User talk:Arilang1234/Sand box/Chinese Holocausts

This article is not original research
To anyone who is going to use Wiki rule:No original research to attack this article, my answer is:forget it.

No original research

Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

Why this article constitutes original research
I'm not convinced Arilang1234 (the author of the unsigned comment above) understands WP: no original research, but I'm convinced that this article constitutes "original research." Here's why: 1. The title of this article does not comply with Naming conventions Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. Source: Naming_conventions

You have not presented a single source (scholarly or otherwise) that discusses any of these events as a holocaust. All you have is your own claim based on a definition you found elsewhere, but you are not a "reliable source." Finding an English source that refers to one of the events you include here (the Nanjing massacre, for example) as "holocaust" would not be enough, because this is not a page about the Nanjing massacre: it's a page about many massacres that this wiki currently claims are known as "holocausts." Conclusion: the title of this wiki is unacceptable.

Even if the wiki's title were changed, the page would still have problems, because I know of no reliable source that discusses the Great Leap Forward, the Mongol conquests, and the Nanjing massacre together, not to mention the repression of the 1989 democracy movement. These events do not belong on the same wiki page.

2. This article constitutes SYNTHESIS, one type of original research: Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research. Source: No_original_research.

To use the language of this rule: the sources cited "do not explicitly reach the same conclusion" as Arilang (the conclusion being that these massacres constituted "holocausts"), and the sources cited are "not directly related to the article subject" (which is "Chinese holocausts"). In other words, Arilang put together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Conclusion: this article is a synthesis, a form of original research.

Here is another rule that supports my analysis: Even with well-sourced material, however, if you use it out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research Source: No_original_research. (The bold type is in the original.) The position that all these massacres constituted "holocausts" is not "directly and explicitly supported" by any source cited.

3. The lead paragraph says: In China's thousands of years of history, there were many instances of massacres that can be suitably called holocausts. It appears that an editor (not a reliable source) is doing the labeling, here. WP: SYNTHESIS has an example of "original research" that applies very well to the way this wiki discusses "holocausts." Here's how editors should write about "Smith saying that Jones committed plagiarism":

"Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references."

But the following paragraph would be unacceptable:

"If Jones's claim that he consulted the original sources is false, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted. The Harvard manual does not call violating this rule 'plagiarism'. Instead, plagiarism is defined as using a source's information, ideas, words, or structure without citing them."

As WP: SYNTHESIS explains: This entire paragraph is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given the Harvard manual's definition of plagiarism, Jones did not commit it. To make the paragraph consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Smith and Jones dispute and makes the same point about the Harvard manual and plagiarism.

As I said, this example applies very well to the way the current wiki discusses "holocausts." To re-write the above paragraph: This entire article is original research, because it expresses the editor's opinion that, given some definition of holocaust, the Mongols (the Japanese, the CCP) committed it. To make the article consistent with this policy, a reliable source is needed that specifically comments on the Mongol conquest (the Nanking massacre, the Great Leap forward, etc.) and makes the same point that they constitute holocaust according to the definition proposed.

Conclusion: this entire article clearly constitutes original research.

--Madalibi (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * User Arilang, the title of the article is actually incorrect. Since these events are four quite different events, the title should be "Chinese holocausts". And before you go and change the name, you have to find a source or sources that actually talk about "Chinese holocausts". It seems to me that the only one who has ever written about these events as "Chinese holocausts" is user Arilang. The selection of events to be characterised as "holocausts" also seems highly subjective. Why is Tiananmen (with a few thousand killed at most) put in there with the Mongol invasion (millions killed)? Which source has ever put these events together and called them "Chinese holocausts"?
 * Bathrobe (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I shall move the article back to my user/sandbox for more research. Arilang   talk  23:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)