Talk:Torture/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Placement of the comma in the quotation from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

It has recently become fashionable among torture advocates to point to the lack of a comma in the prohibition of torture in the English translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity..."

As a result, torture proponents claim that because there is no comma after the word "torture," torture is legitimate for reasons not listed. Accordingly and predictably, the introduction to this quotation was changed to indicate that torture was permitted by the Catholic Church in some (unnamed) situations.

However, the "normative" (official) version of the Catechism is the Latin version, which states:

"Cruciatus, qui physica vel morali utitur violentia ad confessiones extorquendas, ad culpabiles puniendos, ad adversarios terrendos, ad odium satiandum, observantiae personae et dignitati humanae est contrarius."

There is clearly a comma in the normative Latin version. Ergo, the lack of a comma in the English version is an error.

The complete opposition of the Church toward torture is made clearer by the paragraph following the above, which calls for its total abolition:

"In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors. "

This paragraph was also removed from a previous version of this article.

Just because some people want official Catholic teaching to support their views on torture does not mean they can rely on typographical errors of the English version, omit pertinent passages or ignore the requirements of Canon Law on what constitutes official versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericstoltz (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Ericstoltz

NPOV template

see Talk:Torture/Archive 3#NPOV template

user:Ashe the Cyborg please state the reason you think that this page needs the {{POV}} template on the top of the article. If you do not do so I shall remove the template. If you do not think that the whole article has non neutral point of view poblesms then please be more specific by adding a {{POV section}} in the specific sections where you think there is a problem of bias. --PBS (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaties are inherently POLITICAL statements and often have no scientific basis beyond the current power and popularity of signatories. Citing a treaty does not change that. Scientifically speaking there are many fairly famous incidents in history where torture did work and was for the user practical in a secular sense. (read a few Holocaust or medieval siege diaries - though you will need to search hard since those are not heroic stories) Given that proving spiritual balances and values is out of the realm of Wikipedia, a better less political statement might be...

The primary controversy about torture is the spiritual and social question: WHEN IF EVER DOES THE ENDS JUST THE MEANS?

Almost no one disagrees that as a source of intelligence torture does not always work and its results almost always require FURTHER verification before action. Failure often occurs when the torturer is prejudice or gullible about answers or the mentality of the individual being tortured. (You should be able to get many recent USA or UK anecdotal citations, if nothing official.) Furthermore, information sought by torture is often "perishable". This time limitation is often in conflict with means of torture that the torturer or his political backers find acceptable or reliable, further degrading torture as a viable tool.

As a tool of forced confession, torture is normally successful but such confessions are usually suspected by others of being false or at least of questionable validity. Also the use of torture is quite often visible or suspect via past reputation of the user. As such such forced confessions usually become merely demonstrations of brute, unrestrained power or rallying points for the already convinced.

As demonstrations of power and punishment, torture serves only to ensure a strong polarization of sides in a conflict, but with some chance of defection among those less rigorous supporters with limits on polarization or ethical objections.

Thus even when torture does work it is often ill-advised due to political and socio-religious repercussions. For spiritual extremists torture is never viable even to potentially prevent all life on Earth from destruction -- if someone acts to help in an impure way, like torture, they damn you spiritually. However, due to differing judgments and systems of spiritual and secular values, the debate remains. Many secularist views spiritual extremists as unrealistic in seeking the "high road" at literally any cost to self and all others. Is there ever a negative side to seeking world wide spiritual perfection and ignoring the secular concerns of large groups of people?

I suspect that a country could have a reputation for wise and very selective use of torture. But so far countries that use torture in the modern age tend to be bumbling idiots...or too willing to release examples of failure and too reluctant to publish successes (there is a point at which long term info security hurts you).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.139.168 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore the use of citations in this article is appalling. Citations should be from subject matter experts according to Wikipedia standards. However here, citations that torture never works are from people who are not experts in performing torture on multiple people. Few of these citations ever make an effort to collect reliable data on torture. Heck almost none of them have even had the very narrow experience of being tortured for information, especially not by sophisticated torture experts. A modest fraction have however experienced torture as a demonstration of power by some of the less professional torturers, but their conclusion that the two types and goals of torture seems quite unsupported and mostly a very horrendous personal experience. Rather most citations are from spiritual experts about a hypothetical world without torture and making unsupported political or socio-religious statements. The best citations here are from political experts on the potential negative political repercussions of torture -- the existence of which few people dispute. "Never works"...using an absolute statement is almost always a clear indicator of a wish or lie or unrestrained exaggeration. But then the debate would enter fair debate if opponents admitted as little as "rarely works in a timely manner". Funny how Wikipedia bends its standards to accommodate the more vocal and politically poplar. 65.26.139.168 (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Subjective and objective

On the 8 June 2009 I replaced rather vague accusation against the USA with a specific hypothetical example from an international court case, on the on subjective as well as objective criteria for torture as put forward by one of the judges in that case. On the 10 June 2009, the USA accusation was put back in by user:Likesausages with the comment "added back controversy in US, with citation as suggested, to supplement EU case", I do not see how this accusation against the USA provides any more information about the Subjective and objective of torture than is provided by the non-political EU example. --PBS (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The accusation against the USA need not be vague. The US government officially, if not always openly, endorsed torture. Some officials employed Orwellian double speak, and redefined "torture", others were quite open about practising it. Bizarre really, even Nazi Germany wasn't so open about committing torture.JohnC (talk) 06:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange link

This reference "The applicable sanction is publicity that nonconforming signatories have broken their treaty obligations.Maggie Farley A UN inquiry says the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which at times amounts to torture, violates international law. in The Los Angeles Times" Is odd. The Truthout article claims to be a reprint from the LA Times but if you follow the link they give the LA Times article is not the same. Should we use this link? Bonewah (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a bit of seaching, the article is all over the net but luckily the original is also available on line http://articles.latimes.com/2006/feb/13/nation/na-gitmo13 so I suggest you replace the link with a link directly to the LA Times version. -- PBS (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Bonewah (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual torture

There ought to be additional meterial on the topic of sexual torture, but it should be written in a way that distinguishes the practice from the otherwise legal practice of BDSM. ADM (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This page discusses political torture, not torture in the dictionary sense, hence is misleading

From the "Torture (disambiguation)" page:

  "Torture, the infliction of pain to break the will of the victim or victims "

The topic as covered on this page seems to be specific to political torture, is therefore overly specific and misleading, and is not in accord with the link from the disambiguation page (see above). It completely misses reference to, for instance, sadistic torture: the creation of human pain in another as a way to induce pleasure in the person applying torture. Note: even inclusion of sexual torture as per one of the comments here is overly specific. For instance, concentration camp inmates and child abuse victims are routinely subjected to torture which has no "political" objective, nor is it sexual in nature, used merely to exercise power and control over its victims/witnesses and/or to satisfy the sadistic intentions of its perpetrators (e.g. heads held underwater, hands held on burning stoves, etc...)

I would suggest updating this page to cover the standard dictionary definition of torture &/or creating a page dedicated to the topic of political torture.

From the Miriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

Main Entry: 1tor·ture Pronunciation: \ˈtȯr-chər\ 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

Date: 1540

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.0.187 (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Other motives for torture is mentioned in the introduction "In addition to state-sponsored torture, individuals or groups may be motivated to inflict torture on others for similar reasons to those of a state; however, the motive for torture can also be for the sadistic gratification of the torturer, as was the case in the Moors murders." and there used to be more on this aspect of torture in the body of the , but AFAICT it was removed because the paragraphs were not sourced.

