Talk:Endocannibalism

page created on august 5, 2007--T.S.Boncompte 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV issue?
Okay this section:

"However, a later study by Simon Mead et al of the University College London [17] has since shown that this gene, called G127V, is only commonplace in the areas with the highest incidence of Kuru - it is not commonplace in the global population. The relatively rare (but widespread) occurrence of G127V in the global population could therefore be explained as random mutation. This is evidence that cannibalism may not have been widespread among humanity, as the kuru disease is the only known prion disease that spreads by human cannibalism. Were cannibalism widespread, G127V would have to be commonplace by evolutionary necessity – but it isn’t. The only way by which cannibalism could have been widespread would be if kuru was not the only prion to spread by human cannibalism.[18]"

Is mostly okay, I think but the last two or three sentences feel to me that they are verging on a persuasive essay? It feels very much like an assertion of opinion, a logical opinion mind, but an opinion nonetheless, if that makes any sense. In other words, I feel like the wording on the last two or three sentences is trying to give extra weight to Mead et al's study in order to dispute the assertions of the previous study mentioned (a study whose author had suggested the "widespread" nature of the gene might indicate cannibalism was more common in prehistory). In particular, the fact that it says "this would have to be commonplace - but it isn't" feels ripped right from a particularly punched-up persuasive essay. (I could deconstruct it a lot more than that but it's really unnecessary to bother I think)

Am I saying that the study's conclusion is wrong? No. Of course not. I'm saying that those are merely the study's conclusions, or at least I assume as much, intuitively. Yet feels like this paragraph is not just describing research that came to a differing conclusion from the prior study mentioned, but is outright trying to argue against the other study's conclusion in favor of Mead's, and something about that rubs me the wrong way re: NPOV policy. It feels like it's not a neutral discussion of the study's conclusions, but rather making a persuasive argument. Which Wikipedia is not supposed to do.

And if that IS the summary of the study's actual conclusions/assertions, it should be worded more like "Mead et al argued that..." shouldn't it? As opposed to being worded like it's unequivocal fact? Per NPOV anyway, yes? (Also: HAS anybody read the original study, to confirm that it literally asserts "the only way cannibalism could have been widespread would be..."? Or is this just an interpretation of it? In which case it might bump against NOR policy too) 97.102.79.98 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, in fact the full text is available from the reference. It is a pamphlet published there by the US National Library of Medicine, referenced extensively (160-odd references). I haven't read the whole text at this moment as am busy, but the gene is only mentioned once in the pamphlet. I read the last two sections of it. Though it is a slightly complex read, I feel safe to declare that it does not draw the conclusion of evidence in the genetic studies that human cannibalism wasn't widespread. Contrarily, it actually suggests directly that there may be evidence enough to suggest that cannibalism experienced a significant rise in occurrence at the time the Neanderthals disappeared. I'll come back later and read it more carefully and update as necessary. ~ R.T.G 08:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ R.T.G 19:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)