Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Cookbook:Human

Cookbook:Human
I undeleted this due to controversy regarding its original deletion. I have no vote. Guanaco 23:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What? Patent nonsense, speedy deletion, no vote needed! --Derbeth talk 23:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Re-Speedy Delete I agree. We don't need another vote. The page is either a) original research, or b) unverifiable information. Either way, it is against wikibooks policy, and should stay where it was put: In the trash. --Whiteknight T C E 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. My problem with this module is that it promotes an illegal activity, cooking humans (WB:WIW Wikibooks is not a soapbox). Even if cooking humans is legal in some places, it would be hard to find one to cook. Compared to eating a human, it is very likely that I would visit the International Space Station while I am President of the USA. --Kernigh 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I disagree with Kernigh's and Whiteknight's reasons for deletion. (1) Contra Whiteknight.  Combing forensic or anthropology textbooks might lead to verification without, um, original research.  (2)  Contra Kernigh.  Difficulty in finding the ingredients should not, by itself, be a reason for deleting Cookbook recipies.  I don't see that it promotes cooking humans, it just describes the activity.  Further, it was probably put up as a joke.  But the fact that it is (likely) a joke points to a better reason for deletion.  It makes no legitimate contribution to the serious purpose of Cookbook or any other book and has no hope of making such a contribution in the future.  A judicious use of jokes may make serious contributions more readable, but a joke page should go the way of Jokebook --JMRyan 22:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Was there some call for this to be brought back? Re-delete. Gentgeen 00:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-Deleted This one has already been through the VfD process, and there is absolutely no support for keeping it. I don't think we need to wait 7 days after the last comment, when we have already voted to delete it. The burden now falls on the potential supporters of this book to file for an undelete. --Whiteknight T C E 18:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment - If you want to bring something back, please use the Votes for undeletion page for the discussion. This page of the cookbook does not belong either and is simply out of place for Wikibooks, especially when the Cookbook itself is on shaky ground right now for inclusion in Wikibooks. Do not undelete without community concensus. I was trying to find the VfD for this Wikibook deletion and I can't find it right away, although I'm certain that it is in the history of this page somewhere. --Rob Horning 18:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I undeleted it because it had been on Votes for undeletion for quite some time, and I couldn't find the original VfD discussion. Guanaco 22:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that the discussion on the undeletion page was not exactly current, as it was added in October of 2004. A full year to resolve this issue and act?  Particularly in the past, the VfD discussions were not very well archived and I've had to go back and pull some old ones out.  Basically, you need to dive into the history of this page, which is hard as there are a couple thousand edits... not an easy task to accomplish.  I thought the issue was resolved, and certainly you should have revived the discussion and stated clearly why you felt community concensus was to restore this Wikibook instead of start a whole major VfD discussion all over again.  --Rob Horning 01:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Previous Discussion from October 20th, 2004 about this module
I don't think we really need to encourage canabalism. Gentgeen 02:16, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. liblamb 03:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is indeed an authentic recipe, I ate it before I became a vegetarian. It does not "encourage" cannibalism, it only tells you a particularly delicious way to consume human meat. BTW generally cannibalism of the nature that there's actually a *recipe* with it generally involves only those who died of natural causes but are eaten because of 1. extreme hunger or 2. traditional cultural values. As regards your attitude towards cannibalism (and not "canabalism"), if your religion says it is wrong to eat lamb and that those who eat lamb meat are going to spend eternity in a lake of fire, does that mean you should put all recipies involving lamb up for deletion? Just because I don't eat meat and I disapprove of humans in general eating non-human animals, I have not nominated any meat recipes for deletion. Just because you think it is gross or disgusting doesn't change the fact that it's real and that it's traditional cuisine and that, well, really, it tastes good (...to some people). Many countries do not have legislation regarding the consumption of human flesh, as long as you didn't murder somebody or commit some other illegal act to obtain the flesh. There is also the possibility of consuming one's own flesh, which already occurs in every country in the world on a daily basis - every time you bite your lip, every time you swallow and it takes down dead tongue cells into your digestive tract, you are consuming human flesh. If you're into oral sex, with the amount of skin that comes off of the average human body on a daily basis, chances you're eating somebody else's flesh (or if you're into autofellatio, your own flesh). As for Lobster's postulations below, the "grasshoppers" point to a Melanesian origin, and I would say the most likely origin is the highlands of New Guinea, also taking into account linguistic evidence (the chant, the name of the recipe). However this article probably should include a warning along the lines of "Murder is illegal (duh). Don't kill people! In some countries there are laws against cannibalism" or whatever. BTW, a man in Japan brutally murdered ate his GF, and due to some weirdo loophole, he got like 8 years for it and has been released. Curiously, he's not mentally ill and wouldn't eat anybody else - he just ate her, and he apparently says he'd do it again, and that she tasted "a bit salty". I'm betting though that he didn't know the proper way to drain the blood and skin the meat. --Node ue 10:10, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * above user is likely a sockpuppet, only two edits. Gentgeen 12:24, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Sockpuppet? w:User:Node ue! wow.
