Talk:Human cannibalism/Archive 2

Mary Kingsley
I wondered if anybody else had come across mention of cannabilism in this book? Unfortunately it was some time since I read it and my copy has long gone but my recollection is that she went travelling in mid/late nineteenth century in west africa hunting and collecting specimens of small water creatures and plants and what have you. On her return she published a book of her travels which caused something of a scandal, she having gone as a women 'alone' on a long trek through jungle with 6 african men from various tribes with whom she worked, lived and slept for many months. The scandal arose I recall because she described them all as the individual human beings and friends they were as opposed to being just 'natives' or whatever and this was scandalous at the time because she was female and white. Any way - from recollection at least one of them came from a tribe who allegedly practiced cannabilism and the trip was held up at one point due to difficulties passing through a village where a man to whom this chap owed a debt tracked him down and proposed to get his recompense in flesh from him. MK and the other 5 were held up while this was sorted out. He came from the Fan or the Fang - not sure how it was spelt. It may be that this was just what the others said about him or a joke regularly perpertrated on whites but Mary Kingsley was no fool and also seemed to have no moral preconceptions about how people should live. I'll continue looking for the book but I just wondered if anybody else here had read it? Fainites barley 11:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Health ramifications
A major discussion missing from this article is the health ramifications of eating human flesh. It has been documented, for example, the the feeding of animal parts to bovines is a contributing factor (if not the major factor) in the development of things such as mad cow disease. However as noted here there are some cultures who have thrived on cannibalism. So what are the ramifications of humans eating humans? Can diseases such as AIDS be transmitted? Can it cause long-term health problems? Etc. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

!!!!(Reply- Heather, UK- Cannibalism causes Prion disease actually, though only through eating it in the long term (for insatnce if you ate it once it wouldn't develop, but if you make a habit of it- then yes). 'Prion disease' i actually just a term encompassing certain considtions which detrimentally affect the nervous system- mainly it causes a decline in brain function, it can cause memory loss, dementia and even a full blown personality change- in short they tend to go mad alot of the time. Prion disease can occur without cannibalism but it certainly increaes your likelihood of doing so. Cultures may 'thrive' but they certainly not healthy mentally at the very least in general terms)))

You definatly can get HIV from it. I also heard that you can get addiceted to human blood if you drink it too much, but I have no idea if it is true.

List of cannibals
I think wikipedia could do with a list of cannibals or cannibalism or something such the like. Anyone have the expertise? WLU (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good idea. Let's make a list of cannibals.            By the way, were the Tibareni also cannibalists ?  I couldn't find them as anthropophagi in the Latin text of Hieronymus' "Adv. Jovinian.". Hadrianvs et antinovs (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)hadrianvs et antinovs

Eastern Kentucky cannibalism
I cut this section, as it seems to be based on dubious data. The Crissman citation doesn't pan out (it's in Google Books), the Register reference seems to refer to a bibliography of Lexington in the journal's TOC, and the section in Noodling for Flatheads that discusses prions (also in Google Books) only refers to eating squirrel brains. 4.157.11.171 (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was too quick on the revert, sorry. The sources do look quite dubious so I've no problem with the section being removed.  WLU (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannibalism in India
The Aghori distinguish themselves from other Hindu sects and priests in India by their alcoholic and cannibalistic rituals. The corpses afloat on the river Ganges are pulled out and consumed raw as the Aghoris believe it gives them immortality and supernatural powers. Why is this statement being constantly removed from the article despite a link to a documentary?Anwar (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hufu
See the wiki article Hufu for a discription of the tofu-like simulated human flesh. Gross...HopieG (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
"There is little evidence that cannibalism was ever practiced as a routine source of nutrition. It is generally agreed the practice always carried a ritual meaning for its practitioners.[citation needed]"

This is later (partially) contradicted by many records relating non-ritual cannibalism, practiced as a means of survival only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.238.240.222 (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I modified the claim to mention this. -- Beland (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A bit of cleanup required
Generally it's a bad idea to have entire sections of text in list format, especially if they're full paragraphs; lists weren't really meant to do that. Perhaps the simplest way would be just to remove the bullet points and turn the thing into stand-alone paragraphs (perhaps with further subsectioning), but if anyone has any better ideas on reorganising the text, it'd be great. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are too many examples. Every single case of an insane dude eating flesh isn't required here. I've removed a couple that scream out "recentism".139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

about Jakupek
"Police reported that Jakupek rehearsed several cannibalistic acts on approximately 20 cats"

How *cats* can be cannibalised? One may eat cats or not (most probably never tried). I don't know if cats are edible (probably they are), but it's not a cannibalism of any sort. What if he had eaten 20 chickens, or 20 pigs, or 20 cows? --80.50.43.90 (talk) 11:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Werewolf
What about the cases of the so called werewolfs, I'm not talking about the myth and people with magical skills (that's fake), but the real "werewolfes", I mean those men who claimed to have the ability to turn into this creatures as an excuse for their murders and cannibalism or men who driven by insanity commited cannibalism and claimed to be werewolfes.

Do you remember the case of Gilles Garnier who killed and took the flesh of one of his victims to his wife in order to have it cooked?

Probably many would think this is out of context, I don't know I simply don't think so. I think this cases are good examples of cannibalism related with insanity, and that would be very interesting to mention and at least develop briefly in this article, probably with a link regarding the main article about werewolfes.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.134.69.125 (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Recipes
This article really needs a section about recipes. Maybe also some nutrition facts.--205.219.133.241 (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We should also get some opinions on how it tastes. Something other that "It depends, from person to person". 128.208.86.133 (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand human flesh is reputed to taste similar to pork, supposedly with the potential to form crackling. Cannibals tribes having dubbed humans not of the tribe as "long pig". I would be interested to know if this is actually true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.45.184 (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh...do we really need to know how to cook up a human?--GeorgiaWillow (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Far too human-centred
For an article with a top-level title, this is far too human-centred - cannibalism is an important topic in zoology. An article that covers only human cannibalism sould have a title like "Cannibalism (human)". Best would be a disambiguation  page Cannibalism with links to Cannibalism (human) and Cannibalism (zoology). -- Philcha (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, this article is meant specifically for human cannibalism (the original usage of the word) and Cannibalism (zoology) is meant for cannibalism in zoology. As the word cannibalism refers specifically to humans eating other humans, and was only extended to its use in zoology, I don't think there's a problem with the current usage. Mr. Absurd (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

World War II
This section is totally biased against the left. Points to half truths backed by insufficient references to disputed instances of cannibalism by the Soviet Forces. It shall be less objectionable and neutral if it refers to these as rumored and states to people and solders as general rather than specifying sides. In case of Japan soldiers resorting to Cannibalism, it is completely unreferenced and backed by mere West propaganda material. Most stupidly biased is the fact that all sides who the West fought against were cannibals. Even the soviets were cannibals because perhaps they were to the Left.(Koustav2007 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC))
 * "Biased against the left"? That's just paranoid. Isn't it obvious that people tend to resort to cannibalism when they are losing the war, not winning it? Feel free to add references to Americans eating their neighbors, if you can find some reliable sources. I'm removing the tag. Almost Anonymous (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Other cases
This section seems biased especially against Communism. Labeling almost most cases of cannibalism against China: Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution; Soviet Russia: Gulags of Soviet Prison, North Korea. The case of Pol Pot was one of implementing mad, crazy projects, but cannibalism is nowhere near to the truth. Thanks for sparing Cuba and Venezuela. The numerable cases of Serial Killing and cannibalism reported in United States and Europe, which can be traced directly to the consumerist life style that Capitalism imposes, is surprisingly missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koustav2007 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If these really are your reasons for adding the "neutrality disputed" tag for this section, I will remove it right now. This is utter nonsense — serial killers eating people because of a consumerist lifestyle? That is just ridiculous. Almost Anonymous (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Medicinal cannibalism
Medicinal cannibalism? zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead section
WP:LEDE says, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." It says more&mdash;plese read at least the introductory paragraphs there. I don't think this article conforms to that.

Specifically, it seems to me that My suggested section names are pretty awful. Suggestions? Comments? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) the final sentence of the initial paragraph should be removed unless a supporting source is cited;
 * 2) the second paragraph should be reworded to say that cannibalism has been practiced from prehistoric times up until the present, and a section in the article body ("Specific cases"??) should expand on that with subsections giving cite-supported info for specific cases, including those currently mentioned;
 * 3) the unsupported speculative third paragraph should be removed or, if support can be found, that info should perhaps be included in the article body section just mentioned;
 * 4) the rest of the lead should be rewritten and put into a body section ("Social categorization"??).

Map
The map is from 1893. I seriously wonder if Anthropology in any modern sense existed then. Even if it did it would have been so new that there would not have been much collection of data. Many may well have been marked on the map without good enough evidence. What would be enough evidence for me? For historically recorded people this would be the people themselves claiming to be cannibals combined with human bones showing signs of being butchered and cooked. Otherwise the claimed “cannibals” may well be victims of cultural libels. This is something you should always be wary of in social sciences.

2009-03-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.