There is no one dictionary definition. It is important to note that torture involves the infliction of "severe pain or suffering" not just "pain of suffering". The Oxford English Dictionary make this point in its primary definition of the noun torture "The infliction of severe bodily pain, as punishment or a means of persuasion; spec. judicial torture, inflicted by a judicial or quasi-judicial authority, for the purpose of forcing an accused or suspected person to confess, or an unwilling witness to give evidence or information; a form of this (often in pl.). to put to (the) torture, to inflict torture upon, to torture." and as a verb " 1. trans. To inflict torture upon, subject to torture; spec. to subject to judicial torture; put to the torture. Also absol. --PBS (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Torture in mosques

There are reports about the existence of torture chambers in various mosques throughout the Middle East. It might be helpful if there were an article entitled torture in mosques which could help explain the origins and extent of this strange phenomenon. [1][2][3] ADM (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction - there is one report of a torture chamber in a Mosque replicated across multiple media outlets. It is hardly a great surprise that in a country ran in no small part by paramilitary organisations who rely on extra-judicial killing and torture to impose political objectives on the people this occurs. Hardly something reasonable people would or could consider a region wide network of torture chambers in Mosques as you infer.

By the same logic it might be necessary to create a whole series of articles Torture in homes, Torture in Churches, Torture in Prisons, Torture in Schools, Torture in Parks, Torture in Gardens, Torture in Castles, Torture in Properties Associated with the National Trust, Torture in US Embassies... etc.. etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.16.229 (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead Links

Citation 1 is a dead link. --Trakon (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I found the article on the UN website, rather than wherever the other one pointed to. --Trakon (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Murderers torture?

How can a murderer torture when, according to the UN's definition only governmental entities can torture? My point here is the UN's definition is bogus and useless (much like the UN). 192.156.59.38 (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This topic requires further disambiguation

This article needs to be modified. The subject as discussed so far is not "Torture", but "The Use of Torture for Political Purposes" or "Torture as definied by the UN Convention Against Torture". I have a problem with the hi-jacking of the word "Torture", even if by a respected body such as the U.N., to refer only to its use politically. This distinction needs to be made clear on the "disambiguation page", and either two Wiki pages created, or this article edited.

A great deal of severe interpersonal assault employs torture as defined by various dictionaries, eg.

=====================================

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture

tor·ture noun \ˈtȯr-chər\

Definition of TORTURE 1a : 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

Origin of TORTURE 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 First Known Use: 1540'

=====================================

The seriousness and consequence of these assaults are diminished when we don't allow them to be described, properly, as torture because our popular culture has allowed that word to be inappropriately narrowed to something smaller (or other) than its original meaning. 70.30.27.3 (talk) 15:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm.. why the hell is there a picture of GW on the top of this page? That makes no sense at all and also shows extreme bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.228.221 (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Torture instruments pictures

Leaving a link here to my message on Commons. --Elitre (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the year 1722 in the reference

I have a problem with this text 'Sweden and Prussia were the first to do so in 1722 and 1754' When I checked the references, 'Torture" by Edward Peters', 1722 is supposed to come AFTER 1734. 1734 seems to have more sources as the year much, but not all, torture was abolished in 1734. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Swedish version of this article upholds 1734 as one year when the torture was limited by law, but also states, which for various reasons seems more accurate the following: "I Gustav III:s kungliga brev av 27 augusti 1772 befalldes, att alla pinorum och tortyrinstrument i riket skulle förstöras, men lagföreskriften om "svårare fängelse" upphävdes först genom kunglig förordning den 12 september 1868." translation: "In a royal letter by Gustav III of August 27 1772 he commands that all 'rooms of pain' and torture instrument should be destroyed, but the use of 'severe imprisonment' was kept until September 12th 1868. " 'Severe imprisonment' usually meant that the prisoner was hung up in a very uncomfortable way, but not killed. If there are no protests, I will take away the reference to the year 1722 next week since it seems to be wrong. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture in section on Early Modern period.

Don't know if this is deliberate, but the picture in the Early Modern period, section 1.3, the picture of the Native American scalping someone says 'an 1873'. Is this correct? I'm not sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousnerd (talk • contribs) 09:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

I can't find the Amnesty International definition in the source given, Torture in the Eighties (1984):

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/001/1984/en

However, it is present on page 35 of their Report on Torture (1975):

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/ACT40/001/1975/en

Can anyone confirm this?

Simon Barne (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of information obtained by torture

This article needs information about the accuracy, or lack thereof, of information obtained by way of torture. I thought for sure it would be in here. There's all manner of discussion on the internet, and none of it looks very reliable. 2010 SO16 (talk) 01:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

David Petraeus linked to Iraqi torture facilities

I suggest that the facts reported in http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link be added to the article. EllenCT (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking first. I think the simple exercise of trying to figure out which section it belongs in and how to word it, would persuade you that it is not notable enough for here. It could go instead in the David Petreus article, or the article on the Iraq war. ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 15:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it should go there. I see that it was also added here, and I agree with that too. EllenCT (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Definition of Torture

The UNCAT definition is the most commonly cited, yet this article omits the fact that the Declaration of Tokyo uses an much broader definition which is preferred by some:

For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.

As James Jaranson points out (in "The Science and Politics of Rehabilitating Torture Survivors," in Caring for Victims of Torture, by Michael K. Popkin):

"The World Medical Association's definition is broader and does not require that the perpetrator be affiliated with a government or act officially with governmental approval. Consequently, this definition includes torture as part of domestic or ritualistic abuse, as well as in criminal activities. On the other hand, the United Nations' definition clearly limits the torture to that perpetrated, directly or indirectly, by those acting in an official capacity and appears to exclude 1) torture perpetrated by unofficial rebels or terrorists who ignore national or international mandates; 2) random violence during war; and 3) punishment allowed by national laws, even if the punishment uses techniques similar to those used by torturers. Some professionals in the torture rehabilitation field believe that this definition is too restrictive and that the definition of politically motivated torture should be broadened to include all acts of organized violence."

Also, I find it odd that in the literature there is virtually no reference to one of the commonest motivations for torturing someone: entertainment. Nearly all publications assume that people are tortured in order to punish them or to force them to give up information. Torture for fun has been ignored, legally and scientifically. Cmacauley (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources about people who tortured for fun, or studies on it. I know there are several historical counts of torture for fun occuring in the dark ages. I believe count dracula is a perfect example.MilkStraw532 (talk) 18:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added See Also Outline of BDSM#Types of torture. Jidanni (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen a study on this topic, but obviously there are many references to it in popular literature. Cmacauley (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I see now that "sadistic gratification of the torturer" is included in the introductory paragraph. I do not know where to insert a discussion of alternative definitions of torture, though; it would not seem appropriate for the introduction. Perhaps a separate paragraph on Definition? Cmacauley (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Tortured Inside an MRI

Has anyone ever been tortured inside of an MRI; or is the science still out on whether torture causes pain, like cigarettes and lung cancer, or carbon emissions and global warming?

