Talk:Torture/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• • (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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 [1] [2] [3] [4] but I'm really not sure what to add...). (t · c) buidhe 07:58, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • @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)[reply]