 * we cannot take the map at face value. All we can base on it is the claim that such-and-such peoples were credited with cannibalism in 19th century scholarship. --dab (𒁳) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

North America
re this revert, the 1893 map plainly shows that the Plains Indians were credited with cannibalism in the 19th century. Whether the allegation was true is another question, but it would seem to be sufficient to disprove the edit summary given. --dab (𒁳) 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nanking massacre denial site
The source for Chinese cannibalism is obviously biased. It is from a Japanese site that is motivated with talking about Chinese brutality as a moral argument against Chinese claims of Japanese brutality (esp. relating to Nanking massacre). I invite to read their own motivation here. Some extracts:
 * To emphasize the inhumanity of the Japanese soldiers, they often go even as far as to say that Japanese soldiers took pleasure in tossing a little child into the air and piercing it with their bayonet as it came falling down. According to a famous Chinese history book, this is one of China's traditional methods of killing children, but this is in no way Japan's practice. Here again, they are telling their own story, not ours.
 * all these atrocities of Nanking are what the Chinese soldiers have been using for centuries past

It goes on like this. I would ask to critically evaluate the use of this site as a reference. Ben T/C 15:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the content of the site, it is an unreliable source. The sources stated on the site are: a Japanese "history" book claiming that Red Guard in China regularly committed cannibalism during the cultural revolution, this amounts to unverifiable original "research"; quoting from the Ming dynasty novel the Water Margin a section on criminals that dealt in human flesh (the Water Margin is a novel based on fictionalised history and even then criminals don't count as historic, cultural cannibalism); it quotes from "A Madman's Diary" by Lu Xun as to saying that the author derides "4000 years" of cannibalism in China when the book is a short story with a political objective that compares the feudalist society in traditional China to cannibalism; it describes cannibalism during periods of famine (which doesn't make it cultural); it states that a "Persian trader" once saw human flesh being openly sold in markets (no sources); it cites a poem that uses cannibalism as an analogy and distorts it into being a factual statement by its author.  The idea that this can be used as a source, even a questionable one is extremely unwise.

The pictures from Winter and continuation wars
Are they authentic? They look like pictures which are interpreted to support old men's war stories. The skin picture has source in Finnish tabloid paper, and the link is dead. I tried to google about this, but found only few hits, and none of them was from very authoritative source. So, if no backing for the pictures is presented, they should be considered as propaganda, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.7.251 (talk) 16:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirection from Long Pig
When one searches for Long Pig, one is redirected here. While I can see why this page is re-directed to Cannabilism, there is nothing in the articl define Long Pig, which is not cannibalism but in fact refers to human beings as food, nor where its name came from, etc. Shouldn't it be defined somewhere? --75.170.51.23 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.170.51.23 (talk) dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.232.10 (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism Not Limited to Humans
This article is totally incorrect by the first paragraph, which many people will read. It declares cannibalism the act of humans eating other humans, but that is anthropophagy. Cannibalism is simply eating your own kind. Humans are NOT the only cannibalistic species and this article needs to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.231.188 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The myth of everyday cannibalism
It would be suitable to point out that no culture have ever practised everyday cannibalism. To the extent cannibalism have occurred it has been ether ceremonial (as part of funerals or human sacrifices) or due to severe famine (eating the dead when there was nothing else to eat). Think about the first person in a given society who practise everyday cannibalism! Imagine that he or she belongs to a society consisting of at most a thousand people an those lacking formal political leadership. If so that person would soon get so many enemies that he or she would be lynched by revengeful relatives of his or her victims. Now image the first everyday cannibal as a member of a society with more than a thousand members and thus have a formal political leader. In that case he or she would sooner or later become a wanted serial killer and as such considered a grave criminal. Consequently, the first everyday cannibal in any society would be stopped before it had any chance of becoming an established practice. I bet people which imagines a culture practising everyday cannibalism never gives a thought about that!


 * Depends on what you mean by 'everyday'. If you mean 'as a major source of food', of course not - that's nonsensical on purely economic/ecological grounds (humans are very poor meat animals). But ceremonial cannibalism wasn't necessarily rare, some of the societies that practiced it as part of human sacrifice did a lot of human sacrifice. (The Aztecs are an example; even if only a relatively small fraction of the sacrifices were cannibalized, that adds up to a lot of people.) However, Marvin Harris's claims of human flesh as a crucial part of the Aztec diet are almost certainly wrong (the Aztec diet, while largely vegetarian, provided more protein than he thought - beans, a major dietary element in many Native American cultures, have a lot of protein.) Vultur (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

2009-06-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.155.69 (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Freddy and Dean Hamilton think this is outrageously dumb...wow, this is dumb.


 * Please see WP:TPG. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Custom of the Sea
It has been reported that there were cases of cannibalism in attempt of surviving after ship wreckage until modern times...--92.227.35.252 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Neanderthals?
The opening says that Neanderthals practiced cannibalism. But, this is being debated. Some anthropologists interpret cut marks on Neanderthal bones as evidence of cannibalism; others believe that these marks have to with their burial rituals. Given the uncertainty, should this be presented as fact in the opening? (Yes, the mention of cannibalism is cited. But, it also possible to find citations for the other point of view.) SlowJog (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Opening Definition
The (OVERVIEW) opening 2 paragraphs contradict each other. In the first we are told the origin of the word cannibal, in the second paragraph we are given a totally different origin. They cant both be correct. Someone find the truth and dlete the one thats wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.235.50 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm very pushed for time at the moment, so will just point to pages 17-18 in this source, which appears to contradict info in the Carib article. I don't have the time right now to try to sort this out. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Catholics and cannibalism
from a catholic apologetics website "The Eucharist is a sacramental oath that Jesus made in promising us his body and blood even though it appears to be bread and wine. When Jesus made the promise in the discourse in John chapter 6, it was clear that the disciples believed him to be speaking of cannabalism and many of them left him.

If, at that moment in time, the disciples had killed Jesus and eaten his flesh and drank his blood, they would have been guilty of cannabalism. This would not have been a good thing, and it would have been worthy of condemnation. Instead, Jesus gives us his flesh to eat and blood to drink sacramentally in the transubstantiated bread and wine. There is no cannabalism under the classic and graphic definitions that man has attributed to it. The sacramental food of the Eucharist is food for the spiritual journey and it does not carry with it the character of cannabalism.

Transubstantiation is accomplished through the ministry of the priest at mass only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Only God, himself, actually transforms the bread and wine. God willingly gave us the word and the word became flesh by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus willingly lays down his life for the world. Jesus institutes the New Covenant at the Last Supper and fulfills his promise in John 6. Jesus willing gives himself for the world on the cross, and Jesus willingly gives himself to us again in the Eucharist.

In Genesis 1:2-3 we read that, "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light." When God's minister celebrates mass with the faithful, God's Spirit transubstantiates the bread and wine in the same way that God created light in Genesis 1:2-3 and in the same way that the word was made flesh in Luke chapter 1."

Also in a like manner Lutherans, High Anglicans, Methodists, Eastern Orthodox believe nearly the same thing. It is not limited to Catholics. I would like to see more research and less opinion in wiki articles.

also see

http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9307iron.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.33.130 (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- just because Jesus said, "This is my body.. eat it... this is my blood drink... it...," this does not mean that the Eucharist has anything to do with cannibalism. Eating human flesh and drinking human blood -- whether symbolically, or literally, according to transubstantiation doctrine -- is not cannibalism as long as it is carried out within the context of sanction by the church and by God himself. The above commenter makes a clear point when he/she points out that Jesus is freely giving his flesh and blood for our drinking and eating. It would seem that eating of human flesh that is freely given would not constitute cannibalism, since it is not being stolen, merely received as a free gift. The sources cited, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia should be authoritative on this. 200.162.202.60 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are probably right, but for the wrong reason. Just because someone gives of their body freely doesn't make it less canibalism.  If you were on a life raft and someone gave of their body freely in this way, it would still be cannibalism to eat that person.  Chrisrus (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if transubstantiation is true, it can't be cannibalism, because although you are eating Christ's blood and drinking his blood, his body is not diminished by this. He is Infinite, so there can be no subtraction. No subtraction = no cannibalism. For Protestants it is not cannibalism either. At worst they are merely pretending to be cannibals, which is not at all the same thing. There is a wide chasm between fantasy and reality.200.233.63.17 (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not religious, but that reasoning strikes me as a real stretch. I note that the Transubstantiation article says, "The Gospel of John presents Jesus as saying: 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you … he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him' ", ....". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's think about this, shall we? Jesus gave bread to the disciples to eat and wine to drink, yes? He didn't hack off his hand and say, "Have at it." Have you not noticed that the ENTIRE Bible is filled with symbolism and metaphors? The bread and the cup is used as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice. It wasn't his actual flesh and it doesn't become actual flesh. It's bread. It's like a monument. We Americans remember George Washington through the Washington monument. Christians, alike, remember Christ through the Lord's Supper.--GeorgiaWillow (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article says, "... Catholics teach that the Eucharist is literal, through their belief of transubstantiation.", citing this. Perhaps a better supporting cite would be this, which says clearly, "The Roman Catholic View: Transubstantiation. According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, in the Eucharist, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ." (italics in the source). I'll add that as a cite. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism in Australia
The lead tells us that "In the past, it has been practiced by humans in.....Australia....usually in rituals connected to tribal warfare", with a reference to Encyclopedia Brittanica online. The reference simply goes to an obscure definition and requires me to activate my fee trial subscription to see more. I don't think much of that sort of reference. Other more modern texts I have studied are quite sceptical of older claims of cannibalism among Australian Aboriginal people, suggesting they were part of a broader campaign to discredit those people. Australian Aboriginal people had no written language, so there is no record suitable for Wikipedia from the people themselves.

I doubt if this is really a great claim to have in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have time right now to pursue this, but I do see that this source, for one, supports you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Given the conflicting references, I have removed Australia from the list of places where cannibalism historically occured. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

As an act of reverence for the dead
Somewhere, I encountered a reference to cannibalism as an act of respect among a group of tribes. The belief was that there were two spirits within the skull. After death, a hole was drilled in the skull to release one of the spirits; and the brain was consumed by the children of the deceased so that the other spirit (along with all the spirits of all the ancestors consumed up the line) entered into the next generation. This was the reason for head=hunting among the groups; by cutting off the head of your enemy you prevented his spirits from continuing on.

