Talk:Torture#rfc 3DB4769

"Torturers more commonly act out of fear or due to limited resources than sadism." With no citation? Where is this information from, how do we know this is true ? Also grammatically a bit iffy Pinkdoveradish (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:Everything in the lead is cited in the body (t · c) buidhe 13:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:Agreed, the sentence seems a bit confusing on its own in the lead. Without the additional context given in the body, it doesn't really make sense. First of all, are we talking about an irrational fear or a rational one? Are we talking about their individual motivations for being a torturer or the conditions that allow situations to escalate to the level torture and then perpetuate it?

:I'd also say that I was able to quite easily find plenty of research to indicate sadism (or retalliation/revenge) as a motive for torture -- especially when preferring an especially cruel or humiliating act over another.

:Anyway, congratulations on featured article. Skrewler (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

:Could you provide where? I looked over the article and couldn't find it.

:TypistMonkey (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

{{U|DMH223344}}, I would be keen to know if there are any general sources about torture that back this up—Finkelstein is making a strong claim, but he is not an expert on the use of torture around the world. Although I think [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=1231199733&oldid=1231190307 this] is probably UNDUE, I'm not opposed to mentioning it briefly (probably in the prohibition section) if we can find better sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks for asking about this. The quote from this book is quoting a B'Tselem report "Israel was the only country in the world where torture was legally sanctioned". The same chapter also quotes Amnesty international. I'm not sure about UNDUE since it does seem highly notable, especially in the context of `continued use`. Morris mentions the following as being particularly notable (although it's only related to the statement you highlighted): {{tq|A secret appendix specified exactly what was permissible, making it a document unique in the annals of modern Western judicial history.}}

:I can also look for some additional RS. (Dershowitz also mentions this in The Case for Israel, but I don't think that's a great example of an RS) DMH223344 (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:From Chomsky (Fateful Triangle): {{tq|AI notes once again, as other major human rights organizations regularly have, that Israel is alone in having “effectively legalized the use of torture” (with Supreme Court approval), determining that in pursuit of Israel’s perceived security needs “all international rules of conduct could be broken.”}} DMH223344 (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

::To be clear, "AI" is Amnesty International here, so in a sense this is redundant, although Chomsky also mentions "other major human rights organizations" (which I'm guessing would include more than just B'Tselem). DMH223344 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

::If B'tselem is the source of the claim that Israel is the *only* country that legalized torture (some sources use this wording for the US under the Bush administration, although it never received judicial authorization) I think we should cite it directly. As well as mentioning that court rulings legitimized the institutionalization of torture (sources: [https://brill.com/view/journals/ihls/10/1/article-p41_41.xml?Tab%20Menu=article-metadata] [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31670709/] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/fracturing-the-exception-the-legal-sanctioning-of-violent-interrogation-methods-in-israel-since-1987/C8835E1F1384D9C5068119CC274D2CDE]) Also: [https://www.omct.org/en/resources/blog/its-now-even-more-official-torture-is-legal-in-israel "Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East” – in the whole world actually – where torture is not only practised systematically but is actually legal"] (t · c) buidhe 05:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

:::It's not just B'Tselem, it's AI and "other major human rights organizations" (from FT). Part of why I chose to cite a source citing B'Tselem is to stick to secondary sources, but if you think it's best, I can pull out the associated B'Tselem and AI citations. DMH223344 (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

::::{{u|DMH223344|DMH223344}} I did find [https://www.amnesty.org/ar/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/mde150311998en.pdf this] from AI, but it's from 1998! I'm not sure we can cite it because laws can change in 25 years. I also found [https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1207/S00030/israel-only-country-that-legitimates-torture.htm this] from 2012 and [https://anti-hasbara.com/the-only-country-on-earth-that-legally-sanctioned-torture-israels-systematic-use-of-torture-and-ce592f46a0de this from 2024 (sps post by PhD thesis student)] but I'm not sure if editors would accept these sources. I do believe it's true that "Israel is the only country in the world where torture was judicially ruled to be legal", but if we can't find stronger sources that are fairly recent I don't think we can put it in the article. The OMCT source would allow a weaker claim since it's only about democracies (setting aside the debate as to whether Israel is a democracy). (t · c) buidhe 02:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::I was careful about the phrasing to not imply that it is *today* the only country to do so: {{tq| "...making it the only judiciary in the world to have done so."}} which is only a claim about Israel's status as the only country to legalize torture *at the time*--I don't claim that it is the only one to have done so since then. Is there still an issue with using AI and Btselem sources from 2000/1999/1998 then? DMH223344 (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

::::::Not really a source we could cite here but this is from 2006: Norman mentions the "only country to legalize torture" claim in this interview, and Ben-Ami does not deny it (he instead says it is justified in some cases): https://web.archive.org/web/20060308012113/https://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml DMH223344 (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

::::Here's the btselem one: https://web.archive.org/web/20021115094838/www.btselem.org/english/Torture/Toture_by_GSS.asp DMH223344 (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::I have now added a sentence stating: {{tq|In 1987, Israel became the only country in the world where torture was considered legal.}} Note: was considered legal because the international prohibition of torture also applies in the country even if it isn't recognized by Israeli institutions. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

:Why did this end up in the `prohibition` section? It definitely belongs in the section discussing continued use. DMH223344 (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

::Israel is not unusual in using torture, it is unusual in purporting to legalize it. It would definitely be undue to mention in the other section. (t · c) buidhe 03:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

:::FACT: 2021-2025 australia illegally "legalized" torture also. My elderly parents and I are currently torture victims, as imposed from 2021 to the current time in 2025 by australian authorities. 49.180.162.158 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Do you have a reliable source for Australia legalizing torture?

::::TypistMonkey (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am a reliable source. Unfortunately (as you would know), we're being subjected to a secret service psychological warfare torture similar to, yet much worse than, Zersetsung warfare, for example. 49.181.57.63 (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources states that "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

::::::Individual people are not reliable sources under this definition - which isn't to disparage your credibility or deny that this is occurring.

::::::TypistMonkey (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

In European (Roman Law derived) legal systems, torture was sometimes called "putting the question" - the article needs to explain when this was specifically started and and when it was finished in various European legal systems - and it does not do so. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:31F2:8E09:431C:12B9 (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is covered in the "Abolition and continued use" section. Although there is more to say, which could be covered in a spinoff article such as History of torture, as it is the article is if anything unbalanced towards European history compared to the rest of the world. (t · c) buidhe 21:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748152870}}

Can we have a see also section on this page? Recent edits to include one have been reverted. Helper201 (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do not include The article has been rated as featured, meaning that editors have assessed it as comprehensive: "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". If the article fails to do this, content should be sourced and included in the article, not as an unexplained, tacked-on addition. If the links don't add to the comprehensiveness of the article, they are not sufficiently relevant and should be excluded. "see also" sections are usually only helpful when an article is underdeveloped and does not contain all the information it would if it met the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Can be included. The article was promoted to featured in May 2022, almost 3 years ago. These things change and editors cannot be expected to foresee any and all missing significant links or information, especially when a time frame of years have passed since it was placed in its featured status. Adding a see also section is common across Wikipedia articles and a featured mainstay across Wikipedia and in line with Wikipedia guidelines, it doesn't need explanation beyond itself when the links included within it have relevance to the given article. Having a see also section only helps the reader and does no harm to the page. Enforcing omission of its inclusion only lessens the knowledge of the reader and does nothing to benefit the page. Helper201 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::If you don't think the article is comprehensive, I suggest you add the missing information to the article or consider WP:Featured article review instead of slapping a bunch of links on the end. Very few FAs that actually meet the standard have see also sections. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What would you link in the "See also" section? I don't think you should open an RfC until you have had discussions on the Talk page first that reached an impasse. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::See also

::::* Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

::::* Black site

::::* Committee for the Prevention of Torture

::::* Torture in Bahrain

::::* Torture in the United States

::::* Torture in Turkey

::::* World Organisation Against Torture

::::Helper201 (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately WP:SEEALSO just says "use common sense". Black site and the OMCT are the only ones that are due imo. We have so many country articles (:Category:Torture by country), we shouldn’t pick a few. And one instance of torture isn’t due. I’d say:

:::::* Methods of torture

:::::* Black site

:::::* :Category:Torture by country

:::::* World Organisation Against Torture

:::::But if we can’t find common ground, then just exclude Kowal2701 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Fine if you want to omit the country specific ones. However, I see don't see any reason to omit any of the others. Helper201 (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Also, we don't place categories in the see also section. Helper201 (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Do not include individual instances of torture are undue and would quickly bog down the list. Methods of torture is linked in the lead and has a level-2 heading already in the article. Black site is already linked. What's the justification for Bahrain, the United States, and Turkey specificially that makes them so important for "see also" when they appear already in the {{template link|torture}} navbox? Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::"Individual instances of torture are undue and would quickly bog down the list", I proposed one here, does Wikipedia even have that many pages on specific instances of torture? Point two, I didn't propose adding "Methods of torture". Point three, black sites are linked now, they weren't when this post was initially made. The justification is these are the few countries that have specific pages about torture, there isn't a huge list of countries relating to torture, so it’s not something that is going to bog down anything. You also gave no reason why we can't include the given organisations, though I have put them in the main body since. Helper201 (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Other editors have argued that the article is already too biased in favor of exposing US abuses. So I don't think there is consensus to add yet more content about the US. Much research cited in this article has shown that the number of people tortured in so called black sites is vastly outnumbered by those beaten up in some random police station in India or Nigeria. (t · c) buidhe 05:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:You removed a sourced line of content I added. Removal of this information serves zero benefit to the article. It only makes the reader less informed. By no grounds was this worthy of removal. You said above that instead of creating a see also section links should be placed in the main text. In my attempts to do as such you have now moved the goal posts again. If you think the article should be more balanced then by all means add stuff about other countries. There is however no justification for removal of a cited line of content, especially when you've specifically requested that links be placed within the main body prior to this. Helper201 (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hi Helper, this is a broad overview article. There are many books worth of information about this subject that is WP:UNDUE for inclusion in the main article, whether in the form of links or sourced content. Changing the format of the content doesn't make it less UNDUE. Verifiability is the minimum necessary for inclusion, but is not sufficient, and "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." so far there is no consensus about the content you are trying to include in the article. We can't add information about other countries to achieve balance because that would push the article to a length that would be less helpful to our readers. Instead I suggest working on subsidiarity articles to this one such as torture in the United States (t · c) buidhe 16:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The inclusion of one extra sentence, sourced by two citations is not UNDUE. If you want to be constructive you could at least propose where to introduce the links I added elsewhere. Helper201 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Hi Helper, being brief and supported by reliable sources doesn't make something automatically DUE. That's not how it works. The link is now included in :Template:Torture if that addresses your concern. (t · c) buidhe 04:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'd argue it does, especially within the given context. Helper201 (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tps|alcw}} While I'm not going to revert your sentence inclusion, I'd still suggest you self revert; the previous sentence has a link to enhanced interrogation techniques, which contains all of your information plus a lot more. The way I see it, nothing is being concealed here, only summarized, which seems appropriate. StonyBrook _babble 17:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm willing to compromise by removing the edit if we can agree to place link for black site and CIA black sites somewhere else in the article. I think this is more than fair as I've have already comprised to not including a see also section. Helper201 (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Compromise, yes. That is why I didn't revert you, but only suggested you self-revert. I just think the sentence is not necessary per WP:GVF: {{xt|It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.}} All this information and more can be found in the lengthy article at the aforementioned link; in this way, we can have the data you seek while avoiding going into the unnecessary detail that is anathema to Good and Featured articles. By the way, nice to meet you—I see we started here around the same time. StonyBrook _babble 20:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Likewise, nice to meet you. The problem is what is "unnecessary" is extremely subjective. See point 3 of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. To be clear I’m not saying you are displaying ownership behaviour StonyBrook. I'm opening to hearing suggestions regarding where else in the article to place these links, as I suggested above as a compromise. Helper201 (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Torture&diff=1287679831&oldid=1287536947]

1. The lead is entirely supported by the body, so there is no need for either citations or citation needed tags.
2. The history section should not give undue weight to Focault's point of view.
3. The content added to the methods section is largely duplicative of content already in the perpetration section: "Torture and specific techniques spread between different countries, especially by soldiers returning home from overseas wars, although this process is poorly understood". there are far more examples of this than the ones given, and it could be biased to give examples from one part of the world.
4. Many countries including the United States claim that their torture methods are not actually torture. Others like Syria simply use torture on a large scale, without purporting to legalize it. Reliable sources say that Israel's method of legalizing torture is different from the previous two approaches.

(t · c) buidhe 05:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)