Talk:Whole stuffed camel

Untitled
Annonymous editor cannot find references. Many cookbooks have this recipe. It is a classical Bedouin dish. Also, anonymous editor proposed deletion with no way to vote to delete or not delete. Alfred Legrand 01:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I marked this AfD, because the only references are two non-notable internet sites. Though one references a book, it is unclear whether the book was intended to be tongue in cheek. 131.107.0.73 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"The recipe also instructs chefs to acquire 110 gallons of water in which to boil the camel, an amount of water which amounts to little more than the contents of a medium-sized fish tank." This is quoted directly from the Snopes article, but it's a mistake (Snopes was wrong) - the recipe card on Snopes clearly says that the camel is to be roasted over a charcoal pit - the water is for boiling the 12 kilos of rice. Arianna 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I understand your edit was in good faith, you appear to have misread the recipe and snopes criticism so I reverted it. If you read the recipe (and Snopes explaination) carefully it clearly states "Skin, trim and clean camel (once you get over the hump), lamb and chicken. Boil until tender. Cook rice until fluffy.". In other words, the recipe implies you have to boil the camel, lamb and chickens until tender AND cook the rice (and also boil 60 eggs) all with 110 gallons of water! The recipe clearly also talks about stuffing the cooked chickens and cooked lamb. It doesn't specifically say the camel is cooked so perhaps your not supposed to boil the camel first even though the recipe does seem to suggest you are supposed to boil the camel. But clearly you are supposed to boil the 20 chickens & 1 whole lamb & 12 kg of rice and 60 eggs with the 110 gallons of water according to the recipe. Then the cook also has to try and decide whether or not they're supposed to boil the camel first... Snopes was quite right in their criticism here. Oh and besides that, 110 gallons is way, way, way too much water to cook 12 kg of rice... This is BTW one of the many reasons why OR is discouraged. It's quite easy for editors to misunderstand or otherwise make mistakes in good faith. While reliable sources can do this too, the fact that reliable sources tend to check their facts reduces the likelihood. Not trying to bite here, simply pointing out OR is usually unwise for a good reason Nil Einne 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion on this (for the little that it's worth) is that it's something that was perhaps done once, years ago for a VIP's wedding, and has somehow got pop-culture status. Cryomaniac (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * North American Neanderthal's did something similar with wholly mammoths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did they de-hair the wholly mammoth before cooking it? Bigturtle (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)