The story stuck with me, the name of the tribe/region of the world did not. Is there someone familiar with this who has some sources to document and add to the page?

I think it is worthwhile because the page talks of cannibalism for religious reasons -- but, other than the discussion of Catholic communion -- gives no hint as to what these reasons are and why some groups have considered consuming human flesh sacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.147.240 (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian Cannibalism
I do not understand the reasoning behind the statement about Hungarians being cannibals "probably false as they had only converted from paganism in the 10th century..." Is this arguing that if they had converted longer before, it is more likely that they would be cannibals? Maybe this is a typo?--Jrm2007 (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
we never had cannibalism in history in Brazil, its a big lie without any research —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.21.213 (talk • contribs) 01:41, February 28, 2010


 * See, , ], , , , , etc. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Legality of Cannibalism
Is it legal in the U.S.? What if the person you're eating is already dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.37.50 (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be considered desecration of a corpse in all localities. --24.46.253.124 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

But people have been known, for symbolic reasons, to eat the ashes of someone cremated and I have not heard this is illegal.--Jrm2007 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hunter/gatherers
If it's true that hunter/gatherer cultures normally eat their conquered enemies unless there's lots of extra meat around, it's really not fair to mention that this or that people's ancestors were cannibals, because it would mean that all of us have ancestors that were cannibals. The only notable cases would be those that occured in pastoral cultures with lots of meat, or civilized cultures that had the practice as a feature. I know that Marvin Harris claims the practice is normal for hunter/gatherers in his book Cannibals and Kings, which as I read it makes total sense and could be expected to generate flinching waves of denial in most readers and primitive naturalist anthropolgists. Chrisrus (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it "not fair" to suggest that we may all have ancestors who were cannibals? If it seems likely that it happened, it should be mentioned, but not judged by modern day standards. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is fair to suggest that we all have such ancestors. What's not fair is to point out only that those who have been hunter/gatherers in historical memory have been, seeming to imply that those whose hunter/gather past is lost to history have never been. Chrisrus (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. HiLo48 (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if you and I agree about that, maybe it might be good for us to take that point of view to a place where it might apply. For example, what do you say that we respond to the idea for a "List of Cannibals" where "Cannibals" seems to mean "peoples or cultures where the practice was known to have been a feature"? It's just above on this very page. Chrisrus (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Donner Party
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100419/hl_hsn/analysisfinallyclearsdonnerpartyofrumoredcannibalism

Can we now remove this group from this list since findings have now discredited the story? See above hyperlink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.135.84 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Neanderthal Cannibalism
NEANDERTHAL SITES WHERE CANNIBALISM HAS BEEN REPORTED

1. Krapina, Croatia (Russell, 1986; Fernández-Jalvo, et al., 1996)

2. Vindija, Croatia (Malez and Ullrich, 1982)

3. Marillac, France (Vandermeersch, 1980)

4. Combe Grenal, France (Hughes, et. al., 1951)

5. Macassargues, France (Mort, 1989)

6. El Sidrón, Spain (Rosas, et. al., 2006)

7. Les Pradelles, France (Mann, et. al. 2005)

8. Zafarraya, Spain (Hubin, et. al. 1995)

9. Moula-Guercy, France (Defleur, et. at. 1999)

How many species to include?
Please look at this with me.

“Some anthropologists, such as Tim White, suggest that cannibalism was common in human societies prior to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic period. This theory is based on the large amount of “butchered human" bones found in Neanderthal and other Lower/Middle Paleolithic sites.44 Cannibalism in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic may have occurred because of food shortages”45

This says that it was common in HUMAN societies, citing Tim White, and then says that the theory is based on NEANDERTHAL evidence. While Time White does mention the Neanderthal cannibalism IN PASSING, his chapter is basically focused on the evidence that primitive HOMO SAPIANS practiced cannibalism. It then cites a NatGeo article as evidence that Cannibalism IN THE TIME BOTH SPECIES EXISTED might have been for that reason, but the article was saying that about NEANDERTHALS, only.

The problem is, while there are many things that you could say for sure must be true about BOTH early humans and our late cousins, the Neanderthals, there is also plenty of reason to believe that Neanderthals were also very different from us, indeed. I could give you some examples, but here's one: Neanderthals didn’t eat vegetables, they were strict carnivores. Here's another: Neanderthals never painted any cave paintings, making you think that they didn't think like us either.

My complaint is that this paragraph CONFLATES as many people do our ancestors, the early humans, the Cro Magnon, on the one hand; and the Neanderthals on the other.

If we want the article to start out looking at the evidence of cannibalism in other Homonids, that’s fine. I’d support that, actually, and would offer to help; it’s a good idea. We could go back further and talk about it in other non-human species, maybe even ones that, like Neanderthals, weren’t our ancestors. Gerbils, perhaps, I can tell you from personal experience as a todler that they cannibalize. But if the article wants to stick to humans, let’s leave out the Neanderthals. Or at the very least clarify which species we are talking about at all times.

Mesoamerican cannibalism and Pozole
I recently did a little research in connection with cannibalism in pre-Columbian mesoamerica and posted at the "Pozole" article. I thought it might also be of interest to people here, so I am posting this link. —Mark Dominus (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

British vs. American English
Yes, I know it's a pain, but WP:ENGVAR does say, in part, that each article should consistently use the same spelling conventions. The article currently contains a hodgepodge of UK and US spellings. I tried to fix some of that with this edit, and was promptly reverted in this revert. AFAIK, no consensus has ever been established over whether British English or American English (see differences) is preferred in this article, but the article should be consistent. I suggest that a consensus be established here, the talk page be tagged with either British English or American English, and that the article be edited for consistency. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, we need to decide, then stick to it. I have no strong feelings either way on which form should be used for this article. My biggest concerns occur when proponents of one form, often in seeming ignorance of even the existence of differences, make changes without justifying them. You, at least, gave a sensible reason for your change. The reverter did not. Also, I've just looked at the very first version of this article. It has rumors and behavior. Clearly American spelling. Let's stick with that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Practice [noun] and practise [verb] is a useful distinction, lrt's keep that distinction Lghkjiyiootyuio (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is. I've never mastered it. But is it US or UK spelling?

HiLo48 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2010

The ise/ice distinction is in UK spelling. USians use...ice for everything.Lkjhbvcxz (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Decisions regarding inclusions of spelling distinctions should not be taken on a case-by-case article-by-article basis. The decision to be made for this particular article is which spelling variant to consistently apply&mdash;probably a choice between British English and American English. I see that the American and British English spelling differences article says, "American English and British English both retain the noun/verb distinction in advice / advise and device / devise, but American English has abandoned the distinction with licence / license and practice / practise (where the two words in each pair are homophones) that British spelling retains. American English uses practice and license for both meanings."
 * With a quick look at the article, I see British variant spellings for practise, rumoured, rumours, neighbours. Amarican variant spellings I see include cannibalize, satirized, theorizes, rationalized, exoticize, mischaracterized, hypothesized, colonizers, ritualized, publicize, terrorize, demobilized. I've probably missed some of both. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a mess. It really should be standardised. But which way should we lean? US or UK? HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mox nix to me, but it should be consistent and the consensus choice is best indicated on the talk page with one of the templates mentioned previously to enable shortstopping of discussions about doing english-variant fixups. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only was the article created using US spellings, it's strongly favored those spellings over the years, so WP:RETAIN likely applies and the spellings should remain US. The current hodgepodge only dates from March of this year when a number of UK variants came in with a series of major edits; attempts to regularize the spellings have repeatedly been reverted by the IP editor/reverter mentioned above. Ergative rlt (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me make my vote and biases clear, for what it's worth. I'm Australian and would normally support UK English over US English. But this article began in US English. It should stay that way. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

19th-century Kalmyk(!) cannibalism mentioned in History of the Jews in Romania article
I was very surprised to see this in the article History of the Jews in Romania: "Kalmyk irregular soldiers in Ottoman service, who appeared in Bucharest at the close of the Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812, exercised terror on the city's Jewish population. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), 'They passed daily through the streets inhabited by the latter, spitted children on their lances, and, in the presence of their parents, roasted them alive and devoured them.'" Yes, this quote really does come from the Jewish Encyclopedia. I know that Jews had a tremendous influence on the people around them and that many other groups were cruel to the Jews, but I would have thought the Kalmyks were too westernized to break the final taboo. Does anyone know if the statement in the Jewish Encyclopedia is true? BTW, I'm surprised this is not mentioned in other sources I've read about cannibalism. -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. It looks to me as if a lot of the text in that other article, including the bit you mention, might be WP:COPYPASTE from http://www.biblediscovered.com/tag/kingdom-of-israel/page/34/. I'll mention that on the talk page there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Taste
What has human meat been described to taste like, and does it have a special name (such as "veal" or "pork")? --Whoop whoop pull up (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Long pig redirects here, which should answer that. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This page should be semiprotected
IP vandalism seems to be interfering with content development. What do you think? -- La comadreja  formerly AFriedman  RESEARCH  (talk)  20:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture
A lot of people seem to think cannibalism makes you shake, go crazy, or that eating human flesh is addictive. In Book of Eli (a movie) supposedly shaking is a tale that someone is a cannibal and in Fallout 3 / New Vegas (a video game series) the taste of human flesh seems to be addictive to some of the characters. There might be some basis to this, ie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) a prion disease (kind of like mad cow) spread by eating human flesh. It makes you shake and kind of go crazy if you contract it. I figure someone would actually need to have this disease first before a cannibal would be able to contract it but in a society where cannibalism is common disease like this might spread more readily. I also wonder if it's addictive or if this is just something popular culture made up. 173.80.102.159 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that the idea that it's "addictive" came from European colonists not understanding why cultures that incorporated cannibalism as funerary practices and/or capital punishment didn't give up cannibalism when other food was present (wasn't about food, but social control...). However, it is kind of a trope (goes back at least a couple hundred years, I think), but we'd need to cite a source that says it is.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ,, assert addictiveness
 * too (sort-of)
 * presents its addictiveness as a meme
 * has a section on Cannibalism as addiction
 * speaks of addiction as one of three common reasons for cannibalism in colonial representations
 * speaks of it as an addiction, but in the context of social science
 * has an interesting little presentation in the context of evolutionary pressures. It seems to say that once cannibalism becomes a workable solution to such pressures, it remains so.
 * discusses cannibalism in the context of moral doctrine; addiction is mentioned in passing, but not related to the practice of cannibalism.
 * speaks of an addiction to human flesh, citing, which speaks of races (classes? groups? societies?) of people said to have an insatiable desire for human flesh and on this page speaks of cannibalism and other practices considered by outsiders to be taboo becoming an ingrained part of some societies.
 * has an interesting first-person comment by one particular modern-day cannibal.
 * That's just from some quick googling. There must surely be other/better stuff out there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