 * May I suggest Node, that you import this in wikipedia itself ? Anthere
 * Anthere, I thought recipes weren't allowed on wikipedia?
 * This is not Wikipedia, this is Wikibooks. The account name was registered immediatly before voting on this page, and the user's only two edits are here and to create an interwiki redirect (which is bad) to the user page of a well known wikipedia editor.  Without proof that this is indeed the wikipedia user, this should be considered no more valid than any other new account generated only to vote. (and even with proof, Node ue is not a wikibookian, so his vote here can be discounted by policy) If User:Jimbo Wales were to vote on this issue, I'd ignore his vote as well, as that account only has 10 edits on this project, all over a year ago. Gentgeen 18:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * So what? And what's wrong with an interwiki redirect, as long as it's in the user namespace? I am indeed a Wikibookian, I have made modifications to numerous articles here although they were anonymous. If you really cared about proof, you would ask me on my Wikipedia talkpage, and I would confirm that yes, it is really me. If Jimbo Wales voted on this issue and you ignored his vote, I think you'd piss a hella lotta people off. And as it stands the account is not a "sockpuppet" anymore than your account is.

I do not believe this is an authentic recipe. It however seems to suggest that cannibalism is a (pseudo) African speciality. I suggest that European cannibalistic recipes may be easier to find. I also agree that a text book on cannibalism is probably not required, though food shortages may in fact prove this wrong Lobster 08:42, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * keep if it is a valid recipie. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 13:22, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. We need to be a bit more strict with troll like this. Yann 17:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Retain: I feel that a textbook on cooking people from a historical, culinary and legal viewpoint is both interesting and lacking on most bookshelves. I however am not convinced this is a legitimate recipe. I would also suggest sections on ritual cannibalism as practiced in Christianity and some mundane Tantra. I also believe that wikibooks should make it clear that it does not recommend or sanction the procurement of illegal food items or items that lead to suffering. Perhaps the recipes on animal slaughter might be reconsidered for deletion? I also feel that recipes on less appreciated or known food items such as members of the locusta family might be worth investigation. Lobster 07:56, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I did note on the Cookbook:Human page that murder is illegal, and the method of procurement that has even a small chance of being legal is eating people who are already dead of natural causes (if they've been murdered by somebody else, I believe you can be charged in any country with accessory), which is legal in countries that don't have specific cannibalism laws or requirements for the handling of corpses. --node
 * Delete. There are many, many other recipes that the Cookbook does not include and a recipe on how to consume human meat is by far a very low priority. Besides, under the two circumstances mentioned by Node ue, it is extremely unlikely that they would look on the internet for a recipe, or that they would be able to cook the meat in a large pot (and have the salt and cornmeal) for the first situation. It is not a useful recipe to anyone. - SamE 19:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Under those two circumstances, chances are they'd either already know the recipe, or not care about a recipe. This recipe is intended for people who want to try cannibalism because it sounds tasty, not because it's absolutely nessecary. Similar conditions apply to logical reasons to eat non-human animal meat - if it's not absolutely nessecary, why cause suffering to another living creature? And in my mind, the priority of inclusion for non-human animal meat is the same as the priority for inclusion of human meat: If we want to be inclusive, we include both. If we want to exclude things which are objectionable, we exclude both. --Node
 * Keep only if it can be verified. TUF-KAT 01:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * a google search for Kenbuloga brings up no hits, a yahoo search finds only this page. I don't think this is real. Gentgeen 23:09, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * As Angela noted on a talkpage on nah:, Google tests generally do not work for subjects unlikely to have webpages on them. Pages on cannibalism are definitely out there, but pages with recipes are, ttbomk, not. If there *is* a page with recipes, chances are they were made up by the author, or are from very recent times, rather than traditional like kenbuloga. Also, how many pages are there with traditional recipes from any given New Guinean highlands culture? My guess is that there are none at all, for all highlands cultures, but if there are any, their number is undoubtedly very low. Also, cannibalism is not as common in the highlands traditionally as some may believe, generally it occurs only as eating of enemies, or dead relatives. --node