This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
There are far too many old sources used here. Some include ones from 1847, 1921, 1926, 1925, 1897, 1913, and 1901. Do I need to explain why we can't be using sources this old for African history? Also, see WP:Primary. I intend to purge this article of sources pre-1980 Kowal2701 (talk) 11:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that newer sources are generally preferable to older ones if they exist and cover similar ground, age itself is not a good reason to remove a source. WP:OLDSOURCES says "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed.... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years." So if you find newer sources that can reasonably replace those older sources, by all means do so, but the article wouldn't be improved by removing older sources with nothing to replace them.
It's also by no means the case that newer authors automatically think that older works are full of nonsense. For example, William D. Rubinstein writes in Genocide: A History (2014): "The best account [of cannibalism] probably remains Garry Hogg, Cannibalism and Human Sacrifice (London, 1958)" (note 33 to chapter 2). Academia, like everything, has its trends and it seems like cannibalism is just not "fashionable" any more. Though "it's all a lie!" claims like William Arens's The Man-Eating Myth were largely debunked, little new literature seems to published in the area, maybe because authors fear the controversy that sometimes results (as with Paul Moon's This Horrid Practice) or because they simply think that there's nothing new to add to the existing literature, especially where it concerns older cannibal customs in the 19th century or earlier. Gawaon (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these sources are quite literally from the time of the Scramble for Africa (1870-1914), where cannibalism was a component of the civilising mission rationale/fabricated casus belli. If you think it's acceptable to use sources this old, I can only assume that you're unfamiliar with colonial historiography (which includes everything up to the 1950s). The reason we don't use old sources for African history is because they are highly likely to be racist and at the very least outdated. To put it nicely, Europe's perception and writing about Africa have changed massively in the last half century. I don't have to replace them with new sources per WP:Imperfect, however I can provide some.
Most of these sources are primary and nakedly cited without any analysis of their veracity. Per WP:Primary, this is highly discouraged, and these should definitely be removed. There is also a blog titled "How Africans Underdeveloped Africa" used as a source. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I definitively didn't add the "How Africans Underdeveloped Africa" blog as a source. I'm probably credited as author because I created this article, moving all the stuff that earlier lived at Human cannibalism here, but that doesn't mean I wrote it. I think the contents of the linked article are okay (it's an African source), but I'll leave it to you to evaluate it. As for the "Scramble for Africa", the interesting thing is that most of the reports of cannibalism from the Congo come after the establishment of the Congo Free State, and while some are by its agents or employees, many others are by people who were highly and often loudly critical of the Free State, such as the author of the Casement Report. In Nigeria, as far as I can judge, the situation is similar – the colonial government came first, reports of cannibalism came for the most part later. And it's notable that while nearly all of Africa became European colonies before WW I, most reports of cannibalism come from fairly limited regions – it's far from the case that such practices were reported from everywhere where Europeans went to colonialize, as one would expect if such claims had simply been fabricated as a justification strategy. Elsewhere, such as throughout the Pacific, the situation is similar. Anyway, in general I agree that one should evaluate them carefully before admitting old, and especially primary sources, but that's very different from a summary dismissal. Gawaon (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we remove all primary sources and just put {{citation needed}}. Personally, I wouldn't consider myself capable of handling and scrutinising those sources, that is best left to historians and experts. These really need to be secondary sources.
I think we should be discussing both the trope and the reality. See this entry. Some recent sources include:
You're right that there's little recent literature on this, but we use Google Scholar and see where these primary sources are cited. If I'm being honest, this isn't a topic that interests me much, but I can help a bit. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that secondary sources are usually preferable and so won't generally object to the removal of primary ones, though in some cases we might have to discuss what "primary" means. As for the trope, yes that might be a topic too – thanks for finding these new sources, I'll try to work through them and add what's relevant to the article. But it'll take a while. Gawaon (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed any content yet, just removed and tagged sources. I haven't done a proper deep dive into each source to make sure they're represented accurately.
Review of Basden 1921 says Some of Basden’s interpretations and descriptions reflect the colonial mindset of his time, which may not align with contemporary views on cultural representation.
Well I think you missed two references to Nachtigal 1971, through you removed the full reference, leaving the others dangling. You also missed a reference to Ward 1910, but there's a secondary reference there too. Other than that, it seems fine.
What I don't understand is why you changed "embarrassed" to "accommodated" in the section on King Pepple? That doesn't seem to make sense.
As for your maintenance notes, I plan to go through them in time in order to address them – probably in most cases by simply removing the text in question. Gawaon (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I'll go through and fix them. "Embarassed" isn't neutral language, accommodated is more descriptive. It is more logical to have a sentence saying what took place, then discuss both perspectives on it, but feel free to change it back if you disagree Kowal2701 (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not wrong but, of course, we can only work with the sources that we have. There are some oral histories providing a more African perspective but they tend to be short. There seem to be no direct, unfiltered expressions from the cannibals themselves, which is regrettable, but also somewhat unsurprising considered that there's were oral societies. Gawaon (talk) 17:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think having a section on cannibalism and colonialism or the trope would go a long way to addressing this. Certainly there needs to be a paragraph in the lead on this. Some of the sources below might have some good insights in various African perspectives, but this is the controversy around anthropology, it originated as a colonial science and can be a bit dehumanising being the object of study. For example, literate African philosophy started with anthropologists interpreting and explaining what they thought were African ideals and ways of life etc. It’s why it’s so important to prioritise native sources Kowal2701 (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the literature research! Some of them I know already (and the last one, for example, doesn't seem to be really relevant for this specific article, though it could be for Human cannibalism or Cannibalism in Europe). I'll try to check out the other ones sooner or later. Gawaon (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
