Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:22, 13 December 2010

Template:Article probation

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.

	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

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.

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.

NPOV

The lede reads, "waterboarding is a form of torture." A flat out statement, poses as fact when it represents a hotly-disputed opinion. Recommend "Waterboarding is a controversial interrogation technique which many assert constitutes torture." Similarly, this edotorializing usage, "Justice Department memo attempting to justify torture" --Solicitr (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

See all the archives and all the reliable sources. This is not a "hotly debated opinion" among anybody but a few political pundits. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

US and International law do not specifically list waterboarding as torture. There is a severity test for an instance of waterboarding to be classified as torture. US citizens are typically charged with assault and battery for waterboarding, since a finding of torture under US law requires a civil authority chain of command over the incident. The article uses specific and harsh historical examples of waterboarding, testimony that was part of a larger war crime investigation, to make the equation, and ignores the opinions of US military personnel who have experienced the interrogation technique with no ill effects. 71.105.198.93 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is all this POV pushing starting again? Is the US planning to use this torture technique again, or is there finally a real chance some of the perpetrators will be convicted? Absolutely amazing how shamelessly American politics can be detached from reality. Hans Adler 09:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who is POV pushing? We aren't the ones insisting on a categorical assertion that waterboarding "is" or "is not" torture -- to the exclusion of sources that disagree. You are the one attempting to exclude points of view you disagree with by editorializing their exclusion into the lede. "Many consider waterboarding to be a form of torture" is a true statement, just as true a statement as "some sources do not." Do you deny that there are at least some sourced authorities that disagree with the categorical "is torture" statement? If not, what exactly is wrong with eschewing the categorical assertion for an NPOV description that captures this disagreement? Oh yeah, politics, that's what. 220.255.1.106 (talk) 13:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Nah. This article has been shamelessly politicized by an anti-waterboarding admin. NPOV would be "many consider waterboarding to be a form of torture," not a categorical "is" torture, given that we have sourced authorities who disagree on the issue. See, e.g., http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/05/no-torture-no-prosecution.php ("Even the worst of the CIA techniques that were authorized – waterboarding - would not constitute torture"); Michael Lewis, A Dark Descent into Reality: Making the Case for an Objective Definition of Torture ("The past four U.S. Attorneys General currently have very different opinions about whether waterboarding constitutes torture. . . . Such wide disagreements between legal professionals would not exist if torture were more clearly defined."). But NPOV doesn't apply to corrupt, politically-motivated wikipedia admins, alas. 220.255.1.114 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want, insist that Misplaced Pages is anti-waterboarding. In fact, we are also anti-murder and anti-pedophilia. You will just have to live with the fact. Hans Adler 14:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Misplaced Pages is anti-POV. You can be anti-anything in your personal capacity, but editorializing your personal political or moral preferences into an article to the exclusion of well-sourced authorities that you disagree with is simply a violation of NPOV. And you will just have to live with the shame. 220.255.1.103 (talk) 16:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.144 (talk) 16:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A single OpEd by a single person, immediately ridiculed by other experts, is not a significant voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Experts"? You mean an anonymous comment thread that accompanied the article? That you characterize as "expert" an internet comment thread is a sign of your ludicrous bias. Moreover, I provided two sources, both reliable, the second of which named prominent DOJ officials -- two former Attorneys General -- who do not consider waterboarding to be torture. The fact that others disagree with them does not make them insignificant voices. Your modus operandi, as far as I can tell, is to disparage any source contrary to your preferred editorial slant as "insignificant," even though they are well-sourced. You are violating NPOV, and you know it. 220.255.1.99 (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Check the credentials of the commentators. Moreover, check the content of the article and the comments - OR, of course, but can you honestly disagree? Going by the Bush administration officials on the issue is about as reasonable as letting a burglar define breaking and entering, or expecting reliable truth from the Soviet era Pravda, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