The preference is for secondary sources. This not just for medical content (though we often apply it more there) but for all content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Structure

Plenty of good content here, but the article has so many sections and subsections and quotations that it feels unwieldy. I'm not sure how to clean it up, but suggestions would be great... Ocaasi (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

History of Torture: new article

I agree with splitting the article up to "Torture" and "History of Torture". I have worked on updating the section on History of Torture after 1948. My update includes the separation of physical torture and psychological torture. Updating the information on United States policy on torture. Updating insight of democracies and international agreements.Alpatrum23 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with spliting the article in two: "Torture" and "History of Torture". The reader is either interested in the historical aspects of torture or in its modern use. Fabio Pereira 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there's more than enough information on history to make a new page for it. I agree with Fabio. Geniusguy445 (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I Agree. Split it in two. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree - Looking at the article now and how I feel a lot more can be added, I would be more than happy to help create and write this new page. Skullbird11 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since all seem to be in favor, I intend to split the article in two within a couple of weeks. I am just saying this now to to give others time to protest. DanielDemaret (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with 'Use of Evidence Obtained Under Torture' section

Use of Evidence Obtained Under Torture section is speculative and off topic as it only talks about modern nations that have been accused of using torture and has nothing to to with how evidence obtained was used as such the entire section either needs renaming, rewriting or removing. especially as there are so many on topic examples and topics that are relevant. such as the Chinese use of Water Torture on prisoners and the widespread use of torture across Europe And America to gain confession about witchcraft and heresy ... Mike 10:50, 10 Jan 2011 (GMT)

Mike raises a good point: I hope he will add some footnoted info about confessions of witchcraft which I understand was the last time evidence adduced by torture was allowed in Anglo-American legal process--until the Bush administration. I would add that this section (admission of evidence) might fit better up in the section on laws against torture. I am too busy this afternoon to do the cut and paste and stylistic editing required.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 21:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for antiquity

I'm a little concerned about the "antiquity" section, particularly the "Romans, Jews, Egyptians and many other cultures during that time included torture as part of their justice system" part. I don't think the Catechism of the Catholic Church can be considered a reliable source on ancient history or sociology. And the source for Jewish stoning confirms that Judaism had stoning, but does not put it into the context of torture. Thus we're left without a reliable source connecting those execution methods to torture. A section that asserts modern scholars' opinions should clarify who exactly those scholars are and where they said so. Huon (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I have removed all references to Judaism from the "antiquity" section, in light of the issues as described by Huan, as well as other reasons which I will list shortly; my contribution has been limited to torture in Judaism, as I do not have sufficient knowledge regarding torture in ancient Rome or Egypt. Regarding the portion which I deleted (torture in Judaism), I first examined the source which had been cited to support this statement. It made no mention of torture, and furthermore, made no conclusive statements of any kind. The source was based on the writings of Philo, though did not directly quote him. Furthermore, without exception, all references to "stoning" in Judaism (the original justification for including Judaism to the list of torturers in antiquity) were suppositions and assumptions; the following are representative examples from the text: "Stoning is probably..." "The precise nature of method of stoning is not stated precisely, however..." "To Philo stoning seems to be...but he does not invariably state the method..." "Philo has relativly little to say of the ways execution was to be carried out..." "Hence, while stoning is not always stated explicitly by Philo, it seems probable that this was the most natural way of punishment carried out." I feel obligated to point out that the statement made in the section was presented to be a statement of fact with a citation as proof of its authenticity and accuracy - yet upon examining the source cited, I was appalled to discover that the statement a) made no reference to torture at all, and b) made no conclusive statements of any kind regarding "stoning." To make matters worse, the source itself justifies the lack of facts/clarity by stating that there is "no need for such an interpretation to be understandable," and provide a citation to bolster this claim - amazingly, upon examining this source (ie. the "source's source), I discovered that this source relied on the Christian bible ("New Testament") to support their position - they cite 8 verses in the bible, then conclude by saying: "but none of these suggest the procedure... nor do they need such a procedure to be understandable." This entire episode is very disturbing. In this case, we had an article which stated unequivocally that torture was/is a part of the Jewish religion - a loaded accusation with profoundly negative connotations - which falsely provided a citation to a source which failed to support the claim, and in turn relied on another source which failed to support the claim, and used the Christian bible their source. Not only is there no mention of torture anywhere in any of these rather dubious sources - but the entire use of the word "stoning" is in of itself an incorrect translation, the result of Hebrew being translated to Greek, then Greek to Latin &tc... One only needs a basic working knowledge of Hebrew to know that the root of the word which is used each time this method of execution is mentioned is Resh-Gimel-Mem (ר-ג-מ), which can connotates tossing, heaving, or pushing, yet when a person throws a stone or other object/missile, the following roots are used: Shin-Lamed-Chaf (ש-ל-כ) (flinging) or Zayin-Resh-Kuf (ז-ר-ק) (throwing), or even Tet-Yud-Lamed (ט-י-ל) (casting/hurling/launching) - which is why all authoritative scholars of Jewish jurisprudence agree that the method known in English as "stoning" in fact involved the "tossing/heaving/pushing" of the condemned (by one of the two required witnesses to his crime) from a specific height, to fall and be killed on a stone courtyard below - and only if the condemned somehow survives this fall, is a boulder pushed from the same place (by the second witness) to crush his body below. This is further bolstered by a textual analysis of the conjugations involved and the context. Also, any death that would cause a) mutilation to the condemned (ie. that would cause his corpse to be mutilated after death), or b) avoidable suffering (making all previous 'torture' references doubly inappropriate) is prohibited, as it would bring the witnesses/judges to transgress a significant number of commandments, both positive and negative. Again, I have chosen to elaborate on this specific example, as I feel it serves to represent a) an example of extreme distortion/misrepresentation/outright falsehood being presented as a cited fact b)having that cited source also present distortions &tc as cited facts as well c) having those cited facts be based on the Christian bible d) admitting that even in the Christian bible, those facts are not stated conclusively! If this were an article on, say, the culture/religion of the Akkadians or other ethno-religious minority which no longer existed, it would still be unacceptable - yet this is a profoundly "inaccurate" statement on Jews and Judaism, a highly maligned and persecuted minority - and it served to portray them in a violent and unseemly manner. I have no right to explicitly question the motives of whoever chose to insert these misrepresentations, yet I would be naive to assume that the possibility of malice could not have played a role either. I am very new here, so if this is too long/in the wrong place/written in an incorrect fashion, or inappropriate in any other way, please let me know, so that I can learn what is considered acceptable here on Wikipedia. Abu~Labid al~Zuraiqi [נשיקות פיהו] (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Obama: USA tortured some folks

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/obama-cia-torture-some-folks-brennan-spying

The big news here is that the CIA documented that regular interrogation worked way better at getting accurate information, and then went on a several-year clandestine campaign against the US Senate to hide that, and just this month admitted it. 104.128.96.117 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You can cetainly add this, with the citation, to the article in the section on whether torture works. But I would wait until the whole report comes out, and the pro-torture people have a chance to respond.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Presumably they had a chance to respond during the drafting of the report. If there were sufficient reasons to accept such responses as persuasive, would there be any opposition to release of the report? Are there any public authorities meeting Wikipedia's reliable source criteria which suggest torture might ever be effective in general? The article already cites [4] and [5] in support of the statement that, "there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness." 104.128.96.117 (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The CIA did indeed respond to that but most of the rebuttal will remain classified. It will probably take years for this stuff to drip out. Perhaps in the next administration, assuming there's a more willing Senate then, or after more intelligence failures drive more leaks.

It's wrong to characterize those who support the fight against fascism as "pro-Torture" when they were simply trying to find the line below real torture. The real pro-Torture folks are those with sympathies to groups like Hamas, ISIS, etc., and those who defend them, e.g. Cageprisoners and their friends at Amnesty. I'll note that the CIA hasn't waterboarded anyone since 2003. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend to oppose "torture-lite" when they choose instead to support a policy of leaving detainees in the hands of Pakistani and Saudi intelligence.

