Talk:Human cannibalism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name of the "Recent history" section?

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

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

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

Typo

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

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

Aboriginal Australian Section

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

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

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

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

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

Sensory warfare

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

New Zealand is not in Polynesia or Melanesia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

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

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

Etymology

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

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