Talk:Cannibalism in China/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Corrections

  • Il Milione did not mention the indigeneous Han Chinese practising cannibalism, but tribes from Tibet, Sumatra etc. It was in the third part of the book, on cultures outside China proper, not within. Please check your facts.
Yule and Cordier; Marco Polo. Vol.I, p.301 --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
A quote, please. You don't run off with such a citation like Holocaust denials do. Mandel 08:13, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Please try to explain to poor me how one infamous Chinese tyrant's cooking dishes can come to mean such practices are commonly practised around in China. You should know Mr Shang Zhou lived nearly 3000 years ago, right? And that people hated him so much that they mentioned this as defamatory to his name, not as praise?
The same mistake Ktsquare did. See above. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. You said we misunderstood the Japanese historian, but if it is so, then the Japanese historian's logic is erroneous. Quoting him correctly does not make the logic more palatable. Go to the primary source. If Mr Kuwabara Jitsuzo makes this claim, where are his sources to back the claim and which he arrive at this? Mandel 08:13, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Give me any evidence, from the Analects or from any recognized Confucian scholars like Mencius, where you get this idea from:
"Confucianism encourages revenge for parents and brothers. Revenge was achieved by killing enemies, but sometimes one ate them (their hearts and livers in most cases)."
I'll allow you to quote liberally from any sources, so long as they are Confucian.
Take a look at 禮記. For example, the following sentence is in the section of 曲禮:
父之讎弗與共戴天 兄弟之讎不反兵 交遊之讎不同國.
--Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Huh? Try getting past someone who doesn't know Chinese. Translate this into English. Then tell me where on earth it relates to cannibalism. Mandel 08:13, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • And, by the way, make good these statements as well, if you don't want to run the risk of being called racist:
"The Chinese did not eat those who died naturally in general, but it was not the case when avenging the killing of his parents."
"The Chinese did not hesitate in humiliating corpses but he is a special case."
支那人は時に病死者の肉を、甚しき時は墓中より掘り出した屍肉すら食ふこともあるが、こは特別の場合に限り、普通は殺害した、又殺害された人肉を食ふのであるから、Marco Polo や Solayman の所傳は、大體に於て間違がない。
支那人間に於ける食人肉の風習 page 193
Need examples?
For the latter, what do you want me to explain? --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Translate pls. Again, go to the primary sources. This Kuwabara guy's works are highly suspect. He quotes Marco Polo, but where exactly did old Marco say this? Mandel 08:13, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • You seem to know an awful lot about Wang Mang:
"Irate crowds often scrambled to eat executed prisoners. For example, Wang Mang, who took over the Han Dynasty, was sliced by soldiers. People humiliated his head and someone cut and ate his tongue."
I'm sorry to say this but Wang Mang was killed by troops charging into his palace courtyard. He was never thrown out as an executed prisoner like what you say. If you don't believe me check out the Britannica article. [1]
See above. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I won't let you get away with this type of reasoning. You say it came from 漢書/列傳/卷九十九下王莽傳第六十九下. Fair enough, quote the relevant passage in Chinese, then TRANSLATE it into English for the benefit of the readers. Then show in what ways it is proven.
I'll help you out:
商人杜吳殺莽，取其綬。...軍人分裂莽身，支節肌骨臠分，爭相殺者數十人。... (漢書/列傳/卷九十九-王莽傳-第六十九)
Translate it, then tell me where it relates to cannibalism?
  • Last, but not least, this:
"China has a rich history of cannibalism (喫人). It is partly because China is the country of literature but mostly because the practice of cannibalism was relatively common in China."
Care to explain why literature makes one yearn for human flesh?
See above. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sorry I have to burst your bubble, Nanshu. You just cannot get away with logic of this kind on Wikipedia. I don't have time for a systematic demolishment of your article but for a start, please try to answer the questions of Ktsquare. Mandel 19:27, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Please try to complete the article. We are hungry for more. Mandel 19:32, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Good job, Mandel. Praise on ancient Chinese historicizers. ---Duqi 17:32, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Since I gave the pointer (and I'm lazy), I expected for Ktsquare to answer the questions by himself and to narrow down the focus. But he didn't. I will answer then the next time. --Nanshu 00:59, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't expect myself replying my own question. My questions about Nanshi's statements of the article shall be answered by Nanshu. It's hir responsiblity to narrow down the focus simply because he put up such claims here. Nanshu, may you also reply Mandel's question above? Ktsquare (talk) 21:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Done. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Vfd poll result

Jiang, unless you invent a new counting method, the current poll result is:

  • Delete 5 (+1)
  • Merge 4
  • Keep 3

I don't know what those voter for merge think. How? --Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying it should be deleted when most people did not vote to delete? Merge is a compromise between "keep" and "delete". --Jiang 03:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Have you merged aricles into other ones whenever neither "keep" or "delete" was overwhelming? For the current poll, we don't gain consensus to merge this article into another. --Nanshu 02:28, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Keep" had the least number of votes. That's not an option. What do you think the consensus is then? Should we go by the number of votes and not consensus? In that case, we delete. Merging is an accepted compromise. --Jiang 05:10, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you really a moderator? As far as I know, every article is kept unless we reach consensus delete it. And what's the essential difference between keeping the independent article and merging into another? Unless it is described, I don't see why you think "merge" is the compromise between "keep" and "delete." --Nanshu 02:05, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "moderator". I am an admin. This means that I am entrusted to use my judgement on whether to delete when clearing out vfd. Why did you answer the questions I have posed? It has been standard practice for a long time to treat merges as the middle ground. Merging does not require a formal community vote like deletions, so yes, it is in a way similar to "keep". The content is kept for the most part. --Jiang 03:45, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
What's your question to be answered?
And I asked what's the essential difference between keeping the independent article and merging into another? If it only makes the difference in where to put the content, then "merging" is needless. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