An internet comment thread anyone can comment on with a series of anonymous comments that are unverifiable is not a "reliable source." The article itself, published by JURIST and written by a contributing editor who is a law professor in the relevant field and an actual expert, is a reliable source and not "OR." You are violating every wikipedia rule on reliable sources and NPOV with your claptrap. Here we have a wikipedia "administrator" telling us an internet comment thread is a reliable source, while a published article isn't. Laughable. 220.255.1.115 (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Time to follow WP:DFTT and WP:DENY, I suppose. Hans Adler 18:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

I repaired the link to the CNSNews 21 Apr 2009 article, which says, "A Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005, released by the Obama administration, revealed that the CIA, in waterboarding al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was able to gather information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a 9/11-type attack on Los Angeles". A more recent (13 Nov 10) article says, "According to the 9/11 Commission Report was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is also alleged to have confessed to a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including ...an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles...." Bin Laden rejected some potential targets suggested by Mohammed, such as the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles". KSM was captured in 2003. TFD (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

will this never end?

Waterboarding by scottish gangs

According to this article , scottish gangs have been reported to use waterboarding on rival gang members. Randomly interesting. Maybe deserves inclusion into article. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Not torture

The mention of torture in the first line is not neutral. Waterboarding is not torture.

Jimmer1123 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Jimmer1123

Yes it is, per common sense, Misplaced Pages:Common knowledge, and several hundred reliable sources. Also see debates on this very page and in the archives. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Common knowledge applies to matters of uncontroverted and generally known fact, like the fact the moon orbits the earth. It doesn't apply to matters of definition, especially in an area as controversial as this one. Again, you fall back on "reliable sources;" but you are playing the old game wherein a source is "reliable" or not depending on whether it agrees with your position. So for example ] is not "reliable," despite its being the view of a United States attorney; whereas "newsmedia in other countries were opining" does count as a "reliable" source- and in the subsection 'Legality," no less, as enforced by the Guardians of the Article.

One might hope (in vain, naturally) for the establishment of Misplaced Pages:Ringfencing; if so this page would constitute a prime exhibit. Solicitr (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If the then United States attorney would have made his judgment (which is not really in the source but I remember it) before the fact of us using water boarding as an "interrogation technique" it could be taken more serious and maybe seen as reliable; But he did so after the fact (and BTW, before more information about how it was carried out and used was revealed) when it was in the interest of our government to have it "legalized" to put it mildly. So anyhow, we go with the common international description which is water boarding equals torture (like we do too when applied to other countries who engaged in such "interrogation techniques". Can it be justified in some occasions? Maybe; But not by law and definition.TMCk (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sophistry. Any flimsy justification will do to exclude content that contradicts your definition and some interpretations of law- especially since this article is absolutely rife with after-the-fact opinions.

Now: justify the "reliability" of "newsmedia in other countries were opining."--Solicitr (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Trying to pull a strawman won't work. Try justifying your point of view with some independent and convincing sources; Or try to experience the real thing (with professional supervision) and share your thoughts then. Don't mean to be harsh on you; Just trying to make you think more about this TMCk (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"independent and convincing sources": more sophistry. There will never, ever be a source that you (all) will admit to be "convincing." You are in effect dealing three-card monte: the game is rigged and you've palmed the Queen. This entire article is a monument to the Assumed Premise. "Or try to experience the real thing (with professional supervision) and share your thoughts then."- Talk about fallacious arguments! Have YOU ever undergone waterboarding? By your logic, you aren't qualified to comment either. You are determined by God to have it graven in stone that "Waterboarding IS torture" because that's your opinion and you won't even admit that other opinions exist; you won't even tolerate an NPOV lede like "Waterboarding is a form of coercive interrogation and/or punishment which many authorities consider to be a form of torture" because that would create a rift in the facade of pretend unanimity you feign exists. --Solicitr (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now you just switched into blabla soaping where there is no response for. Please refrain continuing this path as you well know that WP is not a forum, etc. Provide a valuable argument in favor of the article or desist. You won't get another response )at least from my side) with posts like the one you just made.TMCk (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that there is anything like a reasoned response even to valuable arguments. Any argument that cites reliable sources disagreeing with your view is simply dismissed out of hand and summarily excluded, based on nothing more than ipse dixit and Herr Administrator Schulz's obdurate refusal to concede -- the NPOV debate being a prime example. So we are left with the absurd spectacle of an administrator characterizing anonymous internet comment threads as "expert," while giving short shrift to a law professor who is an actual expert in the relevant field (and therefore a reliable source). You can hardly blame Solicitr for showing some exasperation in the circumstances. 220.255.2.38 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

