Talk:Human cannibalism

This locked article is a sham and a blot on Wikipedia's reputation. Far too much emphasis is given to unproven and controversial "examples' of cannibalism, when absolutely no evidence other than folklore and hearsay exist.

The jury is still out that cannibalism as a ritual practice exists at all - or ever existed in human history (as opposed to that practiced under conditions of starvation or perversion). Although much folklore abounds, no credible sighting of cannibalism by anthropologists exist. As the late Scientific American writer, Martin Gardner noted in his book Did Adam and Eve Have Navels? Debunking Pseudoscience, that the sceptical case for why cannibalism is rare to non-existent, and rather something which emerges from the imaginations of ethnographers and archaeologists, or is rooted in scurrilous insults hurled between ethnic groups which have antagonistic relationships. He cites a 1979 book by William Arens entitled The Man-Eating Myth opened up the issue with a strong argument in favour of the belief that cannibalism has never been prevalent in any culture. Gardner notes that claims of institutionalized cannibalism have always been made by enemies, never the tribes themselves, and have usually proven hard to follow up. He refrains from taking sides but admits "My sympathies at the moment are with Arens."

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")

Unrelated images

Neither the image of the Tapuia woman nor of the skins of Russians killed by the Finns are connected to anything in the text, nor does either depict cannibalism per se. One must very careful in the use of such images in an article on as sensitive a topic as this. I suggest that either the images should be connected with the text or they be removed. --Yaush (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any effort to link the images to the article. If there is no objection within a reasonable time frame, I'm going to remove the images.--Yaush (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please remove. No source is given, and even if the photo is genuine it is unrelated to the topic of the article, which is cannibalism and not wartime atrocities. PhD (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Yaush (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Media use of the word "zombie" is sensationalism intended to sell papers and, as was not determined that that the biters/flesh eaters were actually "the undead", the content in the stub at Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 can easily be explained within the context of cannibalism in 2012. I suggest it be smerged and redirected to Cannibalism in its subsection Cannibalism#2012. Such a merge would not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A redirect & merge would be fine with me. then the listcrufty awfulness of the Cannibalism] article can be dealt with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge or just delete as arrant nonsense.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I really think the article should be deleted. Its most reliable source is a blog, for heaven's sake. Sure, it's published by Discovery network, but it's still basically a blog. However, if it makes sense to include this content at all, it does make sense to include it here, since every incident mentioned on the zombie page is an incidence of cannibalism, and the theme of the zombie page is "recently, the media has been reporting cannibalism attacks as zombie attacks." Abhayakara (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge. In any of the incidents listed so far (some since deleted) the only "zombie-like" behaviour has consisted of biting living people. For example, none of the assailants were reported to have been raised from the the dead, be unkillable, or th have shambled around in large numbers muttering "brains". NebY (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• opposeThis article could easily be made into a brief npov list of "zombie" incindents reported by the press in 2012 which no one doubts is trending and widely reported on. Given the disruptive editing by editors who seem to think that these incidents would have to be of real zombies, this article is routinely trashed when progress is made. An article reffed to the New York Daily News was removed with the comment it's not a reliable source because it is not published with a fold across the middle, for God's sake. Merging it under cannibalism is absolutely bizarre. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  Its a shame that you think having the article accurately reflect what the sources actually say without implying connections and inferences that they do not make is "disruptive editing". and it was not the missing fold that makes the New York Daily News a poor source, it it the missing reputation of being known for fact checking and accuracy that makes it a poor source-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  And too, those sources do not declare that there were any zombies, but were reporting incidents of human flesh eating... cannibalism... with "zombie" used in their titles for shock effect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support Lumping together a group of unrelated incidents based on the choice of headlines used by redtop newspapers to describe them is not at all encyclopedic. ("Unrelated incidents of behaviour described by some sensationalist journalistic sources as bearing a passing resemblence to the trope of "zombies" as espoused in the works of George Romero" is, sadly, too unwieldy for an article title.) These stories are about people biting/eating other people, in other words, Cannibalism. Thus, merge. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Merge or delete This is an awful article which exists solely to perpetuate a dumb tabloid and internet meme. Merging its content as suggested appears sensible, though I'd also prefer deletion. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The meme exists. The article exists to be a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you read "recent zombie attacks" in a newspaper and want to know what they are talking about, and encyclopedia is where you go. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But "the meme" is non notable. There is no significant coverage of the meme, only primary examples of the meme in effect.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete or merge I agree with the growing consensus that Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is of tabloid quality and should go. If anything in it is of value, it should go in the Cannibalism article. --Yaush (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no actual cannibalism in the Eugene incident or most of the others. The tabloid quality is due to the continued disruptive editing. I got Miami zombie up to snuff for the front page, and would greatly improve the incidents article if it weren't being attacked and gutted by a hostile editor who thinks one cannot have an article that talks about press reports of zombies unless there are real zombies. μηδείς (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're aware that, after a similar discussion, Miami zombie was redirected to Miami cannibal attack? Yunshui 雲‍水 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that I effected the move to the final name? And it was done following press usage, not the opinion of editors as to what was the best description? μηδείς (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Merge it in as Schmidt suggests, or just delete it altogether. Really that event, as disgusting as it is, probably isn't cannibalism as the article itself discusses it. This as an article is easily deletable. We probably should be at AfD instead of here, but I'm ok with a merge. Shadowjams (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course the article as it now stands should be deleted. It used to be about the recent zombie craze in the press, and is now about whatever The Red Panda insists on edit warring in favor of. No one supports the current version. μηδείς (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Once a clean up of this article is done, it can stand on its own. It's pointless to have it featured in the cannibal article. That just doesn't make sense. Why not merge this into the Miami Cannibal Attack page?--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 05:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "Why not merge this into the Miami Cannibal Attack page?" because there is nothing relevant in this article that is not already in the "Miami Cannibal Attack" page. "Once a clean up of this article is done, it can stand on its own." - Stand on its own as what? Once you "clean it up" is nothing connecting the incidents together except media sensationalism and there is not significant coverage of the sensationalism to meet the standalone notability requirements. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Please TheRedPenOfDoom, before you make any of your own statements here, make sure you've actually identified what i have stated and then make a reasonable answer. You are just wasting time on this discussion page.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • everyone is wasting their time on this discussion page because of a faulty close on the original AfD that should have nuked this piece of shit in the bud. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Like i just told you, please make a reasonable answer. Right now you are just talking useless bullshit.--Norgizfox5041 (talk) 05:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• New merge target - I've split some of the content of cannibalism to List of incidents of cannibalism, so I'm going to update the merge tags to point to that article instead. Also, I wholly support the merge. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

