Talk:Child cannibalism
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Child cannibalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Antiquated colonial citations
[edit]A lot of this article appears to be racist colonial hearsay. Many of the citations used are from the 19th and early 20th century from missionaries and settlers to colonised lands and therefore their assertions (based on stories they heard) that these people are child cannibals are not reliable. This needs to be made clear in the article. 2001:1A81:523B:6B00:313B:56F7:D32A:3F1D (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- You're free to study the accounts in detail, most of them are based a newer secondary sources and the status of the original accounts is discussed in detail – these were usually far more specific than vague "hearsay". Gawaon (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have, and I think it’s irresponsible not to take into account: who the history was written by (none of these sources seem to be written by the people in question), and the colonial context of many of these citations. The article is reporting them as fact. 2A02:3032:364:878D:291A:C093:FBF8:6BD (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- What you seem to have missed is that the article hardly relies on primary sources from colonial times, but instead of academic secondary sources written after World War II, and mostly during the last few decades. These sources do of course judge and evaluate the reliability of the primary sources, and it is indeed their, and not our job to do. Gawaon (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have, and I think it’s irresponsible not to take into account: who the history was written by (none of these sources seem to be written by the people in question), and the colonial context of many of these citations. The article is reporting them as fact. 2A02:3032:364:878D:291A:C093:FBF8:6BD (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- It may be helpful if you give specific examples. I found a similar problem in a related article so I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in this one, but it's best if you give specific examples so that we can more easily improve it.
- FropFrop (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)