update

Someone might want to update the 2008 sentence "t appears unlikely that bill supporters will be able to gather enough votes to overturn the veto." 194.90.46.228 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is it neutral to define waterboarding as torture?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The current article lead defines waterboarding as "a form of torture", with editors who support this arguing that the vast majority of reliable sources agree with the statement. However a high level of controversy surrounded whether waterboarding was indeed torture, with the even some of the highest levels of American government claiming that it wasn't. This has been a long-disputed issue on this article with numerous editors on both sides. It's clear that the dispute isn't going to go away, so I'd like to request comments on the matter. So the question is, again, is it neutral to define waterboarding as torture? (not 'is waterboarding torture or not?') If there is no consensus, would a compromise be acceptable? We could simply replace the disputed statement with the dictionary definition: "an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning"

I would request that the regular users involved in the dispute don't carry over their arguments here; this will avoid over-cluttering the RfC. Swarm 23:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unless you have a new reference to present, the answer is the same as the last two hundred times this question was asked: "Yes, a great preponderance -- virtually all -- reliable sources say waterbording is torture." I believe starting yet another RFC without having any new facts is tendentious editing. Jehochman 23:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  Woah. "Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." How is starting an RfC 'editing with a bias or viewpoint'? And what's my bias? Please, tell me, because as far as I know I have no personal bias. This RfC is a response to the recent renewal of the issue, which I'm not even involved in. Do you disagree that the dispute keeps getting brought up again and again? And why would you be against an attempt at community consensus on the issue? Swarm 04:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  We've had a long term problem on this page with external canvassing, sock puppetry and political POV pushing. You might be acting in good faith, but many of the editors who keep raising this issue probably aren't. Let's not take the bait. Jehochman 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• The issue isn't going away because some editors insist on beating the dead horse. I know it can be tough if something you would really like to do turns out to be illegal. But that's life. Hans Adler 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• "with the even highest levels of American government claiming that it wasn't" is wrong. Some members of a past government claimed this. Both Obama and McCain called it torture during the 2008 campaign. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, comment slightly refactored. Swarm 04:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I'm just tiptoeing in here, having seen the RfC and never having edited here before. The lead does go on to summarize the claims that it is not torture, so I don't think it's a problem that the first sentence says that it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
• Waterboarding is torture, as the preponderance of expert sources shows. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, it is neutral to say this as it is backed up by the vast majority of sources. --John (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with the unanimous comments here that the article is correct as-is. Maybe we should put a FAQ at the top of this talk page explaining that this has been discussed to death and further discussions will be summary closed? Raul654 (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  The best case scenario is a rock solid consensus- if the RfC generates this, I agree that we should put a message at the top (not necessarily a FAQ) that refers to it to avoid further talk page arguments. Swarm 07:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  There's already an FAQ at the top warning that this issue has been discussed for months and that a new, high-quality reliable source would be sufficient to revisit the issue. Perhaps we should close this discussion as redundant since no such source has been put forward. Jehochman 13:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Maybe we should make the FAQ bigger and more obvious so that it stands out from the other half-dozen templates here. I didn't see it before I posted my comment, and I was specifically looking for it. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  I moved the FAQ up and uncollapsed it. Is that better?--agr (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

