Talk:Human cannibalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name of the "Recent history" section?

Roger 8 Roger, you had renamed the "Modern era" section (which follows the "History" section) to "Early 20th century to present". I had further renamed it to "Recent times", pointing out that the name you used might fit into the History section, but certainly not after it. You have reverted that edit, arguing that "recent" is too vague a term. I do not entirely disagree, but that leaves the question what to do with that section unanswered.

One option would be to move it one level down, into the History section. Then the current title could stay, but it's a long and deeply nested section, and having to move all its subsections down doesn't seem ideal. I also suppose that's the reason why it's currently a main section. But if it stays outside the "History" section, then the current title cannot stay and needs to be changed again – so which title or resolution would you, and others here, suggest? Personally I think that "Recent times" or "Cannibalism is recent times" is good enough, since the contents of the section quickly clarify which time period is meant. Another more specific option would be "After World War I" or "Cannibalism after World War I". Gawaon (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I started moving it into the history section and came up against the problems you mention here, so I left it alone. I think it is common elsewhere to have the final history subsection a period up to the present which would be ideal here. However, the contents list does have to be re-arranged a bit to accommodate it. Why not just do it? I always prefer avoiding non-specific terms like recent. Modern times is also often misused, with modern history meaning something different from contemporary history. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll soon start moving it under the History section, flattening its structure a bit to prevent the nesting from getting too deep. I think I'll also move the "Individual acts" into the specific regions were they were committed. Right now, Fritz Haarmann, Joachim Kroll, Peter Stumpp etc. are listed under "Germany", but Armin Meiwes is listed under "Individual acts" – that doesn't make much sense. Gawaon (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The basic re-organization is complete, though doubtless much cleanup work still remains to be done. Gawaon (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

"Alfred Packer" misspelt as "Alferd Packer" 122.199.45.88 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See Alferd Packer#cite note-1 Heart ^(talk) 05:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Typo

Can't edit as semi-protected. "Believes" should be "beliefs" in 3rd paragraph under Exo-, endo- and autocannibalism Felixhj (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree and have modified the word to beliefs. CMacMillan (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Aboriginal Australian Section

Offers the long discredited claim that they were hunter-gatherers when extensive evidence suggests they were agriculturalists. Other pages have been updated, not sure why this one isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bangalaa (talk • contribs) 08:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There is some evidence of quite limited agriculture; on a whole, consensus exists that Aboriginal people were largely hunter-gatherers. The issue has been widely politicised, with many trying to rewrite history or erase which is not convenient to their narrative. SimsonUS (talk) 09:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The issue has been widely politicised, with many trying to rewrite history or erase which is not convenient to their narrative of denigrating Aboriginal people. HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This article says "Before colonization, Aboriginal Australians were predominantly nomadic hunter-gatherers", while Prehistory of Australia says: "A hunter-gatherer lifestyle was dominant until the arrival of Europeans, although there is evidence of land management by practices such as cultural burning, and in some areas, agriculture, fish farming, and permanent settlements." Of course Wikipedia itself it not a reliable source, but that seems sufficiently in agreement. Gawaon (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

This has been properly edited with sources to back it up. Aboriginal Australians were mostly agricultualists. Now can we please edit this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.229.156 (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sensory warfare

It is a form of alternative sensory warfare used to humiliate enemies, practiced in front of survivors to intimidate them.(see: "Sensory Worlds in Early America") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brit.b (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand is not in Polynesia or Melanesia

The Polynesia and Melanesia section's first paragraph is about New Zealand. New Zealand is not in either of those regions. It should be in its own section. 219.88.232.119 (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It's generally considered a part of Polynesia, see our article on that region. Gawaon (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Technically, sure, but speaking as a New Zealander, no one here considers it part of "Polynesia". I've never heard it described as such. It's part of Australasia, and that is what New Zealanders consider as our region, not Polynesia. 219.88.232.119 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Māori are a Polynesian people, and there are large numbers of Pasifika in New Zealand (8.1% according to Demographics of New Zealand. Auckland has the largest ethnic Polynesian population in the world.-gadfium 05:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but New Zealand most definitely *is* part of Polynesia, and most New Zealanders consider it as such. Note that the region called "Polynesia" can be roughly defined by the Polynesian Triangle, which has New Zealand at its southwest corner.

New Zealand is not, however, part of Melanesia. Perhaps the section of this page titled "Polynesia and Melanesia" should be broken up into separate sections ("Polynesia" and "Melanesia"), to avoid confusion? PatricKiwi (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

To the IP (User:219.88.232.119), New Zealand is part of the Polynesian triangle. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The existence of Maori and Pasifika in NZ does not have any relevance to what the country as a whole considers as the "subregion". People in NZ who are not of Pasifika or Maori ethnicity do not consider themselves "Polynesian", and they are the vast majority. There are plenty of Maori and Pasifika in Australia as well. As I noted, NZ is just as much part of Australasia as it is Polynesia - yet Australasia is much more widely used. In fact, the UN does not consider NZ to be in the Polynesia subregion. Not only that, but NZ is part of the Zealandia continent, which does NOT include the rest of Polynesia. Arguably, it should be in its own section. In fact these sections are quite arbitrary to begin with. They're a mix of continents, landmasses, regions, subregions, and countries. 219.88.232.119 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and went ahead and split this into separate sections - "Melanesia" and "Polynesia" - to avoid confusion.PatricKiwi (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Fine with me, though I don't think it was strictly necessary. But maybe the split will encourage somebody to extend the Melanesia section, which is currently quite short. Gawaon (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Cannibalism is, as of 2024, practiced as a means of sustenance by The Ahgoree' of India who eat human flesh and feces as food. Ripplegold (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You mean the Aghori? already mentioned Cannolis (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't think the term "it's said" is the best term to be used in the context: It sounds like a myth, or something that could have been totally made up. Doesn't fit well. I think it would fit better "It's believed" or "there's evidence of" but it's more of a linguistic problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.90.222.212 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean "the Caribs, a people from the West Indies said to have eaten human flesh"? I agree that some of those known as "Caribs" practised cannibalism, but the name is used for various peoples and not all of them might have done so. We could handle this better in the History section (right now only some very short mentions are there), but in the Etymology section the neutral wording "said" seems adequate enough. It's not the place to go into historical detail, and even if the association "Caribs/Cannibal(e)s = human flesh eaters" would later have turned out to be wrong, the name might arguably have stuck. Gawaon (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