An interesting picture
I found an interesting map about cannibalism. Its title and description are: "Map of Cannibalism in 19th century. This is a unusual historic map showing Cannibalism in 1893."

The link is: Mapsorama

I don't know much about copyrights and licenses and getting all the red-tape permission stuff that's needed to put a picture that's not yours onto Wiki. I don't think Mapsorama wants you to buy the image/map. The map is probably for sale. Though there was no mention of money on that particular page, the site sells map images. The page says: "Please link this map to your website or blog!" So maybe it would be easy for someone who knows what they're doing to get permission to use the picture. Maybe if the map was an image link that led to the Mapsorama page, it would be okay for someone to add the pic right now.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting and could be a good addition, but was cannibalism really that widespread in Australia in 1893? I'm kinda tempted to say that the caption should have something to the effect that the map represents what a European believed was the extent of cannibalism. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This map is hilarious... It shows Uruguay like a "cannibal country" in 1893!!!! --Againme (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

References to Christian Eucharist and Cannabalism
Regarding the statement, "In the Christian tradition, cannibalism is believed to be undertaken..." found at #Themes_in_mythology_and_religion:

I know this was covered previously on the talk pages, but the discussion there was unrelated to the concept of cannibalism and focused on a discussion of transubstantiation. The argument there was that Eucharist=Body, therefore, Communion=Cannibalism. This argument is not supported by the citations provided [39] or [40]. Neither of these original source authors state that anyone (believers or non-believers) believe that this is a form of cannibalism. The assertion of this association with cannibalism is a matter of the wikipedia author synthesizing the original source to a conclusion not supported by the original source author, violating WP:OR.

Since the origins of Christianity, some (uninformed) people have associated the Eucharist with cannibalism as a way of discrediting the religious practice. However, no reliable source is offered here which offers support for the (outlandish) statement that any theologian believes that the Christian Eucharist is cannibalistic. These statements are well outside the mainstream of theology and fall under WP:FRNG. Unless some reliable source is cited which clearly states that the belief in the Eucharist is a belief in real or symbolic cannibalism, this section should be removed. --Watchmands (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. You've just used a lot of words to tell us that it isn't cannibalism, so what does it mean when one is eating the body of Christ? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Theophagy


 * LOL
 * --Watchmands (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, I see what you did with putting back the reference to Eucharist from the Anon editor, and I don't disagree with the principle of it. However, that same anon editor created a circular refence from Eucharist to Cannibalism. Neither article mentions the other topic, so I have deleted both references.

The criticism of the Eucharist as cannibalistic has been put forth since Roman times. It probably makes sense to include a discussion of this theoloigcal argument in one article or the other (I vote for the Eucharist article, with a link from the Cannibalism article). However, I haven't found any reliable source putting forth this position. If someone wants to include an apology to that effect and cite the source, I support its inclusion.

--Watchmands (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling I am being spoken to by someone very familiar with the eucharist, and who is assuming that we all know what it's about. Well, I don't, and you must assume the same of a lot of the readers. I do know that it's spoken of as representing the body of Christ, hence my earlier question, if it isn't cannibalism (and I can accept that it's probably not), then what IS it? HiLo48 (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW - not happy with your tricky reversion Edit summary, which I just noticed. After I called you on the incomplete discussion, you again reverted with a newly invented reason. Not very ethical. You haven't presented any new information, just some rambling. Please answer the question in plain English. And stop pushing your POV on the article. HiLo48 (talk)


 * What incomplete discussion? You asked me one question, which I answered: "Theophagy". Note that the Theophagy article includes a relevant, reliable source related to the Eucharist.


 * Then I said that I was ok with an inclusion of the Eucharist in Cannibalism, IF someone could cite a source. I tried to say that, as a theological argument, Cannibalism is historically relevant. I think that discussion of it may be appropriate. I would prefer that discussion be included in the Eucharist article. I think that it is more historically relevant there than it is here.


 * I don't understand why you think what I did was unethical. if you look at the change history for what I undid, 96.61.41.244 added a reference from Cannibalism to Eucharist and then added a reference from Eucharist to Cannaiblism. They made no other changes to either article. Neither article makes any mention of the other topic.


 * What they did, in plain English, was create an empty circular reference. I undid that.


 * I am very happy to enter into a discussion of the academic merits of this article. However, I'm not going to try to explain the Eucharist in this discussion page. Like it says at the top of the page "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." If readers do not understand what the Eucharist is about, I would point them to the appropriate article. I am not qualified to even attempt it.


 * I hope this clarifies that my objection. I do not object to including references between the two articles. I object to the lack of academic rigor that has been applied. If someone wants to find a source, and cite it, I applaude them.
 * I really am not trying to be "tricky". I just think that the topic deserves appropriate treatment.
 * --Watchmands (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Idiotic edit war over practiced/practised
Can it stop now please? I don't care which way it's spelt! HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same IP editor from last year (precise IP changes, but they're all 91.xxx...) whose edits are pretty much nothing but changing a few (not all) of the spellings in the article to UK versions. Which is a rather lame form of SPA. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Lu Xun, basis of Soylent Green?
Soylent Green famously ends with "Soylent Green is made with people!" Lu Xun's Water Margin ends with "It's people. The buns are made with people!" Does anyone have RS that one come from the other? PPdd (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, really? There is "...resistance to formally labelling cannibalism as a mental disorder"?
I read the source cited for making the claim in the introduction that there is resistance to calling cannibalism a mental disorder. The article didn't say that at all. Rather, it said that presumably because cannibalism is so rare, it wasn't mentioned in the index of mental disorders. That doesn't mean there is resistance to labeling it a disorder. Discuss. Mike (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AFAICS, you are correct that the cited source does not support the specific assertion which it is cited to support. Also AFAICS, the cited source is not a WP:RS. Possibly the article assertion should be changed to say simply that cannibalism is not formally considered to be a psychiatric disorder (possibly could be cited, but I don't get anything useful out of it in terms of this article by browsing through it).


 * I note that the currently-cited source specifically discusses the case of Armin Meiwes, though the article doesn't mention that individual at the point in question. Digging around, I came across, which says that the prosecuter's preliminary psychological report described Meiwes as "having no evidence of a psychological disorder" but that he did have a "schizoid personality".


 * I note further that the article asserts without support that Jeffrey Dahmer and Albert Fish were "mentally ill individuals". Neither of those individuals is currently living, so this is not a WP:BLP violation. I won't challenge that assertion, but it could be challenged and would need support if it were challenged. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

During the Musket Wars of 1807-1842 in Nz, Maori regularly indulged in routine customary retribution called utu, the ultimate form of which was cannibalism or reducing a deadly enemy to faeces. According to one well known Nz historian Maori "hovered on the brink of insanity". We are talking about c60,000 people recently emerged from a neolithic age confronting the thin edge of western industrialized civilization. A way of life had evolved where regular and routine violence including slavery, torture ,ritual slaughter and cannabalism were common ways of dealing with inter tribal or subtribal squabbles. Despite the attacks on ships, most eaten were Maori from other hapu(subtribes). Historian Angela Ballara believes that cannabalism was not new during this period but part of tikanga or lore that appears to have been a common practice from at least c1750.Claudia .June 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.88.155.217 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I follow your logic, Claudia. Could you try to explain what you mean?  Are you saying that the development level of a given culture affects whether or not cannibalism is a mental disorder? Mike (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To some degree I agree with Claudia. Cannibalism in modern times appears to be a response to a severe lack of food whereas in early New Zealand there was never any lack of food. Paul Moon in his book on Maori cannibalism makes it quite clear that it was in fact a "normal"  part of the Maori way of life.From about 1500 Maori revived practices that were common in the Marquesa Islands,from where it is believed Maori migrated about 1250. Warfare became a core part of the existence of classic Maori. Missionaries in the early 1800s saw Maori adults introducing their childern to eating human flesh to normalise the practice. Later after 1820 when missionaries arrived Maori gradually became self conscious about the practice and European settlers were usually,though not always, turned away from flesh eating feasts. Moon quotes sources saying Maori they did it because they enjoyed the taste which was similar to pork.It is interesting that in many cases Maori went to considerable trouble to prepare the human meat-carefully deboning the body and making the cuts of even thickness so it would cook  well. Maori had a particular liking for brains and eye balls which were very symbolic to their culture. It had become a common cultural ritual associated with warfare. After feasts it was quite normal for the heads of enemies to be placed on display on sticks outside the dead person's village-a form of psychological warfare as part of utu, or revenge killing.Mental disorder? Maybe cultural disorder is a more appropriate term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.178.121 (talk • contribs)
 * Famous anthropolgist Marvin Harris said in his book Cannibals and Kings that in the days before it became more economical to enslave vanquished enemies, all cultures ate their enemies. It was very convincing to read it, and I believe it to this day.  What else were you going to do with a defeated foe?  Enslaving was not practical, and anything else would have given your culture a disadvantage.  Add this to the article? Chrisrus (talk) 22:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Themes in mythology and religion
Should there not a least be a mention about the Christian practice of communion? This is, depending on your perspective, either full or symbolic cannibalism. For example, in the Eucharist in the Catholic Church people believe the bread and wine actually turns into the corporal flesh and blood of Jesus.