VfD discussion archive. Result of debate was to keep or merge, not delete

Chinese cannibalism

see also Talk:Chinese cannibalism

The page tries to justify the sporadic, isolated and fictitious occurences of cannibalism using grossly generalising indicative adverbs, such as "often", "in general", "mostly", "not uncommon" and sentences as "Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism...relatively common in China" [intro]. . Readers will be induced to accept that cannibalism is a common practice in China. Ktsquare (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Double-plus-yuck. It's not accurate, Marco Polo reported that the Chinese of the time held the Japanese in contempt as "cannibals", and the practices described, except for a few of the (probably unnecessarily) gory details, all appear in other cultures. This could be NPOVed and verified if anyone has the stomach for it, but I very much doubt that we'd have an article worth keeping at the end of the process. Most likely we'd just then merge it into a sentence or two of History of China. So MWOT and delete. Andrewa 21:30, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge it into sentences of History of China and a small paragraph of Cannibalism. History is a mirror, isn't? ---yACHT nAVEL 22:24, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, sentences of Cannibalism, that's my stand. Why do we always care what other people think of China? ---yACHT nAVEL 23:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, but merge with history article if any accurate and sourced info. Right now that's not much. The history of the original author leaves one doubtful of the intent. Fuzheado | Talk 00:17, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. For reasons others have given. Reliability of what's there is too questionable to merge into other articles. Anyone wanting to include this material has got to do fresh research starting from scratch, this isn't trustworthy even as a starting point. Dpbsmith 01:09, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • The orginal author of the article seems to leave aside crticial information from Kuwabara Jitsuzo's journal article which the article IMO seems to base on. Take a look of my commented article on the corresponding page. However, I still support the idea that the article must either be NPOVed or deleted. Ktsquare (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • My commented version is now placed on the talk page.Ktsquare (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • NPOV and verify. If there is no progress within one week, then delete. If there is, then keep. --Jiang 02:01, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Opinions of just one Japanese historian don't deserve an article, for reasons Dpbsmith has given, until they are carefully justified by the academia and the public. Please refer to rule 10 of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#What Wikipedia entries are not Ktsquare (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't know your presumably unusual definition of "primary research," but if you claim that Chinese cannibalism was only dealt by Kuwabara Jitsuzo, it's a total fallacy. There are numerous accounts, from academic papers including 支那人人肉ヲ食フノ説 by 神田孝平　(『東京学士院会雑誌』, 1881), to popular books like 呪われた中国人 中国食人史の重大な意味 by 黄文雄 and 食人宴席―抹殺された中国現代史 by 鄭義. I'm not familiar with western research, but Kuwabara Jitsuzo's article was to prove that an account of cannibalsim by muslim merchants Solayman and Abu Zayd. And Lu Xun even made cannibalism the symbol of Chinese legacy to be abolished. Did your remark come from a strategic reason, or don't you really know that? --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
        • I am just doing what a quality reader supposed to: checking the factuality of the article. I put up my claim because Nanshu initially provide the name of one Japanese historian but Nanshu did not provide the sources and any other works in the academia or field suggesting the frequent occurence of cannibalism. The unfounded claim prompted me to doubt its factual accuracy, which then explained the motive of my commenting. If clear and supported claims had been given, I would not have such comments. Ktsquare (talk) 21:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • See above. Now that you withdrew, there is nothing to say. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Futhermore, 支那人の食人肉風習 (the original script in Japanese is here. [2]) was published in 東洋史説苑 on May 10, 1927. 支那人間に於ける食人肉の風習 was published even earlier, in 東洋學報, in 1924. Dated works as old as these shall be handled cautiously. Ktsquare (talk) 04:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • We handle the same historical sources. If you disagree with him, point out errors. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • One more thing, I don't know what the so-called "Primary research" is, as you said that I had stated such a phrase. May I be provided where I sugguested such nomenclature? Thank you. Ktsquare (talk) 05:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
          • You said, "Please refer to rule 10 of What_wikipedia_is_not#What Wikipedia entries are not." And I did so. -Any questions? -Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • If anythign can be salvaged merge to cannibalism and not anywhere else. The Land 15:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Chinese cannibalism is an interesting topic for Wikipedia to deal with. There are numerous records of cannibalsim in official documents and fiction. It deserves an independent article. --Nanshu 02:46, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think it's a major part of history;it's more of a personal insult, like "I'm gonna eat your heart and liver"Wareware 03:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge it as a paragraph of cannibalism. -Poo-T 26 May 2004
  • Keep. This is an intriguing, well-documented fact. It merits an independent section when someone could provide a lengthy, detailed information thereof. And stop deleting my vote. That's not fair. May 28, 2004. Hermeneus
    • IP w/ this as first edit. Do not count this vote. --Jiang 22:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Huh? I've been using this place at least for three years now. "Learned cannibalism in China is different from cannibalism elsewhere. It is unique in the sense that it is an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine." "We need to remind ourselves that the Chinese people are not particularly different from the other races of the world as far as the practice of survival cannibalism is concerned. When it comes to learned cannibalism, however, its practice is quite different. Worthy of note here is the fact that some types of learned cannibalism are found only in China." (Key Ray Chong, Cannibalism in China. Longwood Academic: Wakefield, NH. 1990.) It's an established, traditional culture of China.
      • Sign for it? Wareware 04:00, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
        • "Your vote" was not deleted, because what was signed as Hermeneus was actually done by 222.1.42.161. I only asked that the real Hermeneus make the Hermeneus edit. Fuzheado | Talk 16:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge it into another larger category. So far, the "facts" mentioned in the article could only be minor incidents -- which, I believe, can be found in the whole human history. The famous cannibal criminal who ate his girlfriend in Germany many years ago, he happened to be a Japanese. But I won't conjure up an article and say "cannibalism is common in Japan." Also, the author's understanding of acient Chinese phrases is arguable -- many of which were actually fictional way of decribing things, not necessarily facts. However, I respect the work, so it should be under a sub-category of cannibalism and stop saying "it's common." Also, references, please. Djyang 15:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Those who complain that this article contains only minor events forget that the two sections "cannibalism during famine" and "cannibalism in besieged cities" are to be filled. Those minor incidents are adopted as examples chosen from numerous incidents. And cannibalism as a filial devotion to parents wasn't trivial. It was an established custom. Also, people's reactions to cannibalism (e.g. classifying Wang Ban into 孝義伝) say much to you. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Huh, what do you mean? You state that Wang Ban burn up the bones of his enemy and drank it - does that signify cannibalism? For your info cannibalism involves the eating of human flesh. Not that I'm in favor of either practice, but you do have a muddled impression. Mandel 02:08, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
this is really funny. 割股療親 (cutting off a piece of hip to feed a sick parent) is a Chinese proverb denoting extreme respect and caring for one's parents. It's an expression for God's sake. How is it an established custom? How many people actually cut off his/her hip? It's like believing a woman actually drank like a horse when somebody described that her "drank like a horse." Don't be ridiculous. I guess you also believe that animals fell from the sky when somebody said "it was raining cats and dogs." Take your strawman elsewhere. --Wareware 01:08, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mbeki, you would come across Kuwabara Jitsuzo when you study Chinese cannibalism. But it's not because he was the only researcher on the topic, but because his work is definitive. I've already introduced some other works (they are scattered around this page). In addition カニバリズム論 by 中野美代子 ("On cannibalism" by Nakano Miyoko) looks good. She is a specialist of Chinese literature. She says, "It seems that the Chinese didn't have the idea that cannibalism was a guilty act or a taboo."

