Talk:Head transplant

Erroneous 'Citation Needed'
The summary contains a citation request where there shouldn't be one. You wouldn't cite an absence of claims on human head transplant. You'd cite claims that such a thing *has* happened.

Wasn't the USSR the first?
I believe that the USSR was the first to do a head transplant, not China. http://www.mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/stranger-than-fiction/head-transplant.html  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.242.191.162 (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Book
An interesting book on this subject is "If We Can Keep a Severed Head Alive: Discorporation and U.S. Patent 4,666,425" by Chet Fleming. I haven't read it. (I have only read about it in another book which is not about head transplants.) Maybe someone who knows more about it can comment on it in the article. Two Halves 12 January 2003

Removed 1812 quote
Removed:
 * The first head transplants were conducted in 1812, although there was only a marginal amount of success.

Added by the following:  in October of 2006. Travb (talk) 10:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed Warning Quote
Warnings about the future are subjective, not objective.

Thangalin (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Changed wording
Changed "...subjects were typically done in by immune reactions..." to "...subjects typically died from immune reactions..." Nelliejellynoonaa (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

removed from article
In 1998 Charles Krauthammer of Time magazine warned of the potential medical future of head transplanting with cloning:

At the University of Texas and at the University of Bath. During the past four years, one group created headless mice; the other, headless tadpoles. Why then create them?...Take the mouse-frog technology, apply it to humans, combine it with cloning, and you are become a god: with a single cell taken from, say, your finger, you produce a headless replica of yourself, a mutant twin, arguably lifeless, that becomes your own personal, precisely tissue-matched organ farm...Congress should ban human cloning now. Totally. And regarding one particular form, it should be draconian: the deliberate creation of headless humans must be made a crime, indeed a capital crime.

Adamtheclown (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that this should be removed, I doubt that outlawing organ cloning is a widely held view point (at least I would hope not). After all the article on cancer research doesn't have a section on "Opposition to curing cancer"; even though I can gaurantee that there are people who believe curing cancer would be a sin.107.10.53.28 (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Furball4 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Although the inclusion of this quote does not technically lend credence to the viewpoint, it does give airtime to only one side of a controversy. Since this article is not currently sophisticated enough to support a high-quality "Controversy" section, it should either avoid the controversy entirely or else reference its mere existence in one line without going any further. Furthermore, the Krauthammer quote is a particularly poor exemplar of the "against" argument. It does not even attempt moral argumentation, but references only the man's conclusion and call for legislation. I'm all for headless spares, but the "against" argument deserves better than Charles Krauthammer. I propose removing the quote entirely, and will do so in a week or so if no objections are made and discussed here.
 * Who wrote this? Igottheconch (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Update?
a 30 year old man will be the first to undergo this procedure. --VirusKA (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

That's MGSV marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:250C:1EB9:F09B:76CC:FB95:5408 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Full Body Transplant
The title is wrong.

If a person is his mind so that his brain thus head, then, it's not the head which is being transplanted. But it's the body.

So the title should be changed.--95.10.87.61 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The sources all call it "head transplant," so that's what we go with. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, but then the sources are not all-knowing deities, they are mostly idiotic journo's who could do with a brain transplant.137.205.101.77 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't you mean full body transplant? 130.234.202.135 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It should be headless-body transplant, since that's what you're essentially replacing, the function of a defective headless body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.47.202 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sergio Canavero
I'm in favor of leaving this out. If it stays, I'd like to see the citekill fixed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Head transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060828143447/http://64.78.63.75:80/samples/05PYS0404PlotnikIntrotoPsych7ch3.pdf to http://64.78.63.75/samples/05PYS0404PlotnikIntrotoPsych7ch3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Jerry Silver
The Dr. Jerry Silver quote is from Nexus New Times magazine, which is full of stories about artifacts on Mars, crystals, Mayan codices, and how computers cause miscarriages. It does not seem like a reliable source to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Successful
Per WP:LEAD the lead summarizes the article. And the article talks about several "successful" transplants. So that's what the lead says. The mentions in the article are backed up by sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Repetition/awkwardness
Under the human head transplant section, the preparation steps and procedure seem to sort of repeat each other. I think that section needs to be cleaned up a bit but I myself am not sure how to.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 05:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole Canavero section is way too long. It should be cut back to what it was before the recent additions. After the transplant actually happens, we can expand it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 06:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

