Cookbook:Placenta

talk:Naryathegreat|(talk)]] 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)This seems like a bad joke, and the "recipe" has zero detail. I don't think wikibooks should be encouraging this kind of behaviour. MShonle 01:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a joke. It is however, not a recipe. It is an ingredient. The cookbook lists many of these (Bison, Guinea Pig, Squirrel, Hedgehog, Edible Dormouse), not just recipes. If you follow the Wikipedia link provided, you'll soon come upon many placenta recipes. Well-known recipes include placenta pizza (obvious) and placenta cocktail. Some people saute the placenta with garlic and butter.

Note that I have in fact served placenta. It's decent. I think it would go well chopped up and fried in scrambled eggs. I get to test this in May or June; I'll write up the recipe if it turns out well.

Sorry if I turned your stomach, but this is much less gross than sweetmeat.

AlbertCahalan 03:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep, obviously. AlbertCahalan 03:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's "obvious" because you wrote the entry. But you should recall that the entry for "Human" was deleted, and this one even says "Human placenta, as with human flesh in general, tastes like beef". That's not acceptable. MShonle 08:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the entry for human was not an ingredient entry. It was some sort of recipe, presumably untested. I can not tell though, because the evidence has been destroyed. This was done improperly too, without a vote for deletion. Eh, this is grounds for undeletion.

Why is it unacceptable to describe the taste of human? This is a simple fact. It has been reported multiple times by those who have had to survive on human flesh. I assure you that placenta does taste like beef. Try it, if you get the chance. Maybe a vegan, of the sort that equates animals with humans, would be offended if we describe the taste of beef? Should Cookbook:Beef go then?

Now, go ahead and follow the links. Do you really think that people do not eat placenta? I stir-fryed Kevin's, and baked Kyle's. The next one (Jack's ?) might be mixed into scrambled eggs or maybe deep-fat fried.

All over this VfD page, I can see people trying to destroy other people's work. This is way out of control. If something is too religious for you (songbook writing), grosses you out (this), or is not politically-correct enough for you (dating guide), don't read it. (should require 85% consensus with 95% statistical certainty)

There are plenty of things that look like a joke to me, but I don't go trying to get them destroyed. Take the thousand-year-old egg for example. That's a rotten egg. It's a delicacy in China.

BTW, I note that you are not even a Cookbook contributer. I've contributed over two dozen recipes and probably several dozen ingredients, along with fixing up links all over the place. As anyone can see, I am a serious cookbook contributer and you are not. (does anyone match me for number of original recipes?) There wouldn't even be a tomato entry without me.

AlbertCahalan 16:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please be mindful that all Wikibooks users are currently permitted to vote on the deletion of a Wikibooks module, not just contributors. Dysprosia 21:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strong keep. Deletionists like mshonle and Gentgeen need to leave recipes alone. I am a vegetarian, but I don't go nominating a recipe for beef for deletion. Likewise, it's evil of you to nominate recipes such as kenbuloga (human) or placenta for deletion. --Node ue

I'm not sure how Gentgeen got into this discussion, but just because I believe certain pages should be deleted doesn't make me a "deletionist". I've before defended struggling books and kept them alive: I have no problem with all of the stub books out there, for example, nor do I have problems with many of the less-than-academic books here. I do, however, have a problem with books like Getting a Girl, and content that just seems to be part of an elaborate, sick joke. (Some people get a kick out of leaving stealth graffiti, so to speak.) Instead of throwing labels around, perhaps you could explain to us why deleting a "recipe" to cook a human is "evil" (actually, you should explain to us why even nominating such for deletion is evil itself). MShonle 21:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I see no valid reason for this to be deleted. It may have room for improvement but so to most of the articles on wikimedia projects. -- mattrix 20:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete This is here for shock value Trödel 21:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should assume good faith yourself? I heard about this on the radio - which granted is a fairly unreliable source but at least shows that it exists outside of AlbertCalahan's imagination. See also . -- mattrix 22:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I first heard of the idea from a midwife with over 20 years of experience. After she helped deliver my second child, she asked what we wanted to do with the placenta. She was big into herbal medicine and mother-earth stuff and such. She suggested several ideas, including use as food. (The other ideas included, if I remember right, making art with it and burying it under a seedling tree. Probably this was supposed to involve burning incense or singing, but I'm not into that.) Well, we couldn't decide. Days later my wife noticed that the midwife had placed it in the refrigerator, and... well, it tasted OK. :-) AlbertCahalan 00:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Touché - good point - but I still think that this should still be deleted - read it and the accompanying "organs" category - interesting reading but not sure how sweetmeat (I know this vote is on the Placenta) can be cooked without committing a crime (at least in the US). Trödel 22:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No one is doubting that people practice such things. The question is if wikibooks should be serving such information. (Clearly we can agree that even some true statements or stories are not suitable for wikibooks. For example, we do not serve pornography, even though pornography is something that "actually happens" and is true.) I believe we damage our credibility much more so than we "help" a few people out there. MShonle 22:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why do you believe so? If you imagine that people do not really eat placenta, please follow the links off of the wikipedia Placentophagy article. The cookbook can not be comprehensive without including all the different things that people eat. Placenta is hardly shocking compared to sweetmeat (testicles), thousand-year-old eggs (rotten eggs, prized in China), natto (rotten soybeans dripping with snot-like slime, often eaten in Japan -- wikipedia has a picture) and locusts (many of the Thai workers in Israel were delighted by the recent plague of locusts). Have a home birth some time, and you too will be looking for something to do with a placenta.