I adopted Kuwabara's classification simply because it is good. [3] applies N.W. Thomas's more general classification to Chinese cannibalism. --Nanshu 02:05, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good exprience for Nanshu: provide the source, stats or evidence etc. when asked or making a claim. Ktsquare (talk) 21:39, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It would be beneficial if Nanshu also post here a list of quality sources with factual accuracy so other readers know where to look for justification of the statements. Ktsquare (talk) 04:17, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Read the book. Life is too short for literally tracing every book I read. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Jiang, if you can't justify your change, then don't revert. I've already pointed out that Mbeki's edits are based on his/her misunderstanding. Any objections? --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nakano cites a paper of 1918 by 吴虞. It is called "喫人と礼教" in Japanese. I have not checked it yet, but it sounds intriguing. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm starting a new thread because the diffs are unusable with the long string of Unicode characters.

Nanshu, by going back to such an old version we are making negative progress. You've reinstated "Unlike other civilizations..." and "cannibalism was relatively common," both of which have been roundly discredited. You have to go through so many machinations just to find the sources and there are so few references you can point to - how is that in any way "relatively common?"

You offer scholarly texts as evidence, and give the impression of scholarship on this matter, yet you put in such simplistic text such as "someone cut and ate his tongue" and "The Chinese did not hesitate in humiliating enemies' corpses but he is a special case." This type of prose is so amateurish and revealing of your rooted bias that the community, which has tried to work with you fairly on this text, should simply go forth with the voted on decision of merging it with cannibalism. Fuzheado | Talk 03:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If anything I vote for merging it into cannibalism. Something that the article cannibalism does mention is that the charge of cannibalism is frequently used as a form of cultural libel which is used against cultures which the speaker sees as barbarous. There is a huge scholarly debate as to the general credibility of reports of cannibalism anywhere, and it seems to me absurd to mention accusations of Chinese cannibalism without mentioning this general scholarly debate.

My own view based on some what I've read about cannibalism in other societies, reports of cannibalism in China need to be taken with some skepticism, *even when they are made by Chinese*. Growing up, I always heard stories about people being so hungry that they had to resort to cannibalism, but looking at it critically and taking into account the literature in other societies, I've started to be more skeptical about these stories.

If you look closely at the stories of cannibalism its never "I was hungry so I ate someone". It's always in this village somewhere else people were hungry enough to eat people. Also, its surprising (or maybe not so surprising) how similar those stories are to those in other parts of the world.

Roadrunner 03:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I suppose this could be made into a useful article, but this statement can't be left standing unattributed.....

Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism. It is partly because China is the country of literature but mostly because the practice of cannibalism was relatively common in China.

Says who? There is no scholarly consensus among Sinologists or anthropologists that this is true. Also the "unlike other civilizations" is suspect because if you read the cannibalism page, accusations of cannibalism aren't particular rare. There is a huge anthropological debate over how common or rare cannibalism is in general, and as far as I know there isn't any place where claims of cannibalism are undisputed.

The other thing is that one simply cannot quote papers written by Japanese about China in the late 19th century and early 20th century without mentioning that they might have a socio-political ax to grind.

Roadrunner 05:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm starting a new thread here because the diffs had become almost unreadable with intermingled comments.

Fuzheado and Roadrunner have stated quite a lot of what I would like to express. My additional ideas follow.

