Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannibalism in China


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Human cannibalism. Consensus is clear that we don't want to keep this as a separate article. But there is no agreement about whether to delete or merge the content. The redirection is a compromise that allows editors to figure out through the editorial process whether any of this content is worthwhile to retain and to merge from the history.  Sandstein  06:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Cannibalism in China

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article makes wildly inaccurate and borderline racist claims about the Chinese while citing incredibly dubious sources. The article purports to show that cannibalism "has a peculiarly rich history in China". However, it uses extremely unreliable sources such as the extreme right-wing Japanese revisionist historian Jitsuzo Kuwabara (whose "academic article, incidentally, is titled using a pejorative word for China) and Commentary, a right-wing magazine that publishes neoconservative opinion pieces (not peer-reviewed academic at all). When the article does cite sources with more credibility, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, the incident involving cannibalism reported in the source is either a very localized and sparse one (in which case generalizing cannibalism as an inherent part of Chinese culture from that particular incident would be very intellectually dishonest), or is admitted by the source itself to be unverified rumours.} Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I just want to point out that the creator of the article, going by the history of the description of their user page, is a Japanese nationalist as well as a self-described misogynist who talks about women derogatively. While they haven't been active for some time, I think they should be blocked per WP:No Nazis. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. While notable, this is more reliably covered at Human cannibalism. SailingInABathTub (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 *  Merge to Human cannibalism and Guangxi_Massacre Per nom & SailingInABathTub, it's mainly linked to one major incident and would be better covered there. We don't write summary articles for isolated incidents and doing so for only one country would be WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to Redirect after reading the additional comments below. Jumpytoo Talk 05:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. This seems to be a collection of incidents as opposed to an actual overview of any potential historical practises.★Trekker (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as SailingInABathTub suggested. It would be better to expand Human cannibalism with content written de novo than to try to salvage anything out of this. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per XOR': the quality of this article is such that a merge would only decrease the quality of t'other. ——  Serial  16:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the above linked section of the human cannibalism article. It seems a pretty isolated incident. It would be like if the Donner party were used to justify a whole article on Cannibalism in the United States. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I think a merge wouldn't be very helpful, the content of the article is pretty garbage. Not much worth salvaging, it's written like a badly translated religious text. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - this article is an attack article. BLPs by themselves prohibit this kind of rhetoric, what now about an attack on the entire populace of a country? 69.172.145.94 (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPGROUP generally only applies to small groups of people. I don't think WP:BLPGROUP can reasonably be extended to apply to countries as a whole. That being said, there are WP:OR and WP:NPOV issues in the article as it currently stands. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , out of curiousity, I was always under the impression that it was BLPGROUP, amongst other policies, that prohibit racist/sexist/etc-ist nonsense on the project. Is that not the case? I'm aware of NONAZIS, but that essay seems to have died without much support. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 06:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It's my reading that WP:NOR prevents editors from inventing racist/sexist nonesense to be placed in articles and that WP:NPOV requires us to neutrally reflect the coverage of reliable sources (rather than nonsense from the racist/sexist blogospheres), while WP:NPA prevents editors from making racist/sexist attacks against others in their capacities as an editor. WP:NONAZIS remains an essay at this time and there does not appear to be community support for making it a policy. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per . The article's topic appears to be notable, but it doesn't actually appear to be separately notable than those two entries, and I don't see a need for a WP:CFORK from the Human cannibalism page. There are articles in other wikipedia (such as French, Chinese, and Vietnamese wikipedias) that cover this topic. The Chinese-language article appears to be particularly long and detailed, so it may be worth it to also incorporate some of the content from there into the articles, though we should be careful in ensuring that content moved over matches the sourcing standards on this Wikipedia (the specifics on the WP:RSP equivalents do not appear to be the same, so there might be differences in community consensus on source reliability more generally). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After seeing the change in the !vote of Jumpytoo, I'm still thinking that there can be content merged into the Human cannibalism page, under the appropriate section. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * May I inquire what content should be merged? Nyarlathotep1001 stated below that one of the sources used in the article invalidates the other, while not talking about to actual act of cannibalism itself, instead using it as a metaphor to describe disorder during the times of twentieth century in China. I personally do not see anything salvageable in the article. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The portion from the Old Book of Tang might be well-suited under the early history section (there is currently a ~900 year gap between Jerome's letters and reports from the Crusades). Some information on the Guangxi Massacre could be merged into the China section (though to be honest it would be better to look at the material on the event's page than to lift it from this one, owing to better quality on the other page). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree if the Old Book of Tang portion was perhaps covered by another source, preferably not a primary one, I believe it would be a poor fit among the many scholarly sources you can see used in the Early history section. As for the Guangxi Massacre, if it were to be included, it should probably be from its higher quality main page, as you've said. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 21:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oof SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I admire the satirical floruish doktorb wordsdeeds 23:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this was a joke, but because this is obviously not an appropriate entry on that list, I have removed it. Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect per CaptainEek. I don't really think any of it is worth merging, as the article consists of a list of isolated incidents and rumors, most of which would be unsuitable for the Human cannibalism article, and the descriptions have NPOV issues. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect - As I don't see what could be merged. We have other articles already about the major events as well as about Chinese traditional medicine.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 08:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article's introduction is pure racist belief. The creator should be blocked per WP:No Nazis. STSC (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - The entire page reads like a made-up xenophobic article you read on some right-wing blog. Even the introductory sentence of The practice of cannibalism (喫人) has a peculiarly rich history in China. is unfounded and based on nothing but the editor's hate towards the Chinese people. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Human cannibalism (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Deletion policy. Editors have repeatedly redirected and unredirected the article since 2004. This article has existed in various iterations since 2004 such as this 13 May 2004 version, this 30 November 2010 version, and this 30 August 2017 version. The 2017 version of the article cites:""which received a book review in this December 1991 article in The China Quarterly. I oppose deletion of the history since the history of the article may content useful content and sources that can be used to expand Human cannibalism even though as editors have noted, some of the 2021 version of the article is or was sourced to unreliable sources and should not be used. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree about the usefulness of the article's history in providing sources and content. The 2004 version of the article you linked is a stub that has no citations at all and only claims that are written with WP:NPOV issues, such as lines like "Chinese literature often says that one ate his bitter enemy. It is not just Chinese cliche but the fact". The 2010 version and 2017 versions both have basically almost the same citations as the present version of the article (with the exception of the book by Key Ray Chong you mentioned). The content in those two versions may actually be worse than the present version as they have even more claims with WP:NPOV issues which lack any citations at all. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article had at least three useful sources: Key Ray Chong's Cannibalism in China (Hollowbrook Publishing), Zheng Yi's Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China (Westview Press), and Gang Yue's The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China (Duke University Press). I've copied the three of them here so that they are all saved. Some of the article's content is sourced to Key Ray Chong's book such as: "According to Key Ray Chong, while the Chinese people are not particularly different from other peoples as far as the practice of 'survival cannibalism' is concerned, they also have a unique form of cannibalism which he terms 'learned cannibalism.' Learned cannibalism is 'an expression of love and hatred, and a peculiar extension of Confucian doctrine.' ... Li Shizhen detailed the use of humans many times for medicinal purposes. For example, human meat was a good cure for tuberculosis. He also wrote a detailed account of the use of human sweat, urine, sperm, breast milk, tears, dirt, nails and teeth for medical purposes." This information is well-sourced, due weight, and can be merged to articles like Human cannibalism or reused in a new Cannibalism in China article. But I agree that large parts of the article are non-neutral and should not be reused. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect (do not preserve history). I have reviewed the prior revisions that Cunard mentions, and the potential that the article "may" contain useful content is simply not there. The singular book source that Cunard mentions is probably the only one worth saving. If we want to expand our coverage of this subject, we should start completely over. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: In addition to the book source from Key Ray Chong that should be saved, here are two other books listed in the current version of the article that should be saved:Zheng Y (Cheng I), Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China (Westview Press, 1998) ISBN 0813326168Gang Yue, The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China (Duke University Press, 1999) ISBN 0822323419 The book source from Zheng Yi was reviewed in this book review written by Key Ray Chong in China Review International. The book source from Gang Yue was reviewed in this book review from the Journal of Modern Literature in Chinese from Lingnan University. These sources are reliable sources that can be used to expand Human cannibalism. Based on these three books, there is enough material to justify a standalone article for Cannibalism in China though it would require a rewrite not based on the current version of the article. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The history should be preserved to comply with Copyrights, a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations. At 20:46, 26 August 2004 (UTC), Cannibalism in China was redirected to Cannibalism when it was merged to Cannibalism, which was subsequently moved to Human cannibalism. Cunard (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have downloaded and evaluated the books by Zheng Yi and Gang Yue that Cunard has mentioned and I'll link their publisher's webpage here, along with other related sources, so people can purchase/download the works legally and check that I am evaluating these books fairly. I will hesitate to credit Zheng Yi's book Scarlet Memorial: Tales of Cannibalism in Modern China as a reliable source because it has received its fair bit of criticism on the reliability of its writing. For instance, Gang Yue (who is, notably, the other source Cunard mentioned), writes on page 251 in his book The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China that "(Scarlet Memorial) can and must be read as a fictional text, despite the author's claim to historical accuracy and scientific truth" and describes Scarlet memorial as "political polemic" on page 246. In fact, a large part of chapter 6 (Pages 228 - 261) in Gang Yue's book is a critique of Zheng Yi's work and its reliability. This review and this review (along with others quoted in them) also notes that the book lacks evidence, has implicit Sino-centric assumptions concerning minorities, is prone to speculation and has a political bias that underlies it's claims. Now, onto Gang Yue's book The Mouth That Begs: Hunger, Cannibalism, and the Politics of Eating in Modern China itself. His book focuses mostly on "cannibalism" and "hunger" as literary metaphors and motifs for the social and political disorder and decay in twentieth-century China rather than an actual account of cannibalism in China. Most of the book focuses only on fictional literary depictions of cannibalism, and when Gang Yue does make a statement on real-life cannibalism, he states on page 62 that "Above all, one would be hard put to believe that real cannibalism has been a systematic social practice since the dawn of Chinese civilization, and the topic is more suitable for tall tales than serious literature". To me, it just seems... very counter-productive to retain a page titled "Cannibalism in China" (even as a page that redirects to another article) just to maintain a source which itself states that cannibalism isn't a part of Chinese culture in the real world at all. As such, both sources don't really provide much reliable information about real-world practices of cannibalism in China. As per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, extraordinary claims require multiple high-quality sources. In this case, not only are there only a few sources, neither of the sources I have evaluated in this comment (which were deemed the most reliable out of the bunch) are high-quality enough in supporting the claims of cannibalism. In fact, one of the sources (Gang Yue's book) even contradicted the claims. Thus, I still think we should Delete the article and that there aren't enough good sources or content about the subject to merit a standalone page either. Nyarlathotep1001 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not seeing this as in any way worthy of a standalone.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and retain all of the 17 years of editing history. --Ooligan (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge; this is a notable topic due to extensive coverage, especially in relation to the cultural revolution. DaysonZhang (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge with Human cannibalism, but the content isn't bad. The Cannibalism as medicine suffers from WP:NOTNEWS issues, but the historical content is OK. Batmanthe8th (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.