Because as MShonle has stated it damages the credibility of the project. How does such an article support the mission of Wikibooks? Trödel 22:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) (by the way I returned all the previous edits that must have been deleted by accident)

In what way is it not a free instructional resource?

While I'm asking questions: here's a few to ponder: What should the criteria for censorship of wikibooks be? Who should decide what is "offensive"? (Presumably "offensive" material should not be posted on this page as it may offend readers.) What age group is it meant to be "non-offensive" to? Which cultures should it be "non-offensive" to? (Remember that some people consider chess or music offensive, and some vegetarians may consider the idea of eating meat as disgusting as you find the idea of eating placenta.) What is the maximum percentage of visitors that may be offended (if any)? Have you heard a teacher/lecturer saying "Don't use wikibooks, it has instructions on how to cook a placenta"? Why is wikipedia's policy on this issue not appropriate for wikibooks?

Sorry if that leaves the impression of a frothing-at-the-mouth rant, but I feel quite strongly about freedom of speech. :)-- mattrix 23:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question: A democratic process, where-in people vote and express their opinions (exactly what this is) should decide what is offensive. It's a red herring to call it censorship-- I've already established that we don't allow pornography, which is something defined only from the community standards. For me, I saw content I didn't like: comparison of humans tasting like beef, references to humans as an ingredient, and pretty far claims regarding vegetarians. If there was more than meets the eye about this entry (enough red flags were already raised), this forum would probably discover it.

Perhaps I'd feel better about this entry if it was toned down and took into account my concerns. As for instructors, that's probably not the best example: The media reports on wikiprojects and there's no need to give them fodder when it could be all we are defending was just someone's idea of a joke. (I'm fairly convinced now that the entry wasn't a joke, but credibility is crucial.) MShonle 03:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for listing your concerns. Going from simple to complex...

Ugh, the p word... there is a movie-making book you know. :-/ There are many related topics (casting, lighting, script writing, marketing, camera usage, multi-angle DVD authoring...) that are not themselves porn. I wonder where you would draw the line, but this is getting off-topic. Things also get interesting as wikis gain real image editing support.

Supposing that the media is worth being concerned about, and supposing that such content would be noticed and presented in a bad light (both big assumptions), remember the old saying: "even bad press is good press". If it is publicity you want, then being ignored is worse than the worst press. I tend to think that if such content would be noticed and reported on (not that I think this likely), it would be presented in a semi-positive light: "Hey, they cover everything!"

The claims regarding vegetarians are, to the best of my knowledge, factual. I've found multiple sources that agree on this. It also makes sense; reasons for vegetarianism differ greatly. Many vegetarians have chosen their diet because they feel that killing animals is cruel, violent, wrong, and so on. By such measures, placenta is cruelty-free, and thus acceptable. That it is acceptable doesn't mean you like the taste of course; you'd never get me eating sweetmeat even though I find it to be a morally acceptable practice.

Humans do in fact taste like beef. I first heard of this as reported by the soccer team that suffered an airplane crash in the Andes. Personal experience with placenta backs this up. I know that others are curious about this; a co-worker once brought up the question during lunch. Would you be happier if "as with human flesh in general" were left out? It would of course need to be mentioned as part of any future Cookbook:Human (probably not based on the deleted one), but at least then the Cookbook:Placenta entry wouldn't disturb people without an advanced case of curiosity. I do like to fully cover a topic though, including pointers and lead-ins to related topics.