Nanshu, I have always been doing what a quality reader always does: check for factuality of the article; in other words, I am a proofreader. However your usage of scholarly evidences and impression of scholarship on this matter was not reflected in your amateurish prose such as "relatively common", "not uncommon", "someone cut and ate his tongue" etc. In some occasions, for instance, "父之讎弗與共戴天 兄弟之讎不反兵 交遊之讎不同國" did not sugguest, "sometimes one ate them (their hearts and livers in most cases)."

Furthermore, my proofreading and fact-checking in this discussion shall not be interpreted as a show-off or reflection of my understanding. If the factuality is disputed, I have been given the right as a Wiki-admin to post the article on Vfd. Administrators shall also sugguest alternative sources if possible since they are no different from regular contributors. You, as a contributor, shall provide evidences and write in a professional prose. If you were trying to undermine any kind of scholaristic reputations that you think I have at wikipedia on Chinese cannibalism by saying, "It was amazing that you don't know Chinese cannibalism at all.", you have certainly done it. LOL. IMO, Wikipedia is a community to share knowledge, not a medium for finger-pointing and meaningless criticism.

I will be backing off from this discussion because I sensed quite a lot of overheated and unnecessary criticism heading my way. Ktsquare (talk) 06:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The other point here is that Wikipedia should reflect scholarly consensus. There simply isn't anything like scholarly consensus that cannibalism was common in China. This also isn't a point of recent scholar controversy. If there were, we wouldn't be arguing over interpretations of 80 year old Japanese papers or the odd recent paper, and in all of the recent anthropological debate over cannibalism, no one I know has brought up China.

One thing that you will find in any field is the "weird paper." In Astrophysical Journal, you will find the occasional paper that thinks that the big bang never happened. While one should mention that someone thinks this, one should give the impression that there is scholarly consensus over the matter or that there is even controversy. My impression of Key Ray Chong's book, quite frankly, is that Sinologists have not bothered to refute it, because its thesis is too absurd and research too sloppy to be worth anyone's time to write a rebuttal.

Now I'm not familiar with recent Japanese research on China, and if it is the case that there is a widespread impression among Japanese sinologists that cannibalism was common in China. this should be mentioned and cited. However, I think I'm familar enough with the Western and Chinese literature to be able to say that there aren't many Chinese or Western sinologists who think that cannibalism was common in Imperial China or that this is even a matter of scholarly controversy. It would be hard for me to pull up citations from Chinese or Western sinologists that explicitly say this, but it would be equally hard for me to pull up citations from sinologists arguing that Chinese did not fly to the moon or run nuclear reactors.

I don't object to an article mentioning Key Ray Chong's views or those of Japanese Sinologists of the late 19th century. If they think that cannibalism in China was common, well they think that cannibalism in China was common. However, I will *strongly* object to language that suggests that this is common scholarly opinion, because it simply isn't.

Roadrunner 06:32, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've added some more material in hopes of making this a useful article. Can people look over it, and decide whether or not to remove the disputed tags.

There is a very nice paper on the topic

Consuming Counterrevolution: The Ritual and Culture of Cannibalism in Wuxuan, Guangxi, China May to July 1968

by Donald S. Sutton - Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol 37 No. 1

Roadrunner 18:29, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Just made some edits and verified the incidents of Wang Juncao and Wang Ban. Ktsquare (talk) 02:59, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


---

Would someone care to clarify or delete:

In addition, Arthur Waldron has linked the notion of cannibalism to recent charges by Harry Wu, that the Chinese government is transplanting organs of condemned prisoners, charges which are believed in some human rights circles, but are widely disbelieved among Chinese.

How is organ harvesting, a disturbing thing itself, synonymous with cannibalism? More elaboration on this, or removal altogether? Fuzheado | Talk 03:14, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC) Dear Fuzheado, 

 Your question doesn't make sense; human donors donate organs to save lives because if they were in an unfortunate accident, for example, they would die regardless. It's a very disgraceful and inhumane thing to do to kill a person for human parts and then eat the remaining portion of the body.

Answered by Stravros Steven Sitaras Homerides.

The following statements are written by Stravros Sitaras Homerides. The American citizens in addition to the sneaky, insidious, invisible, filthy grand drug dealers criminals also harbor terrorists and cannibals. “After reading all the above, cannibalism, the disgraceful and the filthiness of the human desires make me sick to my stomach… I am so proud of my very civilized Hellenistic culture and roots, the more I read about different cultures, philosophies and religions. The more I embrace my Hellenistic culture and stick to it like glue. This is totally disgraceful. These people they should be eliminated and exterminated from the face of the earth. I’m not blaming all the Chinese, because some Chinese are totally vegetarian and don’t eat meat at all. These cannibals they don’t belong to the human race and don’t even belong to the animal race, definitely, definitely, definitely one dog, would never eat another dog. If someone wants to talk to me, they can find me at hellenisticart@aol.com. This is happening right now as we speak in the United States also, there are Chinese doctors that give abortions to women in America and they sell the fetuses for more than $5,000-$10,000 or more per fetus, to other Chinese people in secret to be eaten. They take the money and send it back to china, and then they bring the money back from china to America to show that they are good citizens. That money is made from Cannibalism and prostitution in the United States especially from fetuses and infants. Infants’ bodies are sold for more than $200,000 for body parts, whatever they cannot sell end up being eaten. We as Americans, we are very ignorant and stupid, we trust our own enemies, if we don’t put our act together, if we aren’t eaten by the Chinese, we are going to be killed by Muslim extremists.(Eight million children are missing every year globally and they can never be found, where do you think they went?” I'm sure that they end up on someone's kitchen table to be eaten. And out of the 8 million children, 2 million are from America.