The Council of Trent's decree on the Holy Eucharist states that the Body and Blood of the God-man are truly, really, and substantially present and that they must be consumed in the stomach.

Also, the bible has some interesting bits too, such as...

"Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

(John 6:53-55) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.219.120 (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, this does NOT fall under the definition of cannibalism since no actual human flesh is consumed. And "symbolic cannibalism" is just another nonsense concept invented by the cultural relativists. 67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's The Evidence
It seems the only "evidence" of cannibalism presented in Melanesia and on the African continent are hearsay and literature by sensationalist bigots. The sources for citations are from YouTube and amateur websites that don't show any physical evidence. I know, I went to those sites. I watched the YouTube video of Liberia for at least a few seconds of someone being caught in the act. The best they had was some kids mouthing off about human flesh, denials from military leaders, and people cutting body parts out with no identifiable reasons other than mutilation of "the enemy". There's numerous suspected evidence of cannibalism all over the European peninsula (including very specific marks on literally thousands of bones) and the only place in Africa with any evidence of cannibalism is in Egypt, where the people went through a period of famine and later wrote about it. Even the Egyptian cannibalism account(s) have not been corroborated. This article reeks of intentional racism, like too many of the articles on Wikipedia. This "article" is riddled with superfluously leading language. If these so-called primitive peoples have done so much people eating, where is the physical evidence? So far, it does not exist. These are almost always fabrications by angry hate-filled bigots who seek excuses to murder and control more peaceful peoples (although the video is of a civil war) who live life differently and a few lying locals trying to vilify rivals. It's not at all a shock how easy it is for certain groups of people to immediately believe lies about cultures of which they have zero understand and near zero knowledge. Magunz (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC and Journeyman Pictures are sensationalist bigots? Did you go on to the rest of the sources, such as the Smithsonian?  Do you have any reliable sources for your statements regarding Europe?  If so, we'll incorporate it into the article.  Could you provide reliable sources which demonstrate that the African cannibalism claims are false?  Reverse racism is racism as well, but simply summarizing what sources say is just summarizing what sources say.  Give us sources countering the African cannibalism sources, give us sources demonstrating that cannibalism occurs in Europe, and then you'll have the right to decry supposed racism.  Until then, you're just gonna come off as a troll.  Ian.thomson (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The BBC is one of the most slanted news organizations in the world. That much has been a constant for many decades. You people seem to go to great efforts to display African cannibalism, yet you want ME to go give you sources for Europe that you should already have researched on your own. It's obvious your kind has never been honest and concerned with truth. Choose your sources better instead of trying to fill pages to feel good about yourselves. Try to show at least a sliver of academic honesty. "Reverse racism is still racism". Thank you for your poorly chosen childish childishly irrelevant statement. The real point was the complete lack of physical evidence, you failed to grasp this exceedingly simply premise. Statements from third, fourth, fifth, etc parties. I'll provide a few sources and let you children research on your own, though you most likely will not. Anything said about Africa by a non African (and Africans alike) should be taken with extreme skepticism -- at least by the intelligent. There's a huge lack of information transcribed for Africa in seemingly all but the negative articles, even when the information is easy to come by. I know, I have looked. There's a clear pattern of racism on this site I chose to address, while you choose to defend it. All you have to do is be fair and balanced and you cannot even do that. Cannibalism in Africa based on a YouTube video that at worst shows corpse mutilation (which is still pretty bad) and a single website of quotes by (hopefully) long dead racists. It is not at all unexpected. It's in your culture, religion, and lifestyle. It's who you are historically. I have the right to "decry racism" regardless of whether or not I provide sources. I do more than enough research to vindicate myself to myself. I am above reproach by those of your standing. Despite there being an overwhelming amount of physical evidence illustrating European cannibalism in it's prehistoric to industrial past, people are still shoving hearsay accounts of Africa in everyone's face, regardless of having no physical evidence -- including bone markings that are found all over Europe. Your Smithsonian argument is invalid. New Guinea is not within Africa or its surrounding territories.

Due to my magnanimous nature, I will bless you with a few sources and phrases:

Europe Egyption Mummy Medicine

Europe Bones Cannibalism

Greece Cannibalism

Europe Bone Markings Cannibalism

Medieval Europe Cut Bone Cannibalism

Middle Ages Europe Cannibalism

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2101801/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,604548,00.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/evidence-of-mass-cannibalism-uncovered-in-germany-1835341.html

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/exploration/news/news_cannibalism_pt2.htm

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch-Archive/Detail/?lng=en&id=112476

http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/cannibalism-in-Europe1.jpg

http://www.physorg.com/news168867939.html

http://www.opendemocracy.net/jen-paton/europe-and-its-cannibals

Magunz (talk) 02:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Predatory control theory controversial?
According to the article Why do People Sing? Music in Human Evolution the predatory control theory of cannibalism is controversial and not accepted by mainstream scholars. Unfortunately, the article does not cite references but it sounds correct. If this theory is controversial it would be a good idea to include a sentence in Cannibalism noting that Jordania's theory is regarded as speculative and not supported by most scholars to avoid giving this theory undue weight. --Smcg8374 (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to make changes as you see fit. Vranak (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Joseph Jordania has apparently relevant cites. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Two People in Dutch TV Show Ate Each Other's Meat
In the Dutch BNN program Proefkonijnen (broadcast December 21st, 2011; link), presenters Valerio Zeno and Dennis Storm ate tiny pieces of meat (muscle) of each other that were surgically removed (buttocks Storm, abdomen Zeno; detailed footage of the operation can be seen in the broadcast) and prepared by Lex Kok during the broadcast. Lawyer Gerard Spong, who was also present, said everyone involved (including BNN) is prosecutable. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to, Spong said, "Only when it involves maltreatment or when it violates common decency is cannibalism illegal". Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting 14:11 he says: "All things considered, what you're doing is prosecutable, very formally reasoned. And the surgeon is prosecutable, you as eaters are prosecutable, the cook is prosecutable and ultimately BNN is also prosecutable as the instigator, because they have obviously orchestrated the whole 'party'." (Dutch: "Wat jullie doen is eigenlijk strafbaar, heel formeel geredeneerd. En de chirurg is strafbaar, jullie als eters zijn strafbaar, de kok is strafbaar en uiteindelijk is BNN ook strafbaar als uitlokker, want die heeft dat hele feestje natuurlijk geënsceneerd.") Then he goes into what the (maximum) penalties are. Anyways, the reason I mentioned the BNN broadcast is because it's not yet mentioned in the article (and neither had anyone mentioned it on this Talk page). --82.171.13.139 (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On 3 February 2012, the current Dutch minister of OCW, Marja van Bijsterveldt has in a reply to a parliamentary question stated that "Kannibalisme is als zodanig niet strafbaar." which roughly translates to "Cannibalism in and of itself is not an offense." Source is here, a parliamentary paper that is hosted at Rijksoverheid.nl, the official website of the Dutch national government. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Cannibalism justification for slavery?
I would question whether "allegations of cannibalism were used by the colonial powers to justify the enslavement of what were seen as primitive peoples". Cannibalism may have been used as justification for introducing Christianity, but slavery I would question. Any authority for this claim?124.197.15.138 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you read the rest of the article, it says "Queen Isabella of Spain decreed that Spanish colonists could only legally enslave natives who were cannibals, giving the colonists an economic interest in making such allegations," citing as a source "Brief history of cannibal controversies" by David F. Salisbury, of Vanderbuilt University. The introduction is a summary of the article, and finer points are covered elsewhere (or else we would not have the rest of the article).  Ian.thomson (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

False Time Period About Pope IV
The 16th century's time period was from 1501 to 1600. Pope Innocent IV lived from 1195-1254. How could Pope Innocent IV make a claim that Cannibalism was a sin in the 16th century when he wasn't even born? This information is false. Someone needs to research this information and correct it.