I don't think I implied that non-placenta human flesh would be a generally acceptable ingredient under non-emergency circumstances. I don't think I suggested one way or the other actually, intending to leave that to any future Cookbook:Human entry.

AlbertCahalan 05:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have to be careful when you say something is acceptable to a very large community. By your same reasoning, you could conclude that roadkill is acceptable to vegetarians because it is cruelty free. I don't think many vegetarians would really care to have their beliefs simplified like that. I think the comment should just be removed, because the article isn't about vegetarianism. Instead, you could list the more relevant fact that most mammals eat the placenta, even herbivores.

(The p-word argument is mostly to remind us all that we have community standards already, just to get over the "censorship" idea. The word censorship can get thrown around in contexts where it's not relevant or helpful.)

Also, I'm not sure about the "as with human" claim either: I've heard from other sources that humans taste bad as a natural defense mechanism, kind of like skunks. It's one of the more shocking claims, so it could be removed with little cost.

The warning and disclaimer could be more prominent, as well. MShonle 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to go on a tangent here but I though I'd just point out that eating placentas does not involve the death of any living thing (quite the opposite, in fact) whereas farming and roadkill both do, and that may well be a key distinction in the minds of many vegetarians.

Re: your tangent. Actually, plants are "living things," so your distinction is not important here. It's just such a random concept, it probably deserves to have no association with vegetarianism (for example, it would be completely inappropriate for the vegetarian or vegan cookbooks to reference this organ ingredient). As a rule, vegans do not consume snake skin, even though the skin has the same living status as a placenta (it's a multicellular organ that was once living)-- this, there is no connection, and even for particular ethical system the connection is weak at best (and we all know that there is no single ethical system for vegetarianism). MShonle 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let's not confuse a person's reasons for veganism with their other reasons for food choice. There is the cruelty to animals concern, and then there is a sort of grossness and edibility factor which is not even limited to vegans. I have no ethical qualms about eating any of this stuff, but you won't get me to eat a snake skin. I expect it would be scaley. Actually I would try boiling it to make dashi for miso soup, but I wouldn't eat it. There is no reason to believe that a vegan, of the animal rights sort, would feel an urge to eat snake skin even if they do find it ethically acceptable. Do not forget sweetmeat (testicles)... the mere fact that I eat meat does not mean I will eat sweetmeat, but I do consider it to be an acceptable dining choice to make. Slightly less weird would be liver, an organ that collects poisons. If I say that non-vegans sometimes find liver and onions acceptable, I am in no way suggesting that it is normal to eat liver and onions. (Eeeew) Saying that vegans sometimes find placenta acceptable is the same; it in no way implies that it is normal for vegans to be wolfing down placenta cocktails and placenta burgers.

Actually, I believe your argument proves my point. Suppose that "non-vegetarians" was a small, minority group in a much larger world of vegetarians, vegans, and others. If a recipe said, apropos of nothing, "liver and onions is acceptable to some non-vegetarians" even though that statement doesn't claim that even most non-vegetarians would find it acceptable, the very fact that it's mentioned makes it sound like there is some connection. For example, if I said "Linux maintainers should find snake skin acceptable," would you really want to be categorized like that? (maybe you would, but should you make that decision for everyone?) I would think most, if not all vegans, would find placenta unappealing, not the least of which is that the texture of meat and organs becomes disgusting to most of those who haven't eaten such in over a year. A vegan would more likely support feeding it to animals, or using it for compost, but, again, this footnote about vegetarians and vegans really has no place. MShonle 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've checked "The PeTA Guide to Animal Ingredients" (one of the largest vegan/vegetarian organizations) and it specifically lists placenta as always being animal derived (obvious) and never suitable for vegans. Thus, there is no basis for mentioning vegans on this very fringe page. MShonle 19:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Several things wrong with this:

• PETA is widely known as one of the most extreme violent animal-rights terrorist groups. Their opinion is not exactly mainstream. They have even equated the life and welfare of a child with that of a rat.