In any case, it will take years for the full truth to come out. The people who pretend to oppose torture will need to keep reading the news every day.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy

It is stated that "torture is universally condemned by all Democratic nations". That is not correct. The USA argues that torture is legal, and does so by adopting a unique definition of torture.122.59.167.152 (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150718081831/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGPOL100012005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engPOL100012005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502111323/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT40/001/1984/en/66491fc3-a18f-4ed5-8bd5-074d0a8a9130/act400011984eng.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT40/001/1984/en/66491fc3-a18f-4ed5-8bd5-074d0a8a9130/act400011984eng.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131101171413/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013250.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0013250.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130529053255/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Torture to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Torture
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130720222010/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Breaking_on_the_wheel to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Breaking_on_the_wheel
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427114518/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/IOR40/008/2002 to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/IOR40/008/2002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140711021132/http://homepage.ntlworld.com:80/jksonc/docs/filartiga-577FSupp860.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/filartiga-577FSupp860.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140709140152/http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?050214on_onlineonly01 to http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?050214on_onlineonly01
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928163144/http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/07/extraordinary_r_1.html to http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/07/extraordinary_r_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141002233523/http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/story.jsp?story=640612 to http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/story.jsp?story=640612
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150415142008/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6063386.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6063386.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141012065003/http://www.salon.com:80/opinion/conason/2009/05/14/cheney/ to http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2009/05/14/cheney/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120520150425/http://aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004a/5e.html to http://aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2004a/5e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150502125814/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT40/016/2000/en/51e8fe04-d0d2-4dc8-96a5-06d8253746ff/act400162000en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT40/016/2000/en/51e8fe04-d0d2-4dc8-96a5-06d8253746ff/act400162000en.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121027155957/http://www.startts.org.au/default.aspx?id=201 to http://www.startts.org.au/default.aspx?id=201

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070830113952/http://www.startts.org.au/default.aspx?id=201 to http://www.startts.org.au/default.aspx?id=201
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130513002534/http://www.freedomfromtorture.org/news-events/news/5496 to http://www.freedomfromtorture.org/news-events/news/5496

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070830113952/http://www.startts.org.au/default.aspx?id=201 to http://www.startts.org.au/default.aspx?id=201

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No section on effectiveness and its correlation to other types of torture

All coerced (even non-physical) interrogation is a form of torture. How sadistic it gets and the level of results generated should be the kernel of any reflection, not only of effectiveness but as to establish a moral limit where there is no justifiable utilitarian function to the practice.

Since torture has been common and there are a vast repository of historic data why isn't there any information on effectiveness (not specifically related to the subset of recent events) ? 109.49.141.100 (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Waterboarding

"Although torture is universally condemned by all democratic nations, there have been many suspected or known instances of its sanctioned use - regardless of its legality. An example of this is the use of euphemistically-named enhanced interrogation techniques including waterboarding, known to have been used by the United States after the September 11 attacks."

This is unsupported legally and it is argumentative. It also has no source. The US courts have found it to be legal and no court with jurisdictionhas found it otherwise. Raggz (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"Picture of Satar Jabar" - Inconsistencies in identity of hooded figure.

Hello! The section "Ethical arguments" contains an image with the caption "Picture of Satar Jabar, one of the prisoners subjected to torture at Abu Ghraib. Abar was not in Abu Ghraib on charges of terrorism, as was commonly believed, but rather for carjacking." No source is given for that claim. However, clicking on Satar Jabar's name links to the article "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse", which contains an identical image but identifies the man as Ali Shallal al-Qaisi and makes no mention of carjacking. The wikipedia commons page for the image identifies him as Satar Jabar. Other sources name him as Ali Shalal Qaissi, or other names entirely. After a quick google search, I believe the identity of the hooded man in the photo is not actually known for sure, with several men claiming to be the hooded figure. 2607:FEA8:E380:E12:2858:1DAC:24EE:493D (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

s

Torture was widespread in early cultures around the world: American Indians, Gauls, etc. An interesting question is, how close was it to being universal in cultures around the world? It seems to me Wikipedia should report on whatever evidence there is regarding torture's extent. As it is, the article is confined to the "great" cultures, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Europe, and China.Donfromconn (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111218203758/http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/index.html to http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/c18/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714133744/http://www.torturemuseumamsterdam.com/ to http://www.torturemuseumamsterdam.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.icc-cpi.int/organs/otp.html%26l%3Den

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Inappropriate Redirect

This page is linked to a redirect from "German Folk Music". While some people may regard such music as being tortuous, this is clearly an inappropriate / malicious link. Unfortunately I do not how to fix redirects. Can someone sort this out please? Coolavokig (talk) 11:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You might need to purge the page. This vandalism was already reverted days ago.TMCk (talk) 15:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
My mistake. It was still there but is fixed now.TMCk (talk) 15:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe make the page protected HardeeHar (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism or something else?

"The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment boob came into force in June 1987."

"Boob", really? 70.29.244.213 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

should be plural : ) HardeeHar (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Offensiveness

I realize this edit will likely be removed, but there is something deeply disturbing about the dispassionate tone and nature of this encyclopedia entry. 'Effects" is a buried single topic lost. There are no personal accounts of what torture actually does to the survivors. This entry has nothing to do with teaching people or learning about what torture is really -- it is more about the scientific object of torture. My father is a torture survivor. I don't know if you can understand my point really, but I think this kind of article highlights "torture has been used by many societies whats the big deal" and gets people excited about Sparta and Game of Thrones - and desensitized to reality. How about some images of torture? or a short video clip of someone describing the effects torture had on destroying their life? 2601:645:301:18F6:DD47:2113:A560:5922 (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)wiltonhall2601:645:301:18F6:DD47:2113:A560:5922 (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Can't see how pics of torture can be added as isnt such pics illegal to post online.

I think link to a video of victims talking about how torture affected their life is a good idea.

Regards your dad, I totally understand due to my own personal experiences. HardeeHar (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The same may be said regarding videos currently appearing on the web and showing the violent physical destruction of human beings... or not? Is it not the same? Terrible!! Regards from Mexico City and my best wishes and my best love to all (all human beings, either Wikipedian or not; even all living beings on the planet) for twenty-twenty! Correogsk or Gustavo (Editrocito or Heme aquí) 09:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Although the original comment here is some years old I feel it's worth pointing out that a "dispassionate" tone is exactly how an encyclopaedia entry should be written. It's actually mandated in the Wikipedia style guide (WP:EPSTYLE). It's understandable that people affected torture might find such a tone uncomfortable but encyclopeadia articles are not the place for passionate discussion of anything, they are intended to be, as far as possible, impersonal statements of known facts and events.--2407:7000:A12B:8553:188F:6683:805:44F (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Torture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050601024732/http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engPOL100012005 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engPOL100012005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111218212240/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090525210652/http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68643.html to http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/68643.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I have added a new paragraph concerning the Catholic Church's stance on torture during the Early Middle Ages, which is completely different to the position it later took during the High Middle Ages (i.e. the Church opposed judicial torture during this earlier phase). I have referenced a letter sent by Pope Nicholas the Great to the Prince of the Bulgars in AD 866 to substantiate this information.

This paragraph has since been removed in this revision by User:Buidhe; was this a mistake? Jarble (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

No, detailed information on religious perspectives should be covered on Religious views on torture page per WP:Summary style. (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: But the article about religious perspectives on torture doesn't have a summary in this article; it isn't mentioned here at all. Jarble (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, a brief summary on religious views in this article would be reasonable but it would have to be balanced for all major religions and time periods, not just focusing on the Catholic church. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Torture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wretchskull (talk · contribs) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I have time to do a GAN review, but I can give some preliminary comments: Scratch that. This article is too important not for it to be a GA.

