. And it was the right thing to do as far as I'm concerned.

LAUER: So if-- if it's legal, President Bush, then if an American is taken into custody in a foreign country, not necessarily a uniformed--

BUSH: Look, I --

LAUER: American­­--

BUSH: I'm not gonna the issue, Matt. I, I really--

LAUER: I'm just asking. Would it be okay for a foreign country to waterboard an American citizen?

BUSH: It's all I ask is that people read the book. And they can reach the same conclusion. If they'd have made the same decision I made or not.

LAUER: You'd make the same decision again today?

BUSH: Yeah, I would.

Justice Dept. / Los Angeles attack

"According to Justice Department documents, the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information about an unrealized terrorist attack on Los Angeles."

I'd suggest this should be removed (or at least moved). First, the supporting link no longer exists. Second, unless they actually produced some evidence that this is true, rather than just asserting that it is, should is really be mentioned at this point in the article? Perhaps, there should be a section contrasting the claims of the efficacy of waterboarding versus the counter claims that it is entirely unproductive - some examples:

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812 http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/11/06/no-appetite-for-prosecution-in-memoir-bush-admits-he-authorized-the-use-of-torture-but-no-one-cares/

Where this currently appears in the article, isolated from context and counter argument, seems misplaced (if not actually POV).

Finally, since this article accepts the view the waterboarding is torture (which it is) then this sentence can be rewritten as "According to Justice Department documents, the torture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed provided information...". Stated like this, it seems even more out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.193.208 (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To PhGustaf: "will this never end?"

Perhaps it will "never end" because a certain group of editors have seized control of this article and made it entirely POV, while ruthlessly suppressing other viewpoints. You have decided tht "waterboarding is torture" is a 'fact' Divinely Pronounced from Mt Horeb, and in trying to maintain the illusion of that 'fact' are almost certainly going to get dissenting voices from now until whatever time the epistemic closure ceases. Hint: when editor after editor tries to sway an article from Received Opinion, that's a big clue that the article violates NPOV. Have we learned nothing from the William Connolley debacle? --Solicitr (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There are hundreds of reliable sources, from law professors to physicians to human rights experts to military lawyers to US presidential candidates (of both major parties) to Christopher Hitchens who support that fact that waterboarding is torture. Many of the sources are in the archives. I'm sorry, but Glen Beck is on the WP:FRINGE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's just Glenn Beck? Sorry, I don't listen to him. You're trying to decide 'fact by majority vote'- sources whose opinions (I stress that) agree with yours are reliable, whereas others who don't, aren't. Whether or not waterboarding constitutes 'torture' is a matter of opinion. It's not and cannot be a 'fact' no matter what Christopher Hitchens says, or law professors (who are in the business of opinion, not fact), or 'human rights activists' (hardly an unbiased crew). You could line up much of the same 'support' for a declaration that "Capital punishment is a crime against humanity", and it would still be a) opinion and b) POV.

A proper NPOV lede would run something like Waterboarding is a coercive interrogation technique which many authorities consider to be a form of torture. That would be a non-idiological NPOV approach. Wiki is not supposed to present opinion- not even the massed opinions of a lot of people- as "fact"--Solicitr (talk) 14:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Freudian slip on the "activists"? Your suggestion is not POV, but is, indeed, wrong. Note that waterboarding has been used for many other things than interrogation, including punishment and coercion, just like other forms of torture. Unless you have significant reliable sources denying the claim, it stands. Note that such sources are easy to find for capital punishment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are playing the definition game- trying to take something which can not, categorically, be other than opinion and claim it as 'fact.' It is no different, save heated politics, from the debate in Alaska class cruiser over whether they fit the definition of "battlecruiser" or not. That's all it boils down to- how one defines the term "torture" and whether waterboarding fits within it, which cannot be anything other than opinion. "Unless you have significant reliable sources denying the claim, it stands. ". Such sources are easy to find, including a few which the article includes (and dismisses out of hand). But to you, any such source like the Bush Justice Department is inherently "not reliable"- because it disagrees with your views. Circularity in action.--Solicitr (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

While postmodern "it depends on what the definition of is is" may be fine for you or Bill Clinton, they are not useful for building an encyclopaedia. If you have sources, bring them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinions cannot be facts. Waterboarding is largely considered torture, however the claim that it "is torture" is not acceptable in the spirit of NPOV. Merriam-Webster does not even define it as such.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By the same argument the United States of America is not a democracy. Hans Adler 09:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It is neither 'postmodern' nor Clintonesque, my characteristically smug Lefty friend; it is a categorical observation. It is no more a matter of fact than whether or not Israeli construction in East Jerusalem constitutes "settlements." You demand "sources;" you have sources, and have scrubbed sources, and if I were to bring more, you would dismiss them in the same way you have all the others, as "unreliable" or "fringe." To you a "reliable" source is one that agrees with you.

No, what you've got (and you certainly act as if you think you "own" this page) is sufficient numbers and Wikipower to ensure that you can present your political POV as 'fact,' simply because you can outmuscle opposition. As far as you're concerned, you are objectively Correct and there's an end on't: which is the diametric opposite of making an encyclopedia. Good God, the page on Osama bin-Laden studiously avoids calling him a 'terrorist.'

I think there is something to Wikis as exploitative and perhaps repressive tools in most political and societal sense, not just the personal pwn'ing of individual editors.... At the same time wiki software and culture facilitates the concentration of privileged (literally', in the "permission" sense) into the hands of a few pre-selected and thereafter self-reinforced actors. The wiki is a rigged game that exists for benefit and use these privileged actors while the egalitarian illusion keeps the bulk of exploited labor grinding away. This game fixing is then rigorously denied and hidden. The story for consumption is that everyone contributes on a level playing field and only merit and hard work distinguishes participants. This is the story bought hook-line-and-sinker by the ultra-democratic community and wiki boosters best embodied by Everyking.--Wikipediareview

It seems that little was learned from the Wikia/Durova fiasco--Solicitr (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class intelligence articles
• Intelligence task force articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press