“It’s really very sad, the Chinese claim to have wisdom, culture, justice, civilization and yet they are so disgracefully inhumane and uncivilized. These cannibals bring shame to the great Chinese artists, philosophers and designers and I hope all these beautiful designers, philosophers and architects did not eat human flesh. If they did so, all this artfulness and wisdom is totally worthless and I will definitely not be attracted any longer to their artistic skills. And all the wonders that these people possess without humane practices in their civilizations they are rubbish… That goes for Japan also and any other nation who allow it, to eat human flesh legally. Some people claim that it is against the law now in 2017 in China, to eat human flesh. The Chinese have been eating human flesh, and practicing cannibalism for more than 5,000 years, do you think they would stop now? This is part of Chinese everyday culture and desires. As an example, suddenly the Greek government is passing a law tomorrow in Greece for the Greek people to stop eating lamb. If that law is passed, the price of the meat will be raised to $5,000 per pound or more, because eating lamb is part of the Greek culture, desire and preferences for more than 6000 years. In this day and in this modern civilization, these Chinese still choose to be cannibals, child molesters and child eaters. Haven’t they taught them in school how to be human and taught them the Chinese philosophy? Or maybe the Chinese philosophy is based on Cannibalism? “A civilization without cultivating and producing humanity should be erased from human history and it should not be promoted and taught throughout schools and universities.” I’m a one-man army and I’m fighting the entire globe, I’m fighting the corrupted religions, the corrupted politicians, the major drug dealers and all the filthy inhumane acts throughout this planet, including cannibalism, child prostitution and child pornography. This filthy society deserves to be exterminated and lots of innocent people will be sacrificed due to evil. People that don’t speak out to stop evil and don’t do anything about it are conspirators to evil and promoting it.

Written by; Stavros Steven Sitaras Homerides GODDESS VIRTUE:

It is impossible, the Beauty, the goodness, and Knowledge (gnosis), to dwell in an evil and a very small soul. Whoever has got the desire, the thirst in their heart, for Gods balm, to free, enrich the soul and mind, and to nourish the soul from Goddess virtue stream, which pours free endless divine knowledge!!! That person is on its way towards the path of humanity!!! Written by; Stavros Sitaras Homerides 3,17,2017 8:45pm. New York “Ignorance is the root and stem of all evil.” - Plato Gnosis = knowledge of spiritual mysteries. https://www.google.com/search?q=ignorance+is+the+root+and+stem+of+all+evil+plato+explanation&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiExO-cmu3SAhXHx1QKHVZeALkQsAQIJg&biw=1366&bih=604 Gnosis = knowledge of spiritual mysteries. Battle of Plataea (479 BCE) (479 BCE) On the battles of Plataea, where the Fearless, The Brave Men are fighting and die, for honor for a better tomorrow, for the Good, for the benefit of the Children!!! For the pregnant women, for the unborn infants!!! There… I will be waiting for you, but then I know well, that you are a coward and you will never be at Present. A hero is not only the one, with bravery, Fighting the enemies, The biggest heroes are the ones That can control their desires And to save innocent lives!!!

The living fleshy people Fear of death, While the wise with courage By soul, they defy it!!!

I will fight alone to defend the pure-holy, Innocent, precious children!!! I will fight alone and with those who have the will and the courage to follow, I will never surrender!!!


When there are no Heroes, There is no Nation. God bless the Heroes of USA!!! Plataea, the most glorious victory history had ever seen!!! Please join the battle to save infants and innocent lives!!! Written by; Steven Stavros Sitaras (Homerides) Inspired by Kostis Palamas Tel. (347)-552 4187 hellenisticart@aol.com No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth. (Plato). Ignorance is the root and the stem of all evil. (Plato).

The most substantial punishment that man can suffer and endure, is being born mortal with human feelings and with dignity. How can there be life, when injustice is in command? We live in a very sadistic era, and in an obscure dirty environment that people want to thrive, be entertained with pleasures and happiness, on the pain, suffering, and on the misery, of the good, the honest and the innocent. The most inhumane and unmerciful act is to be pleased with the misery of others. Ηow many people die of weapons every day and how many of drugs, and how many die from inhumane criminal acts?

Written by: Stavros Steven Sitaras Homerides




The ancient Hellenes never mind they didn’t eat or abuse their killed/dead enemies; but they allowed them time to be respectably buried in decent graves and give time to the loved ones to mourn for more than forty days.

Written by: Stavros Steven Sitaras Homerides

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinese_cannibalism… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.183.251 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC) Navigation menu • Not logged in • Talk • Contributions • Create account • Log in • Article • Talk • Read • Edit • New section • View history Search • Main page • Contents • Featured content • Current events • Random article • Donate to Wikipedia • Wikipedia store Interaction • Help • About Wikipedia • Community portal • Recent changes • Contact page Tools • What links here • Related changes • Upload file • Special pages • Permanent link • Page information Print/export • Create a book • Download as PDF • Printable version Languages • This page was last edited on 17 October 2017, at 00:04. • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinese_cannibalism… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.38.183.251 (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Copyright free rewrite was created here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannibalism_in_China/Temp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.234.46 (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Who knows that two history facts about Chinese cannibalism?

1)One Chinese rich man invited his friend to eat his servants (2 young boys).

Then the other invited his friend to eat his female servant. I think it happened in the Chinese Sui Empire.

2) And In Chinese Ming Empire, Chinese people openly eat human fresh in restaurants.

They sold living persons to restaurants for eating. Such poor people were called as "cairen".


Who resurrected this article and why? Instr (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Vote at VfD.

