Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese box (torture)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 01:50, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese box (torture)

The page should be deleted because it is a hoax and completely lacks any credible source Lao Wai 15:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Andrew pmk 18:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Add reasoning to taste. -Splash 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• KeepDelete, we already have the dab page Chinese box and the bit at the bottom of this article (which is its content, really) at least from a Googling, I can't verify. The stuff above the {{NPOV}} tag duplicates the dab page I mentioned.. -Splash 19:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually there is already a perfectly good disambiguation page or at least there was last time I checked. The bit at the bottom is the article. Lao Wai 19:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I've changed my vote. -Splash 19:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep for now. Both the reference books listed do exist, although are out of print (searched on Amazon). It should be possible to find them in a library somewhere and verify.

--Howcheng 22:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Well George Mason's book is there because I put it there. His book does not refer to this alleged form of torture at all. The British Library does not hold the Sair book which suggests to me that Amazon is wrong and it does not exist. If even Google produces nothing then I'd say it is a myth. Lao Wai 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Sair book exists in the Library of Congress so it's real. It's not in my local library, though, so I can't verify the information for you. --Howcheng 15:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have asked and no one has been able to verify it. Sair is not a China scholar so even if the book existed it would only prove that in 1944 people wrote dumb things about China. If it were real a real scholar would have mentioned it. They do not. Lao Wai 16:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Given Lao Wai's legwork, I hereby change my vote to Delete. --Howcheng 20:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep until verified. Make sure the article reflects the unverifiedness. -- Zanaq 02:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If it is a myth, how can one verify it? Surely the burden of proof ought to be the other way around for an encyclopedia? Lao Wai 08:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Charliez 09:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC). Articles that cannot be verified in any way, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. To add insult to injury it's written in a manner that is completely unscientific. Remove it but by all means let someone write a completely new article at a later point, should they somehow manage to verify these claims. As anyone with even a minor interest in the logic of philosophy would know, it's in fact not possible to prove that something doesn't exist. Unless articles like this are deleted, Wikipedia will slowly be filled with undocumented claims and nonsense.

• Normally I'd agree. However the two referenced books seem to exist, so it seems verifiable in principle. -- Zanaq 11:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Well, at least one of the books is claimed to have been checked, and no reference to this device found Charliez 12:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• changed vote. Lao Wai makes a lot of sense. -- Zanaq 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be unverifiable. --Carnildo 06:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep maybe. As far as I know, a chinese box is a box within a box, within a box, etc. It's also an expression and a famous thought experiment. In terms of the torture device, it does seem like something that would be written about in the 19th century, when China and the far east were "exotic" and any tale of bizarre torture would please 19th century audiences, whether they are true or not. Both cited sources are real. Thus, if the article were written in terms of how this 19th century term for a torture device came about, etc., then I say keep the article. The device is obviously an exaggeration, but there may be something to the myth which might be worth preserving. Of course the article as such does none of this. Nrets 01:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a disambiguation page that provides links to the box-within-a-box and to the famous thought experiment (and to a film as well). There is no need for another one. At least one cited source is real, but as I said, it does not mention this device (which suggests it is not true). The other one is more elusive. As I said above "Sair is not a China scholar so even if the book existed it would only prove that in 1944 people wrote dumb things about China. If it were real a real scholar would have mentioned it. They do not." What is worth preserving and where is the evidence for it? Lao Wai 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Granted, but even if this Sair fellow is not a Chinese scholar, he might have used reliable sources in his book. I think someone, preferably the original editor of the article, should produce a more specific citation of the Sair book, or check which original sources he used before we discredit the whole thing. That being said, it sounds like this article is more of a myth than a hoax, and from that angle, the myth of the so-called Chinese box can be written about. I think we should at least give the editor the benefit of the doubt. I agree, in 1944 people probably wrote dumb things about China (and about a bunch of other things), but dumb things usually have a source in the collective unconscious of the time and reflect interesting cultural trends. This is why myths are worth preserving, so we can understand how our thinking has evolved over time and why we see things the way we do. Nrets 14:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, there is a book in print called "The instruments of torture" by Michael Kerrigan which lists in it's index under China:death by insects. I wonder if anybody has access to this book if this mentions anything about a box?? Nrets 14:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough I do, but I won't be able to get it until Monday. I'll keep you posted. Lao Wai 10:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Been there, read that. Not a bad book really. I guess Jane Austen got a little too boring for him. It refers to one case in modern China in which a man was allegedly chained up outside where the mosquitos bit him. And another few cases from the rest of the world. As far as myths go I am happy enough with moving the page to Sexual Fetishism or the like. It seems more appropriate and as long as it is rewritten that way. But it would probably be best to delete it and add some stuff to the pages that exist already. Lao Wai 13:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Granted, I guess it is unverifiable. The burden of proof is on the original editor and he hasn't come forth to defend his position. Nrets 15:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.