• Many available sources aren't being used. There are thousands of freely available English books about torture on Internet Archive, and I dare say many dozens are high-quality academic books. Some are even here on "Sources to be used". These two: (The ethics of torture and The trauma of psychological torture) exist among the sea of books.

(talk page stalker) A reminder that there is nothing in the GAN criteria requiring that any particular works, or class of works, be included. The closest they get is "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I don't see how "Many available sources aren't being used" is an actionable objection at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That's true, and the vastness of the literature means there's no way to cite it all even if this article were a FA. I think it would be better to focus on areas where the article's coverage could be improved. (t · c) buidhe 20:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what both of you are saying. If it came across as if Buidhe should be well-versed in hundreds of pieces of literature, it was not my intention. I meant that the use of sources was initially small when considering the massive amount of sources available, especially high-quality secondary academic books and articles. The reason I had slight concern regarding the GAN is because proper coverage might be compromised when information available isn't used. Now that some of the best books have been picked, I think this point is slowly being solved. By the way Buidhe, have you considered adding this source or other sources on the talk page? I think these would be excellent additions. I'll continue the review now. Wretchskull (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• TWL also has thousands of peer-reviewed academic sources on torture.
• Content-wise, there's a separate page on "Religious views on torture". Shouldn't this article briefly summarize that? Even a sentence or two would be enough if coverage in reliable sources is slim.
  • This aspect is not prominent in coverage and it's difficult to summarize because each religion includes a variety of views on torture. I added a sentence to the public opinion section.
• The lead section doesn't really summarize the "Methods" and "Effects" sections.
  • Expanded
• I know this is a generic word, but because it is the whole gist of the article, I would link pain in the opening sentence.
  • Done
• Link "flaying" in the "Pre-abolition" image.
  • Done
• The first mention of PTSD is only mentioned as the abbreviation and without a link, but is given the full name and is linked on the second mention. Swap the order.
  • Fixed
• Prose—in terms of punctuation, word choice and consistency—could be improved. I'll see if I can take care of that later.

@Buidhe: I see that you have started addressing the comments. I'll read the article top to bottom multiple times and will update the list of comments periodically. For now, I'll give you time to expand the article and the scope of sources used due to the vast materials available. Wretchskull (talk) 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing the review. Quick question, do you use BrE or AmE? Both are used so I need to know what to look for.

Lede

• "Torture is the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering on a defenseless person" Was the addition of "defenseless" necessary? It isn't supported by the body. Also, most dictionaries and law books simply use the previous definition, i.e. remove "defenseless". There's also the prospect of ambiguity; I've read some philosophers who postulate that torture victims are not always necessarily defenseless. This should be cleared by simply adopting the previous wording.
  • Removed
• "Torture has been carried out by states throughout history, from ancient times to the modern day, especially against non-citizens" I think "non-citizens" is too vague. Victims of torture are incorporated in different parts of the article, and adding a "victims" section is most likely unnecessary, so the "non-citizens" needs to be clarified in the lede.
  • Removed, although I think this is supported in multiple places in the body
• Shouldn't the lede summarize the body of article in the same order of each sections? Not entirely sure if that's necessary though.
  • I don't think the lead needs to have the same order as the body, but I'm open to rewriting if a different order would better serve readers

Public opinion

• "Nonreligious people are less likely to support the use of torture than religious people. For people who identify with a religion, increased religiosity increases opposition to torture" Either I'm extremely tired or these sentences seem to directly contradict each other.

Not necessarily. Eg 10% of non-religious people may support; while religious people's support may vary from 50-85%. Hey, I like this back-seat barracking. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Possibly there's a more clear phrasing, but what the sources say are 1) people who do not identify with any religion support torture less than those who do; 2) for those who identify as Christians, Muslims, etc., those who practice their religion more (eg attending religious services, praying) are less likely to support torture.

General

• Link World War II in the lede.
  • Done
• Link the first mention of rape.
  • Done

@Buidhe: I'll give the article a thorough review + ref spotchecks after you address these points from a quick skim. I'm exhausted and cannot focus properly today. Wretchskull (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope you feel better tomorrow! The article is written with American spelling but dmy dates. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• A brief suggestion, the Pre-abolition seems fairly skewed towards medieval Europe. While I think the information given is fine, it does seem noticeably lacking on medieval Asian societies. I know it is hard to summarize such topics, but things like Lingchi and Bamboo torture seem like useable widespread examples. I also wonder if examples of the oldest known torture might be briefly mentioned, though I can't decide if that would be trivial information. Aza24 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, the areas outside of Europe are less well studied and there are a lot of myths when it comes to torture methods/devices. I did add a mention of the abolition of torture in China in the history section since it's a large country. (t · c) buidhe 03:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know, the whole thing feels very centered around only contemporary perceptions and opinions of torture. I would expect to see some comments from notable philosophers throughout history; the fact that an Ethics of torture article exists (as does a SEP one; see also this), makes this gap more noticeable. Statements like "Torture is nearly universally regarded as abhorrent" simply cannot be true for all of humanity throughout history (which is the implication), since there have been philosophers, politicians etc. who've argued that torture is just in certain cases and with certain parameters (and indeed the section goes on to say just that). In fact, I find the whole "Public opinion" section a bit confusing, does the "general public" really argue against torture using "deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics"? These seem like specialist terms, and I doubt most people of the "public" even knows their meanings. Aza24 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've rephrased to be about the present since I'm not sure if it applies to past eras. However, the anti-torture norm is not necessarily undermined by the fact that some believe it has exceptions. Throughout history, even those who argue that some people can be tortured in certain circumstances are, in most cases, arguing for exceptions to a rule. The main answers to "when is it acceptable to use torture" are "never" and "almost never"; no one is going to answer "always"... One could also say that all human societies have a general prohibition on killing but allow it under certain circumstances.

  I don't believe a section on "ethics of torture" makes sense; the reasons why torture is generally considered wrong is covered in the "Effects" section and the reason why it might be accepted are covered in other sections such as "Perpetration". Comparing this to other related articles, should the genocide and slavery articles have sections weighing the pros and cons? Yes, they should explain why the genocide perpetrators/enslavers did it and believed it was justified, but I believe that this is better focused on perpetration rather than "ethics". (t · c) buidhe 07:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  To put it differently, I believe this article's subject is actually existing torture as it is practiced in the real world (including historical use of torture). The article could certainly do a better job covering pre-abolition but a worldwide view is a daunting challenge (I find sources like [6] [7] [8] [9] but I'm really not sure what to add...). (t · c) buidhe 07:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  Another thought, "Support for torture in specific cases is correlated with inaccurate beliefs about the effectiveness of torture or scenarios such as the ticking time-bomb scenario that do not reflect how torture is used in practice" reads much like POV when stated so directly in encyclopedic voice. A statement like this nearly comprises the earlier criticism of torture and essentially takes sides on the issue. Aza24 (talk) 07:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  The cited source specifically lists "Biased Beliefs About Torture" as one reason why people support the use of torture (subheadings: "The belief in a ticking time bomb scenario." and "The belief that torture is effective."). Not one source I found would suggest that ticking time bomb scenario commonly occurs in the real world; all sources consulted say that torture is of limited effectiveness and doesn't work like it does in 24. (t · c) buidhe 07:57, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing:

Definitions

• "over time, more actions have been considered torture" Example?
  • the cited source gives the example of the five techniques which were not considered torture when used but are now. But I'm not sure if this is helpful to mention? Exactly what different RS or courts consider torture varies
• "In most societies, citizens could be judicially tortured only under exceptional circumstances for a serious crime such as treason, often only when some evidence already existed. In contrast, non-citizens such as foreigners and slaves were commonly tortured, as this was permitted in a wide variety of circumstances." Replace "serious" with "heinous". Also, "a wide variety of circumstances"—circumstances such as what?
  • I don't think that would be an improvement to replace "serious" with "heinous". Removed the vague mention of circumstances