Here is a good English source on the subject: Key Ray Chong, Cannibalism in China, Longwood Academic: Wakefield, NH. (1990)

viii: "We need to remind ourselves that the Chinese people are not particularly different from the other races of the world as far as the practice of survival cannibalism is concerned. When it comes to learned cannibalism, however, its practice is quite different. Worthy of note here is the fact that some types of learned cannibalism are found only in China. This study will attempt to examine this unique phenomenon." "Particularly in ancient times, learned cannibalism was often practiced in China for culinary appreciation, and exotic dishes were prepared for jaded upper-class palates in times of health and/or sickness."

ix: "As late as the 19th century, it was not unusual for Chinese executioners to eat the heart and brains of the criminals they disaptch. They also ate a portion of the human meat for health reasons, but when some extra meat was left, they sold it for profit." "Li Shih-chen [DP: 1578] detailed the use of humans many times for medicinal purposes. He noted, for example, that human meat was a good cure for tuberculosis. For the same or similar purposes, he discussed in an equally detailed manner the use of human sweat, urine, sperm, breast milk, tears, dirt, nails and teeth. Even today, in the People's Republic of China, the use of human fingers, toes, nails, dried urine, feces and breast milk are strongly recommended by the government to cure certain diseases."

x: "Apart from this, the Chinese often ate their enemies out of hatred or revenge during wartime." "During World War II, hate-cannibalism is reported to have occurred in China. Later, as the civil war between the Communists and the Nationalists went on for control of China, some Communist soldiers were executed routinely in a far-interior district; and their flesh and bones were eaten out of a spirit of revenge. One American priest told of seeing a Chinese Nationalist officer cut out and eat the heart of a Chinese Communist."

xi: "In short, the Chinese are not necessarily different in any significant way from most other peoples in the world. And yet they are quite unique in the sense that there are so many examples of learned cannibalism throughout their history."

p.54: "The many instances of cannibalism in China throughout antiquity serve as a prelude to the way that the practice of cannibalism later became an integral part of Chinese culture."

pp. 55-62: listings of Chinese surival cannibalism incidents Han to Ming (about one ever 1-2 lines) "... there is little or no doubt about the practice of survival cannibalism in China."

p.79: "Cannibalism was also often involved in the punishmen of criminals in Imperial China. After having been publicly executed, the bodies of the criminals were made available for public exhibition and consumption." "In short the Chinese people used humans not only for food and medicine, but they also expressed their feelings of hatred or revenge by publicly eating the flesh and bones of their fellow men."

p. 88: "In April 882, when the price of one tou (peck of rice went up to 30 min in Chang-an the rebels captured by government troops were sold as food."

p. 105: "According to a more recent study, Chinese soldiers stationed in Taiwan before the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 used to eat human flesh of the aborigines like pork; they could buy it at the marketplace. Human flesh was considered as a source of protein and a way to increase male sexual stamina."

p. 110: [great drought of 1876-1879] "One Western observer said that the most shocking consequence of famine was the rapid spread of cannibalism... The Roman Catholic Bishop of Shansi, ... reported... "... now they kill the living to have them for food. Husbands eat their wives. Parents eat their sons and daughters, and children eat their parents." This was confirmed by a Chinese district magistrate, who made the following observations: ... a grandson chopped his grandomother to pieces, a niece boiled and ate her own aunt ..."

p. 157: "The most popular methods for preparing human flesh were broiling, roasting, boiling and steaming. Next was pickling in salt, wine, sauce and the like.

p. 166: "We have learned that there were far more instances of learned cannibalism than of survival cannibalism... Although we have reported more instances of learned cannibalism in this book, the actual number of victims caused by survival cannibalism could be far greater."

p. 170: "The major conclusions drawn from this study are the following. Cannibalism can be classified in two categories: survival and learned cannibalism. Learned cannibalism in China is different from cannibalism elsewhere. It is unique in the sense that it is an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine."

the poster above copied everything from this site: [[4]], anyone actually read the book?-- Wareware 03:47, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Isolated incidents motivated by unusual hatred and/or committed by desperate lads do not justify the use of indicative adverbs such as "often", "in general", "mostly", "not uncommon". Such over-generalized conclusions based on sporadic events have no foundation and only characterize pathetic attempts to conceive an exotically freaky national character: "Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism...relatively common in China" [intro]. Try to disguise your flamboyant anti-Chinese sentiment with a thicker veil, thou Bitter One. --Menchi 12:54, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, this article really scares me. it may happen in the past. Frankly speaking, i really know nothing about this at all. but i am a bit upset by this article saying this behavior is "common", "not uncommon" or "rich history of...". PS, the xue mantou reminds me of the plot depicted in one of Luxun 's novel. --Samuel 16:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
What's this? Promoting anti-Chinese sentiment with isolated and sporadic occurances of events? I am certainly gonna put this onto the page for deletion until solid evidences are provided. Ktsquare (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This is also posted at zh.wikipedia.org

Not surprisingly, a Google search for ""Kuwabara Jitsuzo" cannibalism" brings ZERO results.

It's good that people here are trying to evaluate it from an objective viewpoint. However, please review the edits of user Nanshu, as s/he has had a history with articles concerning Nanjing and Unit 731, and has made controversial edits on those. Even if there is some merit to the history of the article (I'm not convinced) the extreme language and over-generalization should raise alarm bells as to the intent of the author. Quotes include:

  • "rich history of cannibalism"
  • "relatively common"
  • "common cooking methods of human flesh"
  • "Japanese historian Kuwabara Jitsuzo classified`Chinese cannibalism into the five types"
  • "It is not just Chinese cliche but the fact"
  • "The Chinese did not hesitate in humiliating corpses"
  • "It was not uncommon to practice cannibalism for medical purposes"

-- Fuzheado | Talk 00:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I just found out Kuwabara Jitsuzo's journal article on cannibalism (the original script in Japanese is here. [5]) which the author of this article based on. However Nanshu seems to generalize the occurences of cannibalism as a common practice in China. I am going to make some clarifying edits in the following. Ktsquare (talk) 01:12, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Unlike other civilizations, China has a rich history of cannibalism (喫人). It is partly because China is the country of literature but mostly because the practice of cannibalism was relatively common in China.

