Talk:Placentophagy

message: Hi there, 
I am a student editor on Wikipedia and will be working on this stub article for an assignment. I plan to develop the article by making it more structured- changing the lead to only summarize the article and adding more sections relevant to the topic.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.white31 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There is no evidence whatsoever presented of the practice of "human placentophagy". It is highly dubious. The author should cite his sources I think. ReithySockPuppet 20:23, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy Dispute 

message: :In a few cultures it is custom for the mother to eat the Placenta after their newborn's birth. Thoese who advocate Placentophagy in humans believe that eating the placenta prevents postpartum depression and other pregnancy complications.
:Human Placenta has also been the ingredient in some traditional Chinese medicines.
Since these claims have been disputed, please give cites to support them before putting them back in the article. -- The Anome 00:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the way to move forward is to provide cites for your statements; attempts to remove well-cited NPOV text without consensus on the talk page tends to be classed as vandalism, and they will either have to work with you according to the rules or be blocked from editing. However, first the onus is on you to provide the cites and put your text into the NPOV style. -- The Anome 00:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Read wikipedia rules, you need sources. Your own thoughts are not sufficient to constitute an encyclopedia entry. I have contributed some to assist the development of the article. Hope it helps. Reithy 09:30, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it looks like adding cites is doing exactly what it was intended to do; defusing an edit war, and turning previous edit-combatants into edit-collaborators. My work here... is done. [flies off with whooshing noise] -- The Anome 18:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved to talk, awaiting cites 

message: Chuck_F asserts that a "friend" gave him permission to use their image and no further explanation is required. Wiki is not allowed to use copyright images without permission so he should disclose copyright owner and demonstrate permission. Reithy 01:09, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
How do you propose I do that? Upload some written contract saying premisson which you'll probly say I stole, and put it up as a copyright violation?
It's not up to me, but I do know they take copyright violations seriously around here. I would have thought something of the nature you've described should be acceptable according to wiki rules. I strongly suggest you keep the copyright warning up there while you do this. Reithy 04:34, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
* :Image:Rateatingplacenta.jpg is still tagged as possibly unfree. Please stop putting it in and taking it out over and over. Chuck F., if you can provide information as to the source, photographer, whatever of the image, please do so. If anyone else has any information suggesting that the image is copyrighted or that Chuck F.'s claim is inaccurate, please provide it. Thanks. -- Infrogmation 17:31, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation?

message: I remember reading about this in one of the mainstream "you're about to have a baby books".  I was looking through books for a friend.  I don't remember which one it was, but it was one of the more popular mainstream ones.  I don't think it was "What to Expect when you're Expecting".  Might have been "The Baby Book : Everything You Need to Know About Your Baby From Birth to Age Two"... anyways it was a book along that purpose.  I'm sorry I can't help more, but maybe this will jog another visitor's mind.  --geekyßroad. meow? 17:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help on source (placenta-eating) 

message: Building a logical argument with selective dictionary definitions is perhaps not in keeping with the best of academic standards. I feel that the two original dictionaries cited probably also list the definition I've just added, but having no access to them I've had to settle for different editions of similar texts. My main contention, though, is that it's too "soft" an argument to be made and we should do away with using dictionaries to argue this point at all. Shane Lin (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing dictionaries

message: The EL section isn't meant to hold sources, so I'm pasting them here.  A variety are outright inappropriate for most uses (blogs and personal diaries).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  I've copied the http://www.gynob.com/ URL into the ELs of Placenta.  The Time article may be useful on this article, however it seems like an op-ed, and I want to know who the 'Cassandra' is in the article. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible, but unlikely sources