Prevalence

• "however, the mediating factors are unexplained, and counterexamples exist" ...such as?
  • Post-Soviet Georgia, but I deleted the clause
• "Torture is more likely when a society feels threatened or during wars or crises" Do you mean that torture is more likely when a society feels threatened due to wars or crises, or that it is more likely when a society fells threatened and during wars or crises?
  • Clarify
• Link corruption.
  • Done
• "Although few if any countries admit to torturing, it is practiced by most countries and is widespread around the world." - "practiced by most countries" and "widespread around the world" basically mean the same thing and simply create redundancy.
  • Done

Perpetration

• Is "torture culture" a real phrase in reliable sources? If it is, it needs an explanation. Going by the logic of rape culture, I assume torture culture is a setting in which torture is pervasive and normalized due to [reasons]?
  • Wolfendale uses the term "torture culture", while Rejali refers to "torture subcultures". I believe these are similar meaning and mean pretty much what you suggest. Rejali in his research documents clusters of torture techniques that are passed on informally and are resistant to regulation or prevention efforts.
• If the above point is covered by reliable sources, perhaps red-link torture culture?
  • Done
• Link psychological abuse.
  • Done
• "Torture may be explicitly ordered by the government, but even when it is not, perpetrators may feel peer pressure to torture" Peer-pressure by whom, and for what reasons if not ordered?
  • Pressure to get results or be a "real man"; added
• "mislabeling torture as something else" like what?
  • The example of "enhanced interrogation techniques" is already discussed above

Purpose

• "The classification of judicial corporal punishment as torture is internationally controversial" If there is info on which countries explicitly distinguish judicial corporal punishment from torture, you could add a note stating which, or perhaps add a map where said countries are colored.
  • I believe this applies to all countries that use it.
• Link corporal punishment.
  • Done
• Guatemala isn't linked, but other countries are. Either remove all or add a link to the first mention of each country.
  • The only countries linked are former countries, which is generally recommended, and Kyrgyzstan because it's very small and obscure.
• Counterinsurgency is linked here, which is the second mention, but isn't linked in the first mention.
  • Fixed

Methods

• Do you think it would be necessary to have subsections on physical (with marks/no marks) and psychological methods of torture?
  • No, because sources say these are intertwined and difficult to distinguish in practice, and most torture victims encounter both forms
• Shouldn't physical torture without marks include methods such as tickle torture? Probably an important addition.
  • It's not mentioned by Quiroga and Modvig, or in other sources, and does not seem to be a common form of torture according to the definition used in reliable sources (see below).
• Low-tech is linked, but not high-tech.
  • fixed
• "Democratic states led the innovation in torture practices" Why/how?
  • The reasons stated in the previous sentence, clarified
• Acid --> corrosive substances (if stated by sources).
  • Linked Chemical burn but the source says "acid"
• "withholding food or hygiene" I would consider linking "food" to starvation, but because the target article is so underdeveloped, and it doesn't have a proper section on starvation as punishment, I'll leave it to your decision.
  • Usually not starvation since death is often not what the torturers want, just forcing the prisoner to fast for a while
• Perhaps link asylum to right of asylum?
  • Done
• Link sleep disturbance.
  • Done

General

• Perhaps mention or link torture murder anywhere? I'm surprised it isn't.
• The article doesn't really mention consensual forms of torture such as BDSM or a specific sexual activity associated with torture.
  • This article is not about anything called "torture" (which would include things like homework) It's specifically about things that qualify as torture under the definition used in reliable sources and international law. The above things don't really qualify; reliable sources focus on torture as a state practice and human rights violation. Other uses of the word "torture" should be listed at torture (disambiguation). (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Have you considered adding anything that existed in the article prior to your rewrite?
  • I don't think there is much valuable from that revision.

@Buidhe: Ping me when you're done and I'll do a source review. Wretchskull (talk) 14:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wretchskull Thanks for your review; I hope I've adequately addressed your concerns. (t · c) buidhe 02:06, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

General

• The article uses serial commas in a few places and other do not. I'll take care of that tomorrow.
• In the lede: "The ultimate goal of torture is to destroy the victim's agency and personality" shouldn't "dignity" be included?
  • I think RS classify the loss of dignity as more under the result of torture then the motive
    • The next clause, "all forms of torture can have [...]" is about the effects. Perhaps include it there?
      • Worked into a different part of the lead. (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• In the "Perpetration" section: "Torture may be explicitly ordered by the government, but even when it is not, perpetrators may feel peer pressure to torture[77] because refusing to torture is seen as weak or unmanly" add a comma right before the ref.
• In the "Punishment" section: "Torture for punishment dates back to antiquity[15] and is still employed in the 21st century" add a comma before the ref.
• Why not link flogging?
  • Done all except the second point
• "and the United Kingdom and Portugal also used torture in attempts to retain their empires" --> "and the [[British Empire|British]] and [[Portugese Empire|Portugese]] empires also used torture in attempts to retain their colonies" or anything that includes these two links.

References

• Perhaps take a look at Earwig?
  • This just picks up set phrases like "1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or "United Nations Convention against Torture". No close paraphrasing.
• I understand if you do not want to add Internet Archive links to books for stylistic reasons; they only exist for a few books and that would make the the links stand out among the books rather awkwardly. I'd personally add links, but it's up to you.
  • I am indifferent to this. I didn't access any of the books through IA, so it might be a different edition with different page numbers.
• I do not want to blame or accuse you of anything, but is most of the information from books taken from google book previews? By looking at the page ranges of some of the non-internet archive books, they seem to be ranges consistent with how typical google books previews its pages. Also, considering the fact that many pages cited are blocked on my preview due to our differing accessing regions tells me that it might be the case. If it is, then there might be unused valuable information.
  • Nope, I did not use Google preview at all. A lot of the books are available under WP:TWL (De Gruyter or OUP).
• No DOI for Bessler, John D. (2018)?
  • Doesn't have one. I added an ISSN.
• Spotchecks:
  • Disclaimer: When I use specific ref numbers, you might be editing the article as you address each point and so ref numbers and their corresponding refs change. Pay attention to the source authors, as I've listed them below to avoid this possible mess.
  • Barnes, Jamal (2017) supports all cited text on pages I can preview; AGF on inaccessible ones.
  • Carver, Richard; Handley, Lisa (2016) supports all cited text on pages I can preview; AGF on inaccessible ones. However, I'm having trouble finding where "risk of torture is highest directly after an arrest".
    • "The preventive measures that we group under ‘detention’ are important during the early hours and days after a person is taken into custody. They are premised on the assumption that torture is, in Rodley’s words, a ‘crime of opportunity’ that is particularly likely to occur if individuals lack protection when they are first detained and interrogated. Earlier campaigners against torture (such as Amnesty International in the 1970s) observed that torture was most likely to take place at this stage..."
  • Celermajer, Danielle (2018) supports all cited text on pages I can preview; AGF on inaccessible ones.
  • Collard, Melanie (2018) supports all cited text on pages I can preview; AGF on inaccessible ones.
  • Hajjar, Lisa (2013): Why doesn't ref 179 have the page range 53-55 instead of the pages 53 and 55? Page 54 seems relevant. Apart from that, ref supports all cited text.
    • Done, I tend to cite as short page ranges as possible but I agree that 54 could be relevant
  • Pérez-Sales, Pau (2016): All pages inaccessible in preview; AGF on all of them.
    • By the way, this book has tons of valuable information but is only cited twice.
      • Perez-Sales 2016 is cited 20 times. I agree it has lots of valuable info, much of which is too detailed for this article. (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I meant Young, Joseph K.; Kearns, Erin M. (2020). Also, refs like Blakeley, Ruth (2007) have very valuable info despite only being cited twice. For example, in page 375: "Authoritarian states that use torture tend not to claim to oppose it. When they admit its use, they justify it in relation to security. When liberal states do advocate torture, or when they redefine it as something other than torture, they too justify it on security grounds, unless it has been used without the sanction of the state."
          • Young & Kearns focuses on public opinion in the US just about counterterrorism. Counterterrorism is not the main use of torture, and the US is already overrepresented in the article compared to other states that undoubtedly use torture more, such as Egypt or Indonesia (not mentioned at all). So I think this book should be cited in more specific articles such as Public opinion on torture, Torture in the United States, etc. I'm not so sure about Blakeley since it does not cite sources for a lot of the claims in that article and sometimes is contradicted by other sources. For example, Barnes states that virtually all countries "hide, deny and lie about their use of torture", regardless of regime type and including autocracies. It does not seem like national security is used as an excuse for the main type of contemporary torture, against poor people accused of crimes.
  • Rejali, Darius (2009): How does page 101 support the text at ref 229?
    • Rejali 2009, p. 101 is not cited. I think you might be confusing this with Rejali 2020, p. 101, which states inter alia: "the same factors that frustrated lawyers who hoped to regulate torture also frustrated lawyers who hoped to prevent torture... Torture prevention will make no progress as long as we think of torture only as breaking the law... But Carver and Handley persistently think of torture in a way that is alien to what we know about torture subcultures, and that is a real problem. They treat torture as a rule violation." (This book is on TWL under Oxford Scholarship.)
      • Yeah, indeed I meant Rejali, Darius (2020).