  • Andrewa has stated at VfD., "practices described .... all appeared in other cultures." So the practices were not "Unlike other civilizations" [intro]. The phrase, "relatively common" is also grossly generalising. As commented at zh.wikipedia.org, one must ask questions of how common the practice is.
Do you deny that China has richer records of cannibalism than any other countries? --Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
IMO, China does have records of cannibalism. To define records as richer or worse than any other countries, one must research and base arguments on solid grounds. I won't jump to conclusion too soon. From the beginning, I sugguested the inappropiate claim of frequent occurence of cannibalism as in indicative adverbs such as "often", "in general", "mostly", "not uncommon". May I ask you why you claim my unfounded denying of China has richer records of cannibalism than any other countries when I only claim that the phrase "relatively common" is also grossly generalising. ? Ktsquare (talk) 21:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It's not easy to provide quantitative data, but it is almost apparent. But everyone who read classisal Chinese literature notices that there are numerous records on cannibalism and that their attitude toward cannibalism was unusual.
Kuwabara said:
此の如く食人肉の風習は随分廣く世界に行われて居つたが、支那の如き世界最古の文明國の一で、然も幾千年間引續いて、この蠻風を持續した國は餘り見當らぬ。*snip* 但極めて悠遠なる時代から、可なり普通に、この蠻風が支那人間に存在したことは、吾が輩が上來紹介し來れる事実に據つて、疑を容るべき餘地がない。
支那人間に於ける食人肉の風習 page 204
Now we realize that there are numerous records. Next, we wonder in what proportion these incidents have been reporded so that we can know. We have to consider the wealth of Chinese records. The Chinese documented even minor incidents (again, those I adopted are examples). So we can presume that the abundance of cannibalism on record partially resulted from that of documents. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The following was the common cooking methods of human flesh. Note that these were usually used for animals.

  1. Fu (脯 fu3): sliced and dried meat
  2. Geng (羹 geng1): thick soup
  3. Hai (醢 hai3): minced and hashed meat
  4. Luan (臠 luan2): sliced meat

Hai was also a punishment in ancient China.

  • According to Kuwabara Jitsuzo's article, these are the practices of punishment for three diobeyant nobles during the infamous reign of Shang Zhou of the Shang Dynasty. Kuwabara Jitsuzo's article may have assumed readers' knowledge of Shang Zhou: this wikipedia article has left out that Shang Zhou was a tyrant and also well known for other inhumane punishments. Generalising the tortures of 3 nobles as "common cooking methods" is biased. Precisely described by Menchi at Vfd, 'It's like saying "Since most of the incidents on (the culture-non-specific) Infamous cases of child murder after 1900 happened in the UK and US, let's merge them into History of the United Kingdom and History of the United States and list them next to the Civil Wars and the Reign of Queen Victoria!" '. IMO it's also like saying "Since Vlad the Impaler tortured his prisoners, we concluded that impaling is a common practice of the Transylvanian or modern Romanian and Hungarian."
  • The corresponding sentences are: 古い所では殷の紂王が、自分の不行跡を諫めた翼侯を炙とし、鬼侯をにし、梅伯を醢にして居る。炙は人肉を炙ること、は人肉を乾すこと、醢とは人肉を醤漬にすることで. Description of "common" is still not found. method 1 and 3, but not 2 and 4, are described.
Wrong reasoning by a misunderstanding. This paragraph doesn't deal with King Zhou's tyranny or any other specific event. [6] explains Chinese cooking methods (This page is a summary of Koishikawa Zenji's work). --Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
IMO, Nanshu initially claimed Kuwabara Jitsuzo's descriptions on Chinese cannibalism; however s/he had never provided the source of the cooking methods until s/he was asked for it here. As quality contributors, one should always provide reasoning and evidences for hir statements. I was only presenting what I had found on the net at that time. Fuzheado also attempted such search. I shall not be accused of wrong reasoning because of other's unsupported claims. Ktsquare (talk) 21:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't care what kind of emotions are hidden behind your pompous attitude with an apoligist tone. But you ask me to do what you do not do. This is an encyclopaedia article. Making refernce every time is needless and quite cumbersome. And I fear that English-speaking readers are annoyed by flood of non-English literature.
But it makes me happy if readers are interested in the topics I bring and are encouraged to study more about them. Shall I put reference lists on talk pages? --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I didn't hide emotions. My sole purpose was to sugguest you a strict way to deal with issues and documents that may have been mixed with social and political defamatory attitudes, especially those written in early and middle 20th century before and during the Sino-Japanese War. Ktsquare (talk) 18:19, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Japanese historian Kuwabara Jitsuzo classified Chinese cannibalism into the five types:

  1. cannibalism during famine
  2. cannibalism in besieged cities
  3. eating human flesh habitually
  4. cannibalism driven by animosity
  5. eating human flesh as medicine

Cannibalism during famine

Cannibalism in besieged cities

Eating human flesh habitually

Cannibalism driven by animosity

Chinese literature often says that one ate his bitter enemy. It is not just Chinese cliche but the fact.

Irate crowds often scrambled to eat executed prisoners. For example, Wang Mang, who took over the Han Dynasty, was sliced by soldiers. People humiliated his head and someone cut and ate his tongue. This practice was recognized lynch. Il Millione also records the pranctice.

  • sources needed: the desciptions of this paragraph were not found in Kuwabara's article. IMO severing of Wang Mang's body was carried out by mobs during chaos.
漢書/列傳/卷九十九下 王莽傳第六十九下 --Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I have not denied the civilian's severing of Wang Mang's body: severing of Wang Mang's body was carried out by mobs during chaos. However, may I know how one incident would support, "Irate crowds often scrambled to eat executed prisoners" ?. Other readers may also read Mandel's comment below. Ktsquare (talk) 21:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is an exmaple, of course. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Confucianism encourages revenge for parents and bothers. Revenge was achieved by killing enemies, but sometimes one ate them (their hearts and livers in most cases). For example, according to the old Tang book, Wang Juncao stabbed Li Junze to avenge his father. He cut open his belly and ate his heart and liver.

The Chinese did not eat those who died naturally in general, but it was not the case when avenging the killing of his parents. Wang Ban joined Sui's expeditionary force to Chen to avenge his father on former Emperor Wu. He broke the emperor's mausoleum, burned his bone, drank it by combining it with water. He is recorded at the section of filial piety and justice in the Book of Sui. The Chinese did not hesitate in humiliating corpses but he is a special case.

Eating human flesh as medicine

It was not uncommon to practice cannibalism for medical purposes, but the Chinese established it as a filial devotion to parents. Since the middle Tang Dynasty, devoted sons cut out their thighs to let their sick parents eat them. Those sons were classified as "dutiful sons" in official and unofficial records although this practice was banned several times. This was due to the fact that Chinee people were very poor and would do anything to live and devote their life towards their parents who they actually despise

  • Again according to Kuwabara's article, some Chinese driven by extreme hatred (憎惡の極) and 利慾心の深 (deepened cupidity) carried out cannibalism; however such occurences didn't sugguest "common practices".
Quote from 支那人間に於ける食人肉の風習:
唐時代から現時に至るまで約千二百年に亙つて、随分廣く行はれて居る。*snip* 父母の爲、若くば舅姑の爲め、自己の股肉を割いて供した所謂孝子孝女は、唐宋以後の正史野乘を始め、各地方の通志、府縣志等に疊見して居つて、一々列舉するに堪へぬ。
--Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Chinese believed efficacy of human flesh as medicine.

  • The sentence may be a condensed description of this: "疾病治療の目的の爲に、人肉を食することである。唐の玄宗時代に陳藏器が、その著『本草拾遺』中に藥材として人肉を加へて以來、支那歴代の本草は、何れも人肉を藥材として取扱ふ。人肉を藥材として食用することは、唐以前に殆ど稀で、唐以後に限る。全く陳藏器が俑を作したものといはねばならぬ。" This sentence is open to question for fellow wikipedians.

This superstition drove some people to bizzare murders. An eunuch ate virgin boys to restore his sexial ability. A man sucked lifeblood from young women to renew his youth. A westerner recorded that around 1865 an executor sold steamed bread soaked in the blood of a exectured prisoner, named "xie mantou" (血饅頭).

  • sources needed: the descriptions of this paragraph were not found in Kuwabara's article.

Ktsquare (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

萬曆野獲編/卷六/內監/對食 (高寀)
Rennie; Peking and the Pekingese. Vol.II, pp.243-244
--Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
As I said before, it's a total fallacy that Chinese cannibalism has only been dealt by Kuwabara Jitsuzo. It's surprising that you history guy don't know it. --Nanshu 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I don't perceive as a history guy. My saying only based on your unfounded claim in the article because you only provide the name of a Japanese historian but none of the source until you were asked for it. As I said above, Fuzheado and I search the web for sources because of other's lack of supporting sources. The issue has nothing to do with my understanding of the subject. Hopefully you would learn from this incident that it is better not to leave things undone and unfounded. Ktsquare (talk) 21:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Replied above. It was amazing that you don't know Chinese cannibalism at all. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Six Chinese including four sysops. A nice team work. I envy you:)

I started this big theme with minor events. To explain the intro, I have to fill the first two sections: "cannibalism during famine" and "cannibalism in besieged cities." But it needs a lot of time since there are too many sources about them. (The phrase 人相食 gets 172 hits in 二十五史.) You are all too impatient. This article needs time to grow.

PS: I welcome your criticism. But don't expect me to reply in a week. --Nanshu 02:50, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

May u provide any source, pointer or link for your searching tools on 二十五史. ?Ktsquare (talk) 02:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
http://www.sinica.edu.tw/ftms-bin/ftmsw3 a wonderful site from Taiwan --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I get a lot of response and I don't know where to begin. The first misunderstanding by Ktsquare is that I read 支那人の食人肉風習. It's not true. Actually, I read 支那人間に於ける食人肉の風習 and it's not the only source. I took a glance at 支那人の食人肉風習. It seems a digest of the latter. Unfortunately 支那人間に於ける食人肉の風習 isn't ready at Aozora Bunko. It is put on 桑原隲蔵全集 Volume II. It will solve most of your questions about sources. --Nanshu 03:04, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nanshu did not provide the source in the first place. I found a relevant article 支那人の食人肉風習 by the same author. I assumed Nanshu's reading of 支那人の食人肉風習 when none of Kuwabara Jitsuzo's sources had been provided. Anyhow, this discussion has been a good exprience for Nanshu: provide the source, stats or evidence etc. when asked or making a claim. Ktsquare (talk) 04:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Replied above. --Nanshu 02:17, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This article is listed on votes for deletion but I can't find a place where I could actually vote. I don't know how vfd works, actually. gbog 07:31, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: sources quoted above. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cannibalism_in_China/Archive_1&oldid=990703310"