What do do about article length?

This article is very long – the Page size tool show about 17,550 words of "readable prose". WP:SIZERULE recommends that articles with over 15,000 words "almost certainly should be divided or trimmed", while those with over 9,000 words "probably should be divided or trimmed". I don't think that "trimming" the article to less than 9,000 words would be a good option – it would require very hard editing and probably throw out a lot of potentially interesting information.

So, what about splitting? Moving out some parts into specialized articles in summary style? I think that's a more reasonable option.

But if so, how to split? Which articles to create? Here's a breakdown of the major sections by size (all sections not mentioned have considerably less than 1000 words):

• Reasons and types: 1750 words
• Body parts and culinary practices: 2800 words
• Scepticism: 1000 words
• History: 12,900 words

So, the bulk of the article is in the History section. Even if we moved it out into a separate article History of cannibalism or History of human cannibalism, that article would still be a candidate for further splitting or trimming. Plus, such a "general history" would be a very broad topic for one article, and maybe not what readers will expect. So, how about we split the section further? My suggestion would be to create several articles, roughly one for each continent:

• Cannibalism in Africa (that article currently redirects to this one, don't ask me why)
• Cannibalism in Asia
• Cannibalism in Europe
• Cannibalism in Oceania
• Cannibalism in the Americas – should be merged with the existing article Cannibalism in pre-Columbian America

Each of the articles would then document the history of cannibalism on that continent, with only a short summary remaining in this article. The proposed list of articles is very similar to the subcategories listed in Category:Cannibalism by continent, except that there are two separate categories for North and South America (there used to be a category for cannibalism in the Americas too, but it was recently deleted). However, as much of the historical evidence comes from Mesoamerica or the Caribbean, I don't think the distinction between North and South fits so well here and would therefore suggest to cover this double continent in a single article.

What do others here think? Gawaon (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The article is unreadably long and needs to be split. The proposed continent-based division sounds right, and would also be a good framework for future expansion of information to cover. BioLabEmergency (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I'll start working on the re-organization in a few days. Feel free to join if you like (especially, the new articles will need lead sections that have to be written). Gawaon (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll start working on the reorganization now. Gawaon (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

As the text continues to be moved to the new articles, we will need to decide the more limited summaries that appear in the short-form of this article. It's quite a mess and will need to be rewritten. Perhaps simultaneously writing the lead sections of the new articles along with the summaries here can help sort it out. Personally (and I don't think it because of my contributions or interest) I think having much of the prehistory together in one space (here or in its own article) may convey a sense of "naturalness," though it also should not be mistaken by the reader as something that only occurred back then.

I see at least four possible ways to summarize information here:

1. Brief list-like paragraph or two for each continent category, while redirecting to the new articles - essentially telling the reader to go to them.

2. Brief summaries of each continent, emphasizing big cultures (e.g. Aztecs) rather than specific incidents, while directing the reader to the articles.

3. Prehistory section, plus some kind of brief summary of each continent, while redirecting to the new articles.

4. Longer summaries with more examples, while redirecting to the new articles - essentially a shorter form of what previously existed.

I favor 1, 2, or 3 since the goal is to make this article shorter. BioLabEmergency (talk) 06:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, my plan is to write a lead section for each of the new articles (the Americas article already has one, but it needs to be updated) and then use that lead section, with minor changes as needed, as section summary in this article. In this way we'll have about two to four paragraphs for each of the five continental sections, with the link to the full article for more comprehensive coverage. I think that's quite common for summary style.

The prehistory section will be split over the different continental articles – though most will end up in the article of Europe, I think. That may not be quite ideal, but I don't see how it could be reasonably avoided. Right now there's only a fairly short intro (one paragraph) at the very start of the History section. We can also expand that one a bit, adding a paragraph on prehistory and maybe a sentence or two on the fact that cannibalism as an institutional practice has largely disappeared. But I think we should keep this general intro short too (at most five paragraphs, say) – after all, considerably shortening the History section and hence the whole article is the point of the exercise. Gawaon (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Pictures in "Breasts, palms, and soles"

It occurred to me that the current pictures in "breasts, palms, and soles" could be replaced instead by pictures in "modes of preparation." This would avoid the long wall of text problem whilst avoiding that section being potentially off-putting to some readers. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about where good pictures on that topic would be found, so it's just an idea for others that I throwing out there. BioLabEmergency (talk) 07:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I think these images are fine, but I'll look into it. Gawaon (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I have now added an image of an earth oven and removed the image of the breasts from the previous section, as I suppose it's the one that caused most offence (though personally I think that's a fairly stupid prejudice). Gawaon (talk) 09:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)