  Much improved. In addition, I removed some of the other unnecessary headers to reduce clutter. The problem remains, though, that the FAQ isn't definitive enough is telling people not to rehash it. Raul654 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tendentious editing is editing with a sustained bias, or with a clear viewpoint contrary to neutral point of view." Yup- and that's the case even when a majority of editors agree to do it. "There's already an FAQ at the top warning that this issue has been discussed for months and that a new, high-quality reliable source would be sufficient to revisit the issue. Perhaps we should close this discussion as redundant since no such source has been put forward." -because you in the Cabal simply dismiss them all as unreliable or not "high quality." How convenient. "The issue isn't going away because some editors insist on beating the dead horse. I know it can be tough if something you would really like to do turns out to be illegal. But that's life": typical snark. Gee- why do you think this issue keeps coming up - being "rehashed" as you put it? Because you waterboarding-is-torture-so-shut-up people are NOT a unanimous, unchallenged consensus, there are other viewpoints no matter how hard you try to pretend they don't exist, and this issue is not going to go away until you admit the POV hammerlock you have on this article and abandon your tendentious editing. Solicitr (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have glanced at this page many times over a long period, and I must say it is clear that much of the "is torture" crowd have been acting in bad faith. A striking recent example is the above citation of an article written by a legal scholar, law professor, and former JAG Lt.Col. for a highly respected legal news site (JURIST). The response to this was to discount it as unreliable due to the "expert" responses in the unmoderated, anonymous comment thread attached to the article. The user who rightly insisted on its reliability was then called a "troll" and a "vandal" (for those who don't know, WP:DFTT stands for "Don't Feed the Trolls", and WP:DENY refers to denying recognition to vandals (people who deface pages with "joe is gay" and the like)).

Question: I saw no one object to this scurrilous attack on a user. Will other advocates of the "is torture" position have the integrity to condemn this despicable insult of a user as a troll/vandal for posting relevant information to a talk page?

Many users have rightly noted that the WP:RS standards are being rigged and the goalposts shifted. Thus, 100 lefty law professors sign a petition, and that is 100 sources, but the above is not even one source. Also, anyone ever involved with the US government is apparently forever disqualified from being a source due to conflict of interest (?); this absurd standard would discount almost any scholar associated with an institution, or that has ever applied for a grant, or almost anything. An economics professor who makes money would be compromised! No, a scholar in the relevant field is a reliable source.

Indeed, everything seems to hinge on this one petition. "Is torture" advocates make endless reference to "hundreds" of sources, but if that petition is not counted, the "is torture" sources number 40-odd, while the "is not" or "might not" ones number 20-odd, even by the rigged standards. This is not overwhelming. This shows how flimsy the whole foundation of this claim to near-unanimity is.

The petition in any case is a legal opinion, and does not cover other aspects (e.g., medical expert opinion, colloquial/political use of the word torture, etc.).

One can compare other pages for appropriate ways to handle controversies involving minority opinions. E.g., Global warming says "The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring", not "It is occurring." Creation science refers to "generally accepted scientific facts" and "The scientific community states that Creation Science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that Creation science does not qualify as science". These are good templates for writing about such topics.

Right now much of this article reads like an editorial entitled "Why waterboarding is torture and why those who say otherwise are foolish and wrong and criminal". This is not how articles should be written. Misplaced Pages is WP:NOT a soapbox. E.g., articles on torture devices do not generally bother talking about psychological effects lasting for years.

Let us not deceive ourselves about what has gone down here. There was an edit war, and the "is torture" crowd won it and drove off the neutrality brigade. There was no consensus, merely victory by exhaustion and bullying. There is now no organized opposition, but people will continually comment here because the article is now, and likely will remain for some time, in violation of WP:NPOV, and this is obvious. It is I suppose futile to try to convince those who won the war to be reasonable and give up their prize.

But insulting every user that critiques the article is unacceptable. And such users should know what really happened here. Benkta (talk) 18:19, 13 December 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
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment