Talk:Torture

Sources to be used

Feel free to add reliable sources if they aren't used in the article or mentioned below Lokaneeta, Jinee (2011). Transnational Torture: Law, Violence, and State Power in the United States and India. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-5280-7. Haritos-Fatouros, Mika (2003). The Psychological Origins of Institutionalized Torture. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-28276-5. Levinson, Sanford, ed. (2006). Torture: A Collection. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-530646-0. Parry, John T. (2011). Understanding Torture: Law, Violence, and Political Identity. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-02178-9. Wisnewski, J. Jeremy; Emerick, R. D. (2009). The Ethics of Torture. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4411-9798-6. Conrad, Courtenay Ryals; Moore, Will H. (2010). "What Stops the Torture?". American Journal of Political Science. 54 (2): 459–476. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00441.x. Wisnewski, J. Jeremy (2019). "Human Rights: Torture". International Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism. Springer. pp. 245–258. ISBN 978-981-10-4181-5. Nowak, Manfred (2018). Torture: An Expert's Confrontation with an Everyday Evil. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 978-0-8122-4991-0.

Perpetrators depicted in lead photograph

Regarding File:Vietconginterrogation1967.jpg, the Commons description states that it is a US government work taken by a US soldier. NARA categorizes this image as "Photographs of American Military Activities".[1] Unless there is evidence that it is depicts ARVN rather than US forces, I think the caption should remain. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Commendation

@Buidhe: can I just commend what a great job you did on this article? Basically every sentence is sourced reliably and it is excellently written. I honestly think this is the perfect article. 750h+ 13:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• User:750h+ Thanks! There are actually many WP:Featured articles that are of similar quality. (t · c) buidhe 15:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Agreed. This article is legendary. You're legendary. Words cannot do it justice so I shall not even attempt it. ❧ LunaEatsTuna (talk), proudly editing since 2018 (and just editing since 2017) – posted at

Top image

There are a wide range of images of torture available from a wide range of times and places. Why is an image of US abuse in the Vietnam War the top image? In this portion of the article, an image is somewhat decorative, and there is another image of US abuse in that war lower in the article already, so I would argue that since torture has been rather widespread it is fair to use an image from a different time and place, because as it is currently, the images are particularly US-centric. Victor Grigas (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What images would you suggest to use instead? Please be specific. There are very few freely licensed images of torture actually taking place and a lot of them are already used in the article. (t · c) buidhe 01:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure,

this is from an older encyclopedia

A_man_tortured_on_the_rack._Wood_engraving._Wellcome_V0041734

Streckbett

Turkish_soldiers_torture_bulgarian_revolutionary

the top image would be my first choice. Victor Grigas (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Encyclopedically, this is a bad image for a number of reasons:

1. illustration vs. photograph means it is inherently less faithful to actual events. I think we would need a secondary source that says it is an accurate depiction.
2. The pictures will be too small for readers to see what is happening in the images
3. Captions are in Russian and there is no explanation in English on commons what exactly we're seeing there and what the context is. (t · c) buidhe 13:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Gee I guess taking a picture of medieval torture implements is out of the picture? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.140.28.33 (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Subjective?

@Buidhe: I didn't think about this until now: "Torture is the deliberate infliction of severe pain or suffering", isn't "severe" subjective and perhaps in some instances simply not the case? How is it worded in sources? Wretchskull (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't really have time to go through the sources for you right now, but you should be able to access the ones cited in the definition section. Torture is usually defined as more severe than Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. (t · c) buidhe 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Questionable sentence

"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)

Small words; big differences

@Normanhunter2 You removed most from: Torture was legally and morally acceptable in [most] ancient, medieval, and early modern societies. I'd say that now it implies all, and I wonder if some folks might contest that if not be personally offended. Personally, I don't know which is more factual, but seems like a rather big meaning change considering you are rewording sentences to achieve the same meaning. Can you provide justification for this change?

In general, such wiggle words are an awkward topic in WP. As an editor I often wonder whether I should choose: most, some, commonly, typically or the like. In this case, since it's such a sensitive subject, this seems a relatively important choice.

WRT In many cases, a combination of dispositional and situational effects [lead] makes a person [to become] a torturer IMO the becoming aspect is critical to the meaning and that makes does not imply the becoming aspect. Well, maybe it does a little, but IMO not strongly/clearly enough. I think as-is, it reads as the effects result in a person being classified as a torturer.

WRT Torturers forget [important] essential investigative skills. Doesn't achieve the same meaning. Not saying it's wrong, but it's not what you said you were doing.

WRT adding the to United States–backed regimes I know you should include the with US, but it reads awkwardly now. The the is ambiguous and therefore confusing since could go with US or regimes. And if goes with regimes, then further awkward since implies there's a specific set of regimes, but there is no specific set either in the article or in common lingo. Suggest clarify by changing to regimes backed by the United States".

WRT Cultural and individual differences affect how different [torture methods are perceived by the victim] the victim perceives torture methods is not grammatically correct. Maybe you meant: ...how different victims perceive...

WRT Fictional portrayals of torture as an effective interrogational method [have] has fueled misconceptions should use have since the noun is portrayals; not method. of torture as an effective interrogational method is an adjectival phrase. Maybe the phrase is overly long and needs re-wording.

I think your changes are well intentioned and for the most part result in better content. I plan to address these issues but wanted to let you take a whack at them first if you want. If I do it, I will fix the grammatical errors, but I don't have the domain knowledge to change/revert the first (most) issue.

What piqued my interest in your changes is that your comments say minor fixes, rewording sentences to achieve the same meaning, but that is misleading since you did change meaning. I'm fine with changing meaning, but I do think we should be honest/accurate in the change comments. Stevebroshar (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of my grammatical errors were correct, I re-worded some of the sentences so they can be more clearer. You're happy to revert them back if you chose to, but provide a reason why.

I've never meant to change any meanings of sentences but I explained most of my edits in my edit summary. Normanhunter2 (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Photos and neutrality

The modern images (say from the last 100 years) depicts one artwork, one poster, one use of tear gas ("sometimes considered a form of torture"), one person recovering in bed, and three photos of American torture. While none of these photos are out of place, collectively they put an emphasis on US torture which don't reflect the text, giving the impression that torture is a predominantly American thing. That's probably not our intention? /Julle (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Julle, please show me where I can find freely licensed photos of equivalent educational value (i.e. torture actually occurring in the photo) from another country. I have scoured Commons and the internet without finding any. (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Buidhe: I absolutely understand how we end up in this situation – it's easier to find the US pictures. My point is that if we had text content which we felt had NPOV issues, we'd consider making the article shorter to preserve quality. In this case, I suggest we remove at least one picture even if there's nothing wrong with it in itself, isolated from the context of the other photos in the article, as the information value of the image is not worth giving the impression of torture as a mostly American thing. /Julle (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, no we should not remove encyclopedic value for our readers just because hypothetically some could come to a conclusion that is directly contradicted in the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Israel: only country to have judicially authorized torture?

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 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): 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): 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: [2] [3] [4]) Also: "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)

DMH223344 I did find 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 this from 2012 and 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: "...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: 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)