-Ryan Rakowski, Filmmaker/College Film Student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakowskr (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Slanted view and lack of information on cultural cannibalism
This article only mentions cultural cannibalism in passing and as single sentence references to articles on Wikipedia describing tribes believed to have practiced cannibalism. It, however, provides descriptive accounts of cannibalism by possibly mentally ill individuals in the modern world. This presents a very skewed view of cannibalism as it relegates the phenomenon to merely a practice by individuals in the modern world. This article should provide better account of cultural cannibalism practiced by African and indigenous people, as cultural cannibalism needs to be understood on a wider level. To believe that no Africans or Aborigines ever practiced cannibalism is turning a blind eye to facts: for instance, kuru is as disease in an aborigine tribe that was transmitted through cannibalism. Discussing cultural practices for what they are does not constitute racism. Trying to ignore them, however, is trying to feel embarrassed for past racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.162 (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In Accounts: In the past, it has been practiced by humans in Europe, South America, among Iroquoian peoples in North America, Maori in New Zealand, the Solomon Islands, parts of West Africa and Central Africa, some of the islands of Polynesia, New Guinea, Sumatra, and Fiji.
 * The Early modern era and Papua New Guinea sections also discuss what you may be interested in.
 * In Other cases: In West Africa, the Leopard Society was a secret society active into the mid-1900s and one that practiced cannibalism. Centred in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Côte d'Ivoire, the Leopard men would dress in leopard skins, waylaying travelers with sharp claw-like weapons in the form of leopards' claws and teeth. The victims' flesh would be cut from their bodies and distributed to members of the society.
 * Endocannibalism and Exocannibalism are linked and discussed as well.
 * As a number of sources in this article point out, accusations of continent-wide cross-cultural cannibalism (do you know how big Africa is?) are more a result of European blood libels to justify colonialism. While some cases did exist, we're more concerned with reliably sourced cases than presenting any old possible information.  At no point does the article pretend at all that no Africans or Aborigines never ate people, and I can only conclude from your statement to that effect that you only read the first few paragraphs of the introduction.
 * If you have more cases, please present reliable sources (as determined by the guidelines linked here). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Religious Cannibalism
What about the Cannibalism that is practiced in the Holy Communion in the Catholic church? The dogma states that the eucharist is changed into the actuial blood and flesh of Christ transubstantiation. So presto, you got Cannibalism. Herogamer (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

-Douay-Rheims Public Domain Bible
 * Yep, that's why He lets us receive under the appearance of bread. He didn't want us too queasy about it and stuff. We use John Chapter 6 to explain this doctrine to converts: [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven. [52] If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world. [53] The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? [54] Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. [55] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. [...] [67] After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. [68] Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
 * He didn't them them He didn't mean it like that. He said will you also go away. Check it out--John Chapter 6:27-72 JBGeorge77 (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But does eating a god count as cannibalism? Cannibalism is anthropophagy, not theophagy. 109.145.253.140 (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Living persons?
Which living persons is the semi-protection intended to protect?.../ seems a bit daft! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.167.42 (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

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. 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&zwj;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&zwj;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)

needs updating
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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brit.b (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * if you have a specific request you can remove the "tl|" from the template below and then add your specific request (ie. Please change "XXX" to "YYY" or Please add "ZZZ" to THIS section and here is my source-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

edit semiprotected

Is this a real ritual? J Campbell on Papa New Guinea
Is there any other sources to verify this:
 * “The particular moment of importance to our story occurs at the conclusion of one of the boys’ puberty rites, which terminates in a sexual orgy of several days and nights, during which everyone in the village except the initiates makes free with everybody else, amid the tumult of the mythological chants, drums and the bull-roarers—until the final night, when a fine young girl, painted, oiled, and ceremonially costumed, is led into the dancing ground and made to lie beneath a platform of very heavy logs. With her, in open view of the festival, the initiates cohabit, one after another; and while the youth chosen to be last is embracing her the supports of the logs above are jerked away and the platform drops, to a prodigious boom of drums. A hideous howl goes up and the dead girl and boy are dragged from the logs, cut up, roasted, and eaten.” (Campbell 1959:170-1)
 * --Inayity (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 March 2013
I would like to add something to "accounts" In 2012 a man attempted to eat another mans face off.

71.204.185.42 (talk) 02:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Isolated incidents are best confined to List of incidents of cannibalism. Rudy Eugene is already on the list, if that's who you're talking about. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing Bibliography
If an article has in a reference such as Pakenham, and a page number then it needs a section listing all of those books and their ISBN numbers in a section. --Inayity (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on April 28 2013
The discussion of Carib should mention the important contribution of Douglas Taylor who found that the origin of the word "cannibal" in the Carib language means 'cassava eater'. Taylor, Douglas. 1952. "Carib, caliban, cannibal." IJAL 24:156-8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryllars (talk • contribs) 07:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Modern cannibalism
There are a number of modern examples of cannibalism. The consumption of mummies is still practiced in Chinese medicine, apparently. The eating of placentas appears to be practiced still, in Hollywood at least. These should be added to examples of cannibalism. Before anyone says that the eating of a processed dried placenta is not cannibalism, if that was the case then the consumption of mummy, or the Aboriginal drinking of the bodily fluids, would also have to be excluded.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

curlous?
where are the africans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.47.146.197 (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of them are still in Africa. Dusty |&#x1f4ac;|You can help! 15:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sticking an NPOV tag on this article
Hello there! I've recently created and expanded the page over at Fontbrégoua Cave and The Man-Eating Myth, and upon giving this page a look over, am shocked at the poor quality that I see before me. Not only is there a chronic lack of academic source material, but the page fails to even discuss many pertinent issues, such as the divide between survival/antisocial/cultural cannibalism in any detail. More problematic still is the consistent POV of this article, which makes statements such as "Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world, continuing into the 19th century in some isolated South Pacific cultures, and to the present day in parts of tropical Africa." Anyone familiar with the anthropological and historical debates that have been raging on this topic since the 1979 publication of Arens' work will know that this is a highly contenscious claim. I'm slapping an NPOV tag on this article until this problem can be sorted out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * NPOV tag is probably overly aggressive
 * I did a quick search for cannibalism in some of the regions mentioned in the intro, and came up with quotations of direct observations from Melanesia, Fiji, and the Amazon. I randomly picked a quote, searched for it, and found it to be sourced from an actual book of first-hand accounts. And so while I haven't referenced every quote in there, I'm inclined to believe that all or most of these quotes are accurate. So at the outset, Arens is wrong that there are no first-hand observations of cultural cannibalism. Looking further into the The Man-Eating Myth, it seems like the author did accomplish debunking some cannibalism claims, in particular that the Carib People were cannibals. And perhaps he is correct that some of the popularizers of cannibalism, such as Margaret Mead, did not have direct observation. But just because he debunked some aspects of our understanding of cannibalism, doesn't mean it's a highly contentious topic. That would require evidence of a continuing debate that is widespread. It may just be a debate in the author's head and in the lay readers of his work, but not among anthropologists. I'm not part of the anthropological community, so I don't know if there is a genuine controversy. It'll require more research, but my hunch is that the NPOV tag is overly aggressive and marking controversy for controversy's sake. --Philosophistry (talk) 04:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And while it is difficult to anthropologically prove anything about the difference between recently extinct practices and false statements by earlier anthropologists in the case of cultures without writing, the evidence for medical cannibalism being generally accepted in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries is undeniable, and that is enough to falsify any claims of a culturally "universal" taboo against cannibalism.2.68.50.1 (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a huge difference between medical cannibalism and the devouring of a whole cooked human. In the Middle Ages ground mummy was a "medicine". Some human remains are apparently similarly regarded in Chinese medicine to this day.  In Hollywood a dried and ground human placenta is apparently consumed even now.  But the eating of human flesh, as such, was never this accepted or widespread.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The sub-article "As used to demonize colonized or other groups" is overtly political. More importantly, is it accurate to say that allegations of cannibalism were so used? Accounts of cannibalism were generally either true, or based on exaggerated or inaccurate reports.  The origin of those reports was either lack of knowledge or a partial understanding of accounts - not a deliberate blood libel, surely.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no shortage of ref to this fact that cannibalism was often used in history to demonize the other. ref--Inayity (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction
under Middle Ages In battle of Uhud, Hind bint Utbah didn't consume the liver, she just took a bite and spit it out. Hind_bint_Utbah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashar Alkabbani (talk • contribs)
 * Absolutely right – confirmed by Peters, Muhammed and the Origins of Islam, p. 218. I've removed that info from the article, since it isn't really cannibalism. Thanks. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

RS query
Is there a reason there is a unreliable tag on this ref?? Brief history of cannibal controversies--Inayity (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't see any reason, no. It's an article in a research journal published by a university – until someone can explain why we shouldn't trust this source, I've removed the tag. Thanks for pointing it out. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

On 20th Century section
As per talk with redpenofdoom shall we add this to 20th century section?

"Nasir Isiaku, former member of Boko Haram revealed in a interview that he and other members of the militant group have committed cannibalism, after killing the victim.. Another report writes that the members of Boko Haram became cannibals after they had no food or water available.", Bladesmulti (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think either of these claims are significant enough to mention in this article. Your first source reports that members of a sub-sect of Boko Haram, after they've killed someone, drink their victims' blood from "a very small cup", or sometimes just "touch the victim's blood and taste it". Technically cannibalism, but an incredibly trivial example of it. The second claim, that some starving people in a forest resorted to cannibalism out of desperation, I think should be included in the List of incidents of cannibalism, but it's one of many such cases and doesn't contribute much to the reader's general understanding of the subject. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * More opinions are welcomed. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Folklore/Myth
I cannot edit this, but wanted to suggest a mention of St Nicholas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Nicholas "One legend[27] tells how during a terrible famine, a malicious butcher lured three little children into his house, where he killed them, placing their remains in a barrel to cure, planning to sell them off as ham. Saint Nicholas, visiting the region to care for the hungry, not only saw through the butcher's horrific crime but also resurrected the three boys from the barrel by his prayers. Another version of this story, possibly formed around the eleventh century, claims that the butcher's victims were instead three clerks who wished to stay the night. The man murdered them, and was advised by his wife to dispose of them by turning them into meat pies. The Saint saw through this and brought the men back to life."