[Wow, this claim is so wrong I don't even know where to start, other than say that PeTA has never been violent. MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

I'll trust that you're innocent... well, where do I start? PETA donated $1500 to Earth Liberation Front after ELF had commited violent crimes. PETA gave $70000 to Rodney Coronado, an arsonist who attacked a university research lab. PETA speakers have encouraged violent acts toward fast-food places and laboratories. More details: You don't condone this stuff, do you? Do you support PETA in spite of (or because of) all that violence? AlbertCahalan 02:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• They seem to base this decision on the fact that purchase of animal waste would financially benefit those who use animals. I presume this logic is also applied to the purchase of manure, animals that die of natural causes, leftover feed, and so on. In other words, they consider it wrong to do business with those who work with animals.

[Manure isn't on the list. Sorry man, but now you're just grasping at straws. MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

• Human placenta is of course exempt from any such arguments. PETA is definitely referring to animal placenta, particularly the cattle placenta often used in cosmetics.

[There is no "of course". MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

You can say it all you want, but that list is specifically about animals. AlbertCahalan 02:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about I just add this: "(this is not intended to imply that vegans eat placenta any more than non-vegans would eat it or any other organ meat)" Better? AlbertCahalan 19:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[No, only complete deletion of this claim would be acceptable. But this should not weaken my position that I think the entire article itself is out of place. What are you going to suggest next? That vegans "should" be fine with eating cheese made from human breast milk? Either way, you are in no position to be speaking for what vegans would or would not find acceptable. This is almost as bad as the "some say" claims on the wikipedia: it's always true that some fringe group would say practically anything, but that doesn't justify "some groups claim X" in an article that doesn't call for it. MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)]

• keep: I have no objection with this portion of the cookbook, though I have my doubts that it will turn into something valuable. That alone, however, is not grounds for deleting it. With that in mind, I suggest we keep it, or revisit the decision in a year or two if the article hasn't really gone anywhere. Jun-Dai 08:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• A book needs editorial guidance, which not only means what to include, but also what to exclude. Editors add value to works by making something more effective for the target audience. Alienating the target audience with too many fringe tangents can hurt the work. (Perhaps fork to another book, where it's clearer this is on the fringes? MShonle 19:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC))
  • I moved your comment as it was quite long (as is this reply) and I was trying to summarise the existing discussion. Somebody can add something to the summary once we all understand it correctly. You seem to be proposing an whole new policy - that each book has an editor/editors that decide what goes in and what goes out. Is this correct? If you saying the entire community is the "editor" then that doesn't seem to lead anywhere in this discussion. I think I must have misunderstood so please clarify. -- mattrix 20:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the "whole community" is the editor.

(But, for particular books, I think some dedicated contributors can and should play an editorial role in shaping the vision of what the book should be: this is how we are different than wikipedia: there is a standard for what information to include on a topic for an encyclopedia entry, but there is no standard neither for what a book should cover, nor for how it should present that material.)

The point is that sometimes calls need to be made, and simply relying on the "safe" argument that "anything should go" can produce inferior works. Thus, my comment serves to exclude a line of reasoning that advocates an anything goes policy. (However unintendedly subtle my point was.) MShonle 21:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• • I'll treat the point about alienating the target audience separately. I don't see why things can't be part of the main book just because they a niche interest - many people aren't particularly interested in vegan recipes but I've got no problems with it being in the main cookbook. To be honest, I think anybody could find something they think is disgusting by looking carefully through a comprehensive international cookbook (which I what I think this book should aim to be.) This page isn't exactly linked from the front cover or anything. -- mattrix 20:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the future it might be a good idea to have a "vetted" cookbook containing only the tried and favorite recipes found in the entire collection. While it's probably good to have a record of large recipes, even those that aren't very successful, it's good to also have a smaller set that has been verified. After all, if completeness was the only goal, I'd go and write a script to download the USDA ingredient database and then iterate through all possible recipes that are less than 20 pages. The information would be absolutely useless, even though the very best chocolate chip cookies recipe ever conceived would be a member of that set. (This is the corollary to the idea that the empty set and the compliment of the empty set (i.e., everything) contain the same amount of information.)

For a good example why something more complete is desirable, there are plenty of common recipes out there that are so simple or elementary that most books won't even include them. I'm not saying we should be writing "how to make a PB&J sandwich" and "how to make a bowl of cereal" (unless someone has already done so?), but something more standard, but overlooked might be useful. But please realize that true completeness isn't desirable for the project, so the line must be drawn somewhere. (And drawing lines isn't a clear or easy process; but just like good monetary policy, somethings desirable are never clear or easy.) MShonle 21:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)