I'm very sorry for the delay Buidhe! I had to divert my attention to a few other topics. I'll continue the source review on book chapters and journal articles tomorrow. Wretchskull (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review! (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Continuing the review:

• • Evans, Rebecca (2020) supports all cited text.
  • Nowak, Manfred (2014) supports all cited text.
  • Rejali, Darius (2020) supports all cited text.
  • Thomson, Mark; Bernath, Barbara (2020) supports all cited text.
  • Einolf, Christopher J. (2007): ref 135 does not really support the text; it only mentions rape and sexual assault. However, the text is supported by the adjacent Hajjar ref.
    • Removed the Einolf ref.
  • Hamid, Aseel; Patel, Nimisha; Williams, Amanda C. de C. (2019) supports all cited text. However, where are the page numbers? I only see a normal study with sections. Shouldn't the citations use loc, the same way as Evans, Rebecca (2020)?
    • The pdf with page numbers can be accessed here. I put this link in the url to increase verifiability.
  • Huggins, Martha K. (2012) supports all cited text.
  • Jensena, Steffen, et al. (2017): ref 67 should be page 405, not 404. I assume you might've read the full non-pdf document here, which formats end pages admittedly confusingly. You can see the document with all page numbers here. I fear that you did that with the other Jensena refs, and in that case, I strongly recommend that you check them. I thought about doing it but unfortunately I'm on a time crunch. I'll do it tomorrow for you if you don't have time either.
    • I've double checked all of these.
  • Oette, Lutz (2021): I'm having trouble finding where ref 66 supports the text about "The belief that torture is an exceptional and rare event contributes to masking everyday torture".
    • I think this is supported by the first paragraph of page 308, which discusses the perception of torture as exceptional and concludes, "Consequently, its victims [of routine police violence], and their experiences, remained largely neglected, or ‘underperceived'"
      • I actually think that the implication of the sentence is at fault. It is not that the belief of its rarity masks torture, but rather that torture is masked or underpreceived, and therefore believed to be rare.
• By the way, I realized that the article prior to your rewrite included the etymology of torture, which is in Latin; currently, it doesn't.
  • I guess that's the sort of thing that for me belongs on Wiktionary. It's not something that's emphasized in RS.
    • I think it is due for a small mention at least, regardless of its emphasis. If one or two sources mention it, I'd definitely consider adding it. It can only be part of a small clause, for example, in the "Definitions" section, you can change "Torture is defined as the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering on a victim" to "Torture (from Latin tortus: to twist, to torment) is defined as the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering on a victim". If you're opposed to that, I'd consider adding a footnote to the lede on the word "Torture" where the etymology is shown if you don't want it to be part of the prose.

@Buidhe: Hopefully all unchecked refs are virtually as flawless as the ones I have checked, and I fully believe they are. I've replied and added a few comments above, too. Ping me when you're done. Wretchskull (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2022 (UTC) @Buidhe: I've added a few replies. Ping me when you're done. Wretchskull (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wretchskull Done both of the last two, see reply above for coverage. Thanks so much for your review. (t · c) buidhe 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: Here's another GA in your belt. This article has been promoted to GA; you have been, and always will be one of the most prolific Wikipedia contributors ever! Wretchskull (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2021 and 18 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CeroniDominic.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Migration related torture

Parking sources here for future reference:

• https://edizionicafoscari.unive.it/it/edizioni4/libri/978-88-6969-359-5/ "Vulnerable to the System: Migration and Torture in Spain"
• https://irct.org/assets/uploads/Migration-related%20torture%20-%20One%20of%20the%20greatest%20tragedies%20of%20our%20time.pdf
• https://reliefweb.int/report/world/torture-roads-cycle-abuse-against-people-move-africa
• https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788113953/9781788113953.00031.xml

Other considerations: Seeking asylum for torture? How to prove torture forensically? (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Topic

@Buidhe: I've been thinking about the topic/subtopic of the article for a while. I think it fits "Society and Social Sciences" better than "Everyday life". The issue is that picking a subtopic is tricky and I therefore cannot add the GA to the list of GAs yet. Also, I see that you altered the article considerably after the GA pass; I wish I could take a look at it before promotion, but it looks good. One error though: you added the erroneous Jensena et al.(2017) page numbers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the page number issue, my bad. I had drafted some improvement in my sandbox in order to spare you the work of checking an extra source and some content changes. (t · c) buidhe 10:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Waterboarding a captured North Vietnamese soldier, 1968

• ... that despite being prohibited under international law, torture (pictured) is practiced by most countries around the world?
  • ALT1: ... that the prohibition of torture (pictured) is honored in the breach by denial, outsourcing, and the use of non-scarring techniques?
  • ALT1a: ... that the prohibition of torture (pictured) is circumvented by denial, outsourcing, and the use of non-scarring techniques?
  • ALT2: ... that torture (pictured) causes a higher risk of trauma than any other known human experience?
  • ALT3: ... that democracies pioneered new methods of non-scarring torture (pictured) to avoid detection?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Gamaliel's principle