A list of Grimm's fairy tales involving cannibalism is here: http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Kannibalismus

Lotharingia (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant information
The entire piece on Jean-Bédel should be deleted in my opinion, because according to his wikipedia page he was cleared of those charges. If we are going to add everyone that was accused, then it would be a long long list. I mean who hasn't??? (well, you get the picture). Furthermore, the wording suggests that he was a cannibal but just got lucky with the legal system.

The self-declared Emperor of the Central African Republic, Jean-Bédel Bokassa (Emperor Bokassa I), was tried on October 24, 1986 for several cases of cannibalism although he was never convicted.

Now compare this to his own page.

After his overthrow in 1979, Central Africa reverted to its former name and status as the Central African Republic. In his absence, he was tried and sentenced to death. He returned to the Central African Republic in 1986 and was put on trial for treason and murder. In 1987, he was cleared of charges of cannibalism, but found guilty of the murder of schoolchildren and other crimes.

(...........)

One of the most lurid allegations against Bokassa was the charge of cannibalism, which was technically superfluous. In the Central African Republic, statutes forbidding cannibalism classified any crime of eating human remains as a misdemeanour. Upon seizing power from David Dacko in 1981, the current President André Kolingba had declared amnesty for all misdemeanours committed during the tenure of his predecessors. Bokassa could not be punished for the crime, even if he was found guilty. The cannibalism charges against him were brought from old indictments in 1980 that resulted in his conviction in absentia, a year before Kolingba's amnesty, so the anthropophagy charge remained listed among Bokassa's crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulver-ftw (talk • contribs) 08:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

noida killings in the see also section
how are the noida killings a well publicized instance of cannibalism? The only reports of cannibalism were started by the media and later found to be false. Please remove it from the see also section or provide a verifiable reference of cannibalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.65.172.52 (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Holomodor
Heyo, just joined to persue my interest in Russian/Eastern European history. I just noticed there’s no reference to the Holomodor on the cannibalism page. I wanted to pop one in, as there are plenty of instances of cannibalism associated with the Holomodor, but obviously; new user, can’t just go putting things any old place. There are already used sources in the holomodor page that chronicle multiple instances of cannibalism and make claims that it *may* be the most widespread proliferation of cannibalism up to that point in history (http://www.paulbogdanor.com/left/cannibalism.pdf). Would be nice to have a link to it somewhere on the page just for completeness. Obviously, this applies to that *other* big famine of the 20th century (guess which?) but hey, we all have our pet subjects, I’ll just leave that one to someone else for now. Agdune (talk) 05:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The "Modern era" section mentions the 1930s Soviet famine, saying that cannibalism was rife throughout Russia, not just in Ukraine. I don't know if that's the case (the source that follows that statement just talks about Ukraine); if not, you could rework that passage to focus on Holodomor specifically. The possibility that the Holodomor cannibalism was the most widespread in history is definitely worth a mention, if there's a reliable source for it – I can't find the claim in your link above. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Long pig
To state that human flesh was called "long pig" based on the accounts of a writer of fiction who died more than one hundred years ago, with no linguistic, philological evidence to back it up is a disservice to the project. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that entire section is based on simply summarizing hisorical primary sources, most of which are problematic in different ways. We need some secondary sources instead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that 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. Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Cannibalism needs an update!
Personally, I think it defiantly improve this page if we update it! It needs some new features! Sorry if I sound a bit weird. But something we should add is at the end, it should say "Canibal: also known as Shia LaBeouf" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really! This would make the loading time for wiki soooooo worth it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mxbot (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Also it needs Shia LaBeouf. -Katie Winfrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3408:5540:15BB:8513:B0A2:5AF9 (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"As used to demonize colonized or other groups"
I think this section needs improving. While allegation of cannibalism was used to demonize various "others", the examples here seem dubious and/or not sufficiently explained. (And specific known examples of false allegations are not actually given, other than a contextless link to Blood Libel.
 * In antiquity, Greek reports of cannibalism, (often called anthropophagy in this context) were related to distant non-Hellenic barbarians, or else relegated in Greek mythology to the 'primitive' chthonic world that preceded the coming of the Olympian gods
 * I know the Greeks could be pretty racist towards "barbarians", but as far as I'm aware, the main allegations of canibalism were made against just one group far away (the so-called Androphagi), not any of thr barbarians the Greeks were either colonizing or in conflict with. So this is more likely to be based on rumours of things far away, rather than an attempt to demonize anyone or justify conquest.  As for sentance about the pre-Olympian gods, I don't see how that is relevent (unless there is a claim that the Olympians, Chronos, etc are real, or at least based on real peoples).


 * All South Sea Islanders were cannibals so far as their enemies were concerned.
 * Which "enemies" does this mean? Is it talking about European attitudes to South Sea Islanders, or South Sea Islanders' attitudeds to other South Sea Islanders?


 * When the whaleship Essex was rammed and sunk ... the captain opted to sail 3000 miles ... because he had heard the Marquesans were cannibals.
 * That wasn't an attempt to demonize anyone - it was simply fear based on assumptions about cannibals. (And the following paragraph indicates that they were cannibals - but the mistake was to assume that therefore they would be hostile).

I don't know enough about the subject to rewrite it myself, but I would suggest a few changes: Iapetus (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Change the section title. "Stories of cannibalism in far-away places that you don't go to" and "Allegations of cannibalism against people you don't like" are different things, albeit related.
 * Herodotus' description of the andropophagi is worth noting as an example of the former, but probably not of the latter (Herodotus seems to have been quite respectful towards foreigners, and if this story did begin as slander, the blame probably lies with some of the tribes living between Greece and the alleged cannibals).
 * The Greek myths about Chronos and Tantalus etc are probably irrelivent and should be removed.
 * The details about the Wessex, and Melville's times with the Marquesans should be retained, but as an example of people misjudging cannibals, rather than unfounded accusations of cannibalism against people they don't like.
 * William Arens theories should be described in more detail, as should criticisms. (Checking the linked article, he seems to go beyond the proven fact that some allegations of cannibalism were false and malicious (e.g. the Blood Libel), and clsims that all reports of cannibalism ever are false).
 * Michel de Montaigne's essay "Of cannibals" should be discussed in more detail, assuming it is significant - from our article on it, I'm not sure that it is (let alone that it "introduced a new multicultural note in European civilization").

I updated this section with an example of the use of cannibalism to demonize. But, I'd like to see more examples. Kdbeall (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Aren's work has been totally debunked. It's bizarre that the page about the book makes this clear but that this page doesn't. ALongDream (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Some of his research may be inaccurate, but at a high level it helped raise that accusations of cannibalism have been used as propaganda and justification for colonialism. Please see Eskildsen's article for an example of this. Kdbeall (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Nga Puhi cannibalism by Hongi Hika so very wrong
As a decedent of Hongi Hika I was astonished to read this " In another instance, on July 11, 1821 warriors from the Nga Puhi tribe killed 2,000 enemies and remained on the battlefield "eating the vanquished until they were driven off by the smell of decaying bodies".[71]".. As ive never heard of this i decided to to some research source 71 are in no way citation as evidence of the claims made in this article. Now what actually happened was even as source 71 states is that 2000 prisoners were taken from the rival tribe, we did not sit on the battlefield eating the dead until we were driven off by the smell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlymute (talk • contribs) 01:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIAS issues
The coverage of the rest of the world remains spotty, particularly w/r/t China. Apart from Houyi and Han Zhuo, there're apparently accounts of cannibalism being involved in the dynastic transfers from the Xia to the Shang and from the Shang to the Zhou. They're legendary accounts, sure, and need sourcing before inclusion but they're major enough that they should be mentioned. — Llywelyn II   11:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And the USA? Conspicuous by its absence.  Are there no criminal cases?

Queen Isabel - Cannibal Law of 1503 - Wording
Hi There,

I read a source on the Cannibal Law of 1503, and read that merely being guilty of cannibalism was not enough to warrant enslavement, according to the edict by Queen Isabel... "cannibals" who welcomed the colonists and became subjects of the Queen were not to become slaves, independent of their "guilt" of cannibalism. The wording in the relevant paragraph here in Wikipedia does not make this distinction. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Mothers eating placentas
Hi,

Another example comes to mind: the recent acceptance of mothers eating the placentas of their children. 208.76.28.70 (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The acceptance of eating the placenta is "recent" only in a Western cultural perspective, it has been common in some parts of the world for millennia. Not to mention the fact that it is a common behavior of mammals in general.--Khajidha (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Eating parts of humans is cannibalism. The placenta is a part of the human body; no discussion there. In this context, it does not matter if animals eat placentas.