delete preferred, otherwise merge this is not notabble and reads alike a list of news records as opposed to encycloapaedic data. More suited o a personal webpage.(Lihaas (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)).

I have redirected the page. If there is anything worth merging that is not already in the target article please feel free to add it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

POV - Africa ... Africa... Africa...

I am pretty concerned about the neutrality of this article. Many parts of this article is directed towards Africa with a section specifically dedicated to Africa. Why isn't there a section dedicated to Europe, Asia, America, etc? Any such allusion is treated in a historical perspective. I have gone through the equivalent French article and lord behold it is more neutral and deals with the subject in its generality rather than finding the need to stigmatize. Are you trying to me tell me there so little cases of cannibalism in Europe, etc., which does not necessitate a section of its own? Further, many cases provided in reference to Africa are rumours but never backed up by objective evidence. A good example is Idi Amin who is plagued with the rumour that he's a cannibal probably because of his cruelty and his strong despise of the British, but such accusation has never been backed up by objective evidence. Surprised that was left out. Tamsier (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If there were enough instances of cannibalism in modern Europe to justify a section on it it would already be there, but besides a handful of lunatics there is nothing. The lack of a Europe section does not make this section biased. The talk about the content being based on rumors, well, if there are any sources attesting that then editors are free to add them.Eladynnus (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

He might have a point, actually. The accusations against Idi Amin and Kony's army don't seem very well substantiated. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Rick Gibson

I see than an IP user 216.232.10.203, restored the text “became the first person in British history to...”. Unless somebody is going to provide a reliable source that presents a convincing reason why it is believed that nobody has ever performed legal cannibalism in Britain prior to that incident, then this is an unverifiable claim. The same IP also reverted the parallel change at Rick Gibson. Frankly I find it completely implausible that in a country with no law against cannibalism it would be 1988 before anybody did it. Repeating speculation from another source is still speculation, and is not encyclopedic. IMO a source for such an outrageous claim needs to be of much higher than average reliability. An article in The Sun hardly satisfies that criterion. This is about a living person, so in accordance with WP:BLP (specifically: “Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism”), this text shouldn't be there. I see it's already been fixed here; I'm going to delete it again from the bio article pending any further discussion. — JRYon (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Rick says it, so it must be true... DoctorKubla (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt his claims that he ate the stuff (though tonsils sound pretty rank to me). After all, that's the sort of thing performance artists do. That's why I've left it in. But I don't see how his own self-promotion is any more reliable than a tabloid when it comes to claiming to be the first to do something which is pretty easy to do... — JRYon (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. Rick says he was the first legal cannibal in British history, and I suspect that's where the claim originated. I doubt the Sun does much fact-checking. And it's obviously unprovable, so I've got problem with removing it. DoctorKubla (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I thought you might have been but I have problems with ambiguity! On which note, just to clarify, was that "I've got a problem with" or "I've got no problem with"? — JRYon (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Argh, typos. No problem. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Goodo :-) — JRYon (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)