Improved to Good Article status by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 10:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Recent GA article and it easily meets length requirements. This is a very heavy topic, but the page seems neutral and based on well informed sources. It looks like the article is well cited throughout, so no issues there. Earwig picks up a lot of copyvio but it looks like that's mostly common terms, names, etc. The hooks are cited in article and are of interest. I just have a couple of notes. ALT1 as a hook is fine but I think the term "honored in the breach" should be changed for something more common. I'm not sure most readers will be immediately familiar with it (I wasn't even though I got the gist). The second thing is the photo. Technically it's fine (free, in article, clear enough) but I don't know if we want to run a picture of someone being tortured on the front page. BuySomeApples (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• BuySomeApples Thanks for your review! I've provided multiple hooks, so if you don't think ALT1 would work, you could strike it (I can't think of a good rephrase). I don't think the picture is too graphic for the main page, but it's for the promoter to decide. (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: How do you feel about using "circumvented" in ALT1? BuySomeApples (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• BuySomeApples Sure, I think that works. Added it as ALT1a above. (t · c) buidhe 21:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Awesome! I approved all of the hooks, and I'll leave the photo up to the promoter. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Promoting ALT2 to Prep 3, with the image. I feel ALT1a is too technical for a lay reader. As an aside note, rarely do we get such important and heavy articles at DYK. Thanks for all your efforts! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Possible images to use

"Torture in Egypt" by Carlos Latuff

Torture on a rack by the Inquisition, Italian engraving

Serafina Apicella Gallotti torturata a Salerno

Anti-Police Torture Protest, Cairo 2007 - 002

(t · c) buidhe 22:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Image

I disagree with the use of the image File:Protesters_use_tennis_rackets_to_bat_away_tear_gas._(50267655062).jpg beside the lead. It's an odd choice to have a picture representing a technique that is "sometimes considered a form of torture". It would be more fitting to feature an image with a depiction of a more conventional or agreed upon form of torture. I am writing about this on the talk page since I'm not familliar enough with the article to choose a suitable different image. Thanks! — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Just realized that there was an image previously used, and that it was removed today. The previous image was removed without reason, so I've restored it. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 14:23, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mental Health of Torture Victims

While this a detailed article describes subject accurately, it could be distinctively tremendous to include very important topics on Mental Health issue such as providing Mental Health Care of Victims of torture or special treatment for it's complications as a direct result, of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Cumulative Trauma Related Disorders (CTD), Potentially Traumatic Events (PTE), to make this article more comprehensive and to help readers to find all subject's related aspects in connection with ramifications of its practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Anatolii Litvinenco (talk • contribs) 14:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr Anatolii Litvinenco, thanks so much for your comment. Wikipedia has high standards for sourcing when it comes to medical claims. Especially, primary sources are not supposed to be used. Although there have been some studies on these aspects, I wasn't able to find review articles that would enable expansion of this section of the article. My impression is that the overall quality of evidence for treatments of torture survivors is not high, due to limited study size. (t · c) buidhe 22:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe: What do you think of this? It calls itself "A Research Overview" but I'm not super familiar with MEDRS standards. I can probably get my hands on it, if it looks promising. Ovinus (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ovinus, I do have access to this source but I don't think it provides useful info; it does not say anything worth including about any of the diagnostic categories that Litvinenco brings up. The source is from 2001 and we have newer reviews on the evidence for interventions, which are cited in the article. Since the quality of evidence is low, I don't think expanding would improve the reader's understanding. (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Fwiw, I think the Effects section is already quite good. Ovinus (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

survey data removed for "undue weight"

I'm not really seeing it here. The current article is less than 40kb in prose length per WP:SIZERULE. The surveys have been referred to in other big-name sources like United Nations Department of Public Information and New York Times. The citations in the current section does not include any easily accessible data or diagrams (as most don't seem to be open-access) and relies mostly on a paper by a Sophia Hatz at Uppsala University. ItalianTourist (talk) 05:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue with "easily accessible data or diagrams" is that it has the potential to be misleading and uninformative. The first survey you're trying to add is asking specifically about interrogational torture, so it's relevant to that article not this one. The second one frames it as armed conflict issue, which it can be, but that doesn't necessarily answer how people view torture overall. People's answers to surveys depend a lot on how the questions are framed, and such survey questions are going to overstate the support for torture compared to ones that don't use a terrorism/armed conflict framing. The two papers are cited because they offer an overview of existing public opinion research on torture. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This article has a subsection on interrogational torture which is also mentioned in the lede, so the data is relevant to both articles not an either/or thing. Yes, the second one frames it as an armed conflict hence the addition of "military information". The objections here sound mostly like personal disagreements with the survey results, which should not be relevant to whether or not they warrant inclusion in an encyclopaedia. They're certainly not WP:UNDUE when it comes to the level of RS coverage. The current section lacks a global perspective since the Hatz source on page 6 notes that right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation are factors only among Americans, Germans and Swedes (which also seems to apply to the democratic values factor). 3 countries' populations are not the whole world. If the info is truly sufficient as an overview, maybe they can be verified with open-access urls. ItalianTourist (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not my opinion though, Hatz states: "The danger of focusing on the counterterrorism context is that what we know about opinions on torture is primarily based on survey questions and scenarios which create favorable conditions for individuals to support torture". And there has been specific research on how this framing leads fewer people to disagree with torture on surveys, for example https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750635217753655?journalCode=mwca (t · c) buidhe 14:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is not your opinion that survey data is not 100% representative of the populations (how many surveys are?), but it is your opinion that reliably sourced content be removed because of this. For due weight, one should include both the survey results and the journals you cite here. I see you also added that the public is most favorable to torture "in countries with low per capita income and high levels of state repression", while ignoring that the same source cites the surveys I added. Does this fit due weight? Or do you want to argue that the US, South Korea and Israel are countries with low per-capita income and high state repression? ItalianTourist (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Unethical human experimentation

@Buidhe: Randomly thought of this. State actors have conducted torturous experimentation for medical purposes, e.g., Nazi human experimentation, and (essentially) vivisections conducted by Imperial Japan. Perhaps these are worth a mention? Ovinus (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably not since it's not really covered in sources and unclear if it meets the purpose requirement. (t · c) buidhe 17:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

We have an entire article on Medical torture? Here's at least one source: [10] (don't really have the time to look for more atm) Ovinus (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Article already states that medical professionals can be complicit in torture. More details potentially belong in the specific article on medical involvement, or they could be added to the perpetration section if there are specific details on how medical professionals role in torture is different from other perpetrators. Human experimentation is however, not the main form of medical involvement in torture. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Good points, thanks. Ovinus (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Two thoughts on images

Congrats on getting this important VA-4 article to FA, @Buidhe! Two quick thoughts:

• The image/caption of the Indian police station don't seem to work particularly well. To me, it just looked like a photo of a street in India, and I barely noticed the building in the background. Confused, I had to click through to Commons to discover that it was a police station. To remedy, I'd suggest a combination of cropping it to zoom in on the station, specifying in the caption that it's depicting a police station, or swapping it out for a picture that's more clearly a police station.
• In File:CAT members.svg, India sticks out quite a bit. I went looking at the text but didn't see any additional info. Also, on clicking through to Commons, I see the definition of yellow is Signed but not ratified which seems to differ a little from just states that have signed the treaty that we have here. Would you be able to sort these things out? Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

POV beginning

"Captured Viet Cong soldier, blindfolded and tied in a stress position by American forces during the Vietnam War, 1967" - why this picture? Because the US is a free country, which does not censor images of crimes like generally Communist countries do? The picture defines - the USA is a bad guy, has committed the biggest crimes. But the biggest crimes were committed by Nazi Germans, Communists, Belgian colonisers. Xx236 (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What picture would we replace it with? Gnominist (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Preview maligned.

Preview (showcasing in brevity contents of a connected article) has been modified to specify Torture as "taking an L".

Cleansing beseeched. ParanoidAndroid353 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

"Stigma against torture"

Proposal to change to "condemnation of torture" or "widespread condemnation of torture". Stigma implies it's not legitimate but fabricated. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

“ torture is still practiced by most countries.”?

Don’t we need a citation for this? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Cited in the body (t · c) buidhe 17:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)