Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese raping chair

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. CDC (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese raping chair

A hoax, no such thing: article was originally lifted verbatim but has since been re-worded (a bit) and the source credited. However, every single hit from google (about 11) is an identical quote from that same source, and it should not be taken seriously. Sadly, half of the google hits are crediting Wikipedia for this unpleasant bit of misinformation. Veledan 4 July 2005 22:11 (UTC)

• Have now noticed OP has been banned too. - Veledan 4 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree completely with Veledan's assessment. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 4 July 2005 22:35 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, dubious source (it's actually: http://www.world-sex-records.com/sex-227.htm). Non-encyclopedic. Also assumedly bad faith on the article creators part. --Moritz 4 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)
• Delete as per Moritz. Jaxl 4 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
• Delete. Wellmann 4 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)
• Keep Above URL references a published source "The Illustrated Book of Sexual Records." Some googling brings up: ISBN 0517448998 —Tokek 5 July 2005 04:51 (UTC)often Updated vote made below.
  • Amazon.com link —Tokek 5 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)
    • That book is the single source I am suggesting should not be taken seriously - Veledan 5 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
      • Have you read the book? I haven't. —Tokek 5 July 2005 07:03 (UTC)
• Delete I have not read the book but I checked out the author. He is not a China specialist nor, as far as I can see, an expert on sex. I too would assume bad faith. Lao Wai 5 July 2005 09:01 (UTC)
• Delete was waiting for this to happen. There's a long history of academic orienatalism that tends to portray the East as inscrutable, uncivilized, and a negative mirror of the West. And, attaching the word "ancient Chinese" makes whatever ludicrous contraptions more credible - take magnets, aphrodisiacs, life extension creams, and of course, raping chairs for example. Also, I tried to find ISBN 0517448998 at the many universities/libraries around Boston with no luck. These institutions have millions of volumes to their credit, and somehow overlooked this book... --Muchosucko 5 July 2005 13:54 (UTC)
  • Comment A.the Orientalism article says the term is used to refer mainly to eighteenth and nineteenth century works, not a book that was published in the 20th century. B. ISBN numbers can change with newer editions. This book appears to have gone through several editions, so you will have better luck searching for the title. C. I am not aware of any criticisms against the author's credibility except on Wikipedia regarding this article. —Tokek 5 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
    • Reply A. I agree that some things are _outdated_, but it is dangerous to devalue an idea's worth just because it is old - as I'm sure many of the older Wikipedians here agree. Perhaps we should deny the value of the French Revolution because it is an 18th century idea? Or deny the importance of Montesquieu's ideas on liberty because it is three centuries old. I think civilization is a progression of ideas succeeding one another, building on itself. You cannot stand without a solid foundation, and good posture requires you to understand your foundation. B. Good point, a search via Wikipedia pulls up 4 ISBNs for different editions : ISBN 093332863x, ISBN 0863691293, ISBN 0517448998, ISBN 0863691307. I cannot, for the life of me, find a copy of any of the 4 ISBNs via a title search among the millions of volumes at any academic institution near Boston - incl. all the libraries of Harvard, BU, BC, Boston Public Library, Simmons, MIT, Emerson, The Fenway College Consortium (Emerson College, Emmanuel College, Lesley University, Massachusetts College of Art, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Sciences, Museum of Fine Arts, New England Conservatory of Music, Wentworth Institute of Technology, Wheelock College), Umass Boston, The Five College Consortium (Amherst, Mt. Holyoke, Hampshire, Smith, Umass Amherst), Inventory of nearby Borders books (Amazon.com partner, and this book was out of print since 1987), Barnes and Nobles. It is available at faraway book stores. Apparently, it's not even available on Amazon since this book is out of print. It's only available via used book sales at high pricesTokek, if you can find it for me at any nearby university, library, or bookstore, I'd be more than happy to get it and share its contents/credibility with Wikipedia. C. I am not aware of any criticisms against the author's credibility except on Wikipedia regarding this article. - True. But also: I am not aware of any support of the author's credibility except on Wikipedia regarding this article. - I have no idea what kind of scholar Simons is. I don't know if he's affiliated with a university. I don't know his specialty, his fact checking, his methods, his biases, his education, his references, his experience etc. etc..--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  • Reply I am currently at the UIUC library's main stack waiting on the staff to retrieve the book, which should not take more than 15 minutes. Will update with my review. --130.126.37.53 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)
    • Reply Books Simons has authored, and the link to the card catalogue page.
    • Reply Hah! I commend you for your dedication - I probably would have been too embarassed to ask - and I look forward to your review. I stand by my position that this is most likely non-encyclopedic and non-notable. --Moritz 5 July 2005 17:24 (UTC)
    • Reply Me too! - Veledan 5 July 2005 17:34 (UTC) *prepares for judgment on original position*
• Delete. A single dubious source is not enough to base an encyclopedia article on. Gamaliel 5 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)
• The book was published by Virgin books in 1982 in the UK, Delilah Communications in 1983 in the US, Library of Congress number 82-74032. The book's cover is a cartoon depiction of a female leg. To get this book, by the way, I had to see 3 library employees, all female. The book appears to be more commercially oriented rather than academically oriented. The book contains small stub-length sections with titles such as "Most ___", "First ____", "Largest ___", "Rarest ___", etc. with photographs and cartoon drawings sprinkled throughout. The raping chair article on page 106 is titled "First raping chair introduced." While some sections give references to works or particular people, the raping chair section lacked any. In the introduction section of this book the author explains:

"On the items set fourth in the present volume four basic types may be identified-

1. matters of fact, well attested
2. matters of fact, poorly attested
3. matters of subjective evaluation
4. matters of fiction and legend

[…]I leave the reader to judge to which class any particular item belongs…" Thus this article definitely gets a new Strong delete vote from me. —Tokek 5 July 2005 18:38 (UTC)

• • Reply - Well, what do you think of Said's theory of orienatalism now? Still outdated?--Muchosucko 5 July 2005 19:12 (UTC)
  • Reply - Many thanks for your impressively helpful edit Tokek! - Veledan 5 July 2005 20:37 (UTC)
• Delete per Veledan and Lao Wai. StopTheFiling 21:50, July 11, 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.