Talk:Waterboarding

Frequently asked questions

Does the lead with the phrase "Waterboarding is a form of torture" follow Wikipedia'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?

Wikipedia 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

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 Wikipedia. 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
[dead link]". Pasadena Star-News.

Archives

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

Definition: Is waterboarding a form of torture? (RfC), Sources (discussion), FAQ

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by .

MythBusters Waterboarding Demonstration

I was surprised I didn't see a mention of the MythBusters Water Torture episode under demonstrations. For those who don't know which episode I'm talking about, here's a link to the section on youtube: <- Link redacted ->

While it doesn't involve a mask or face covering, it's still pretty similar. Would it make sense to add it to the article under that header? 2601:1C0:8500:1161:E802:4299:719A:734A (talk) 2601:1C0:8500:1161:E802:4299:719A:734A (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to redact the Youtube link you provided, as the video appears not to have been uploaded by the copyright owner. We do not permit links to copyright violations.

As for anything Mythbusters did on the subject of waterboarding, it is unlikely to be seen as a reliable source for anything of significance. We have credible scholarly and media sources discussing the topic, and we don't need to resort to content made for entertainment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dry drowning" should be edited out

"Dry drowning" is a discredited term and should not be used in this page. Its wiki article says this when you click on it. I apologize if I'm writing this post incorrectly- I made this account recently. Thank you! Treepersonified (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same. One of the articles is clearly wrong. 2800:300:6291:7F50:0:0:0:2 (talk) 07:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit needed

If you read the sources quoted in footnote 119 and 120 it states that the supervising soldier was courtmartialled. But the article describes 2 US soldiers involved as shown on the picture of the event as well. I found that confusing so I propose to add the word “supervising” to “soldier”, at the place where it reads that he was punished. 2A02:A467:9E7C:1:9DF5:A18C:C999:F444 (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

The section on Christopher Hitchens states:

   Hitchens, who had previously expressed skepticism over waterboarding being
   considered a form of torture, changed his mind.

This statement, if true, merits a citation. I have read the Vanity Fair article of his personal experience with waterboarding, and at no point in the article does he express this skepticism. He does, however, accurately describe the beliefs of others that do not believe waterboarding to be torture. Trammell (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Waterboarding is a form of torture" is never going to change because it's what the people who run Wikipedia want.

This is why most people consider Wikipedia a poor reference for controversial topics. For instance, Wiki still maintains that the SARS-COVI2 virus came from a bat and discredits the lab-leak theory. That's absurd of course. But you can't make a sourced change to the article without zealots changing it back. I've given up. 35.129.255.80 (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchens did indeed subject himself to waterboarding because he believed it wasn't torture. Remember, this is the guy who insisted that the United States doesn't lie. A position he didn't hold pre-9/11. It's obvious that that was the reason Hitchens refused to believe waterboarding is torture. Would the Bush admin lie? This, in turn, is why he was made fun of by the left. Somebody joked that Hitchens should take a bullet to the head to prove it's not lethal. Because, you know, stupid.

Everybody knows waterboarding is torture. Something everybody knows and can be easily proven isn't open for debate. Everybody understands that torture is a mean. If waterboarding wasn't torture, it wouldn't serve a purpose. And it's easily proven by being subjected to it. Let somebody waterboard you and have "torture" as safe word. How long will you last before you cry "torture"?

Also, it took Wikipedia some time to recognize waterboarding as torture as well.

Sorry for going on here, but this has to end. It's infantile to argue that waterboarding isn't torture. I remember the first UFC, where somebody (no reason to name names) said he won't tap to submissions and then instantly tapped. You are like that guy. Though he changed his mind.

SARS-COVI2 isn't here or there, but some fringe bloggers haven't dis/proved anything. I remain a skeptic on the issue and have my issues with Wikipedia. For example the section "Description by U.S. media" on this page. The NY Times held the same position as NPR. There's a paper on it. The entire corporate media was on the side of Bush. https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/torture_at_times_hks_students.pdf

I know the editors on Wikipedia know of this paper. So why limit something that was universal to one outlet? 89.253.73.146 (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

US perspective

I don't really think this article deserves the "US perspective" tag. Most current news and examples are American simply because they exist. If other countries currently engage in the practice they're clearly more secretive about it. Historically, in this article, there are plenty of non-US examples. --24.80.199.58 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]