Does not mention the legality
This article does not mention the legality and there is no article related to the legality by country or even state i wish i had the time to do a list i would do it but i do not have time so i want someone to do it. Flow 234 (Nina)  talk  10:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cannibalism is in fact frowned upon in most societies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cannibalism in humans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129013720/http://www.mummytombs.com/dummy/doctors.htm to http://www.mummytombs.com/dummy/doctors.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/montellano.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422075917/http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/dvafricacfrcannibal.html to http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/dvafricacfrcannibal.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/cannibalism/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Should we have a section for gangs who practice cannibalism?
The Knights Templar Cartel requires recruits to eat the heart of a child as part of initiation

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mexico-crime-idUSKBN0KF1J120150106

In Serbia, a gang known as the Zemun Clan killed and ate a fellow gang member for violating the rules of the gang

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/24/milan-jurisic-killed-and-eaten_n_1376977.html

Then there's Big Lurch, a rapper known for this, and the Chijon Family of South Korea. I think we need one for these cases separate from modern era cannibalism. 107.77.164.54 (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Australia
There is a massive amount of literature written about cannibalism in Australia. Virtually every 1800s author on this continent mentions it, and many authors claim to be eye witnesses. I own at least 10 books which mention it, and I have read many more. Tom Petrie's daughter, John Morgan, Daisy Bates for example (just to name a few from memory) all write about it. Alabama81bornandbred (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

(Major) review of "what links here" necessary
"Cannibalism" formerly redirected to this article, but as a result of an undiscussed page move it is now the article for "Cannibalism (zoology)" (former name of that article). This has messed up incoming links. See Talk:Cannibalism. If you have any comments, please leave them over there (keeping discussions together). RN1970 (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Prion disease
More should be included in article about Prion disease, there's very little here about it 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:2130:4E0C:4A69:635C (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2018
In the article's final paragraph, the German case of Armin Meiwes is referenced, with the defendant's last name being misspelled as 'Miewes'. Therefore, change 'Miewes' to 'Meiwes'. Christoph Hahn (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  11:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Legality?
I see that someone below already mentioned this, but why is there no section on the lawfulness of cannibalism? It goes into it briefly in the reasons section, but it does not provide much. Likely worth the edit. BillyWeitzman (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Cannibalism in Europe
The history of cannibalism in Europe extends back into prehistory, not just the Soviet Union in the 1920s. This article gives the impression that only "non-whites" and "commies" commit acts of cannibalism. There is nothing about reports of it in European antiquity (ancient Greece and Rome, Germanic, Slavic and Celtic tribes) or of European sailors and settlers in North America. There is plenty of material to work with here. It would certainly balance the page out. This is not to denigrate Europeans, but to show that cannibalism is and should be presented as a cross-cultural phenomenon among human populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.92.40.12 (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Biased article in Wikipedia, as always
The article says:

The Island Carib people of the Lesser Antilles, from whom the word cannibalism is derived, acquired a long-standing reputation as cannibals following the recording of their legends in the 17th century.[2] Some controversy exists over the accuracy of these legends and the prevalence of actual cannibalism in the culture.

But when you go to the citation there is only a completely anti western biased short piece that doesn't even mention those "legends" that the stories of cannibalism in the Caribean were supposedly based upon. That despite cannibalism is very well known to have been practised by neighbouring cultures.

The article cannot be edited so this manipulation stands and it will stand. But that's what Wikipedia has become, a sorry piece of propaganda and manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.75.28 (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

William Arens' book (The Man-Eating Myth) is cited as if this were a scientifically valid study. No mention is made of the fact that Arens' thesis has long since been disproved. It is a myth without base in itself. It would be fine if such articles as this here were written by scientists - and not by ideologues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1206:456F:E3A0:10F8:B62B:68D4:629 (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2020
Change "Cannibalism is said by the so-called "Westerners" to have occurred in China during the Great Leap Forward, when rural China was hit hard by drought and famine." to "Cannibalism is said to have occurred in China during the Great Leap Forward, when rural China was hit hard by drought and famine." The original seems like vandalism that was never caught when the article was locked. 100.34.159.56 (talk) 03:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thank you. Yes this was something added last month. – Thjarkur (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of Simon Sheppard's Website as a Source rather than the Text
When referring to cannibalism in Egypt during times of famine the following website is used as a source: http://www.heretical.com/cannibal/egypt.html This is despite the fact that the content of the page is simply a section of text pulled from the book 'Flesh and Blood: The History of the Cannibal Complex' by Reay Tannahill and despite the fact that heretical.com is a site run by Simon Sheppard, who is not only unqualified to write on the subject but also a well documented criminal for reasons that are explained by his Wikipedia article ( Simon_Sheppard_(activist) ). I feel that citing his copy of the content of the book rather than the book itself is inappropriate and that this should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.150.142.67 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Thjarkur (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Homo antecessor female.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Homo antecessor female.jpg

Dermatillomania
If one picks scabs of one skin and then eats them, does that make one a cannibal, or is cannibalism (as this article seems to imply) only eating the flesh of other human beings? Vorbee (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Matt Wilson
Matt Wilson is the INFINITE CHAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.92.79.194 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020
Delete the slander to tribal societies with no scientific basis. This eurocentric view naturally puts indigenous peoples in a bad light, with no evidence to back this up: "In some societies, especially tribal societies, cannibalism is a cultural norm." Magonz (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 17:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

No sourcing on the Cambodia section of the article
As of this month, the cambodian section of the article has gone on unsourced for two years. I have not found any WP:RS that have covered the situation. I am removing it, you are welcome to edit the information back with proper sourcing or another incident of Cambodian cannibalism. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021
Add the following elements (to show an archive link in place of the current dead link) in the citation for the Maori near the History section's beginning:


 * url-status=dead
 * archive-url=https://archive.today/2012.05.26-222026/http://wais.stanford.edu/NewZealand/newzealand_maorican1.html
 * archive-date=2012-05-26 2601:80:4580:E0E0:2CD7:AEBC:8C0D:6297 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Picture of Cannibalism
The picture in the begginning of an article is a depiction of a primary source that is unverified. In other words, it may be completely false. I suggest it is removed. Wikipedia is supposed to be a broad introduction to a topic with reliable sources with verifiable information. Approve? DTMGO (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Lamia
Only a minor mention, but the Lamia in Greek mythology is not a cannibal; it a human flesh-eater, but it's a non-human monster or demon, so it can't be considered cannibalism. It should be removed. 2A00:23C7:ED18:A300:B172:DDFC:C4EE:3005 (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Etymology
Page is semi-protected, so I can't edit, but the word cannibal doesn't come from the Spanish word Ca(r/n)íbal, that's recursive. It's borrowed from the Taino "carib."

See: Taylor, Christopher (2012). The Black Carib Wars: Freedom, Survival and the Making of the Garifuna. Caribbean Studies Series. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 9781617033100. JSTOR j.ctt24hxr2. Sunflowerspaceman (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation 46 listed for Iroquois Cannibalism Evidence Incorrect
I believe that citation 46 that is listed after the line "among Iroquoian peoples in North America,[46]" is not appropriate for this statement. After searching the book I can find no discussion of Iroquois Cannibalism in it. There are other citations that maybe appropriate here but I do not believe that this is one of them. I think you could cite Abler, Thomas S (1980). "Iroquois Cannibalism: Fact not Fiction". Ethnohistory. 27 (4): 309–16. doi:10.2307/481728 instead.

Ncsuhook (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Setting context and perspective up front in "Early modern and colonial era"
The section "Early modern and colonial era" would lead to greater understanding by providing better context up front if the sentence that starts "As with most lurid tales..." were moved to become the second sentence, so that this section began with this first full paragraph:

European explorers and colonizers brought home many stories of cannibalism practiced by the native peoples they encountered. As with most lurid tales of native cannibalism, these stories are treated with a great deal of scrutiny, as accusations of cannibalism were often used as justifications for the subjugation or destruction of "savages". RockDr (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2022
It would be good to add the details of Dr James Cole's assessment of prehistoric cannibalism and calorific values as published in the peer review journal Scientific Reports to the Prehistory section of this article.

Journal link is: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44707 192.173.128.44 (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Maintaining "neutrality" in this article
It is interesting that the skepticism section of this article mentions Arens's critique but leaves out the part where he discredits the notion of being able to find definitive archeological evidence of any historical instances of human cannibalism. This has been an ongoing debate in the fields of archeology and anthropology, and it seems like the assertions made in this article about historical practices of cannibalism fall squarely on one side of that debate. Descriptions of modern instances of cannibalism can remain as they are, but a neutral position would require acknowledging that there is an ongoing controversy surrounding the "evidence" for the practice of cannibalism throughout history. Lemonster1128 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not really a controversy. There are simply tons of evidence that have been ignored by Arens, and nobody who has seriously looked at the matter seems to dispute this. Gawaon (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Africa, still going strong
The practice of cannibalism has never died out on the African continent https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/29/5-arrested-in-alleged-south-africa-cannibalism-ring-after-man-walks-into-police-station-saying-hes-tired-of-eating-human-flesh/?utm_term=.6b16582f651d


 * I don't know who wrote that or when, but you can add a short summary plus link of the story to List of incidents of cannibalism yourself. I think it fits better into that list than into this article, being an isolated case with no clear context. Gawaon (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Non sequitur in second paragraph/possible restructure of article to avoid these issues.
The second paragraph has an odd switch from talking about cannibalism being practiced in the pacific, then goes on to mention Neanderthals practicing cannibalism. These statements should be completely unrelated, but their proximity and layout within the paragraph implies some connection. This is especially suspect to me because this mention of Neanderthals is followed by a mention of ancient Egypt. If these examples were meant to be ordered in terms of how recently they were practiced, you would put the Neanderthal mention at the end.

Currently this framing suggests that pacific people's share some relation to Neanderthals, or at least that the ways these groups practiced cannibalism shares similarities with Neanderthals and ancient humans. This ties into a long tradition of framing indigenous people as savages and subhumans, who are 'unlike' the modern (colonial) world.

I think this article would benefit from a more structured layout, with sections being divided by either the geographic region where cannibalism was practiced. Alternatively, the article could be formatted as a timeline of cannibalism, starting with ancient humans and ending with the medical consumption of corpses in the 19th century, and going on to recent examples such as Jeffrey Dahmer.

This structure would help to avoid any unfortunate implications such as the one that exists in the current version of the article. While also making sure that future contributors consider the historical and cultural context surrounding cannibalism, and don't jump to conclusions regarding certain groups. 222.153.168.119 (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I second this ^ Theoisnotalive (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good points! I've split the old second paragraph in two (it was very long) and have re-ordered the sentences to better fit the chronology, now starting with the Neanderthals. I think that way it makes more sense and is more readable. Gawaon (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)