A claim of successful transplant in South Africa
http://newsexaminer.net/health/worlds-first-head-transplant-a-success/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PanBK (talk • contribs) 21:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is very likely a hoax. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hoax, written by this guy: Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

So much of one version article has been cut away and removed
There is so much from the original version of the article that has been deleted: Moscowamerican (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are preferentially based on reliable, independent, secondary sources, giving WEIGHT as they do. That is the difference between that old version and the current one. Jytdog (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Head transplant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523195900/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bennun/interviews/drwhite.html to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bennun/interviews/drwhite.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927235236/http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917 to http://www2.lakelandcc.edu/nora/events/iuser/news/newsmore.asp?ID=917

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

World's First Head Transplant (almost)
There have been international reports about a planned, first human head transplant in 2017, and it was so big that 8 of the first 9 results on Google are about this [https://www.google.com/search?q=head+transplant&oq=head+transplant+&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j0l2.2728j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 not counting Wikipedia. Look!]. So I added information about the matter but it was undone by for supposedly bad sources used (see the last 3 edits in history). Instead of reverting back, let's decide on an agreed version, so that this subject of great interest and the anticipated operation that never happened receive their fair share in the article. Shalom11111 (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:MEDRS. We've already got quite enough on this fringey topic - more would be undue. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The section header shows how tabloid the interest is. We are not a propagator of hype and gossip. Please read WP:NOT. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm bringing back sources that were erased and adding a several more, per the above DAILYMAIL and MEDRS concern. And then (quite unfortunately) nothing happened. And, well, it was not only discussed on social media and but was a major news item. This should be covered, it is more than just relevant, it's a necessity. The focus should now be, in my opinion, directed at summarizing this information and adding it to the History section in the article. Regards, Shalom11111 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * - An interesting watch!

Let's be careful with misusing WP:MEDRS. This article is not only about a medical procedure but about events and hype widely present in mainstream media. In my view it is absolutely justified for the article to mention Canavero's plans based on mainstream media (like Newsweek); demanding articles in a peer-reviewed journal for this feels somewhat over the top.
 * Sure, in the grand scheme of things, in the history of head transplants (whatever it is), Canavero likely is (or will be) just an insignificant episode who, in a couple of decades, will merit at most two sentences in an encyclopaedia if at all. However, today in 2018 plenty of readers seek information about this much-talked-about guy and his plans (wide coverage in popular media inciting interest), so I see no reason why Wikipedia should not offer the available facts. — kashmīrī  TALK  22:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because we are an encyclopedia, not a vessel to provide what "readers seek information about", esp. when it's gossip & hype. We already have an article dedicated to this guy. Alexbrn (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Plans are not history. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kashmiri is correct.
 * You asked to see a reliable medical paper and a source other than the dailymail - and many were provided, with different coverage. Now, the issue is that it's only gossip and plans?
 * Completely ignoring this subject is simply not an option. A 3-4 sentences paragraph is all that's needed.  Shalom11111 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There are multiple levels of the badness sure. "it is in sources" does not answer the NOT issue.  It answers only the V issue, which is a different question.  I have been saying NOTNEWS and CRYSTAL consistently in any case.  What is there to actually say that is encyclopedic?   There is Stuff Canavero Says and Stuff Other People Said.  WP is not the blogoshere.  We are not here to broadcast speculation and speculation about the speculation blah blah blah. This is what CRYSTAL/NOTNEWS are about.
 * You have said nothing about why this is encyclopedic. We don't include nonencyclopedic stuff in WP.  We exclude it all the time.  Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A little late, I'll just leave these links here in case it is decided to add this info in the future. The story is encyclopedic because it was covered by the same sources that are currently used in the article itself (for other content which was deemed encyclopedic), and it is the a relevant part of the history of the subject. Covered by the NYT, the Neuroskeptic , Surgical neurology international the ncbi (U.S. National Library of Medicine), and lastly this popular science article  which stated that the operation has yet to take place.  Shalom11111 (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

removed sentence and source
Quote:
 * However, the key objection, that a severed spinal cord cannot be repaired, has been disproven by animal studies.


 * References:
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29223327 Restoration of motor function after operative reconstruction of the acutely transected spinal cord in the canine model.Liu Z, Ren S, Fu K, Wu Q, Wu J, Hou L, Pan H, Sun L, Zhang J, Wang B, Miao Q, Sun G, Bonicalzi V, Canavero S, Ren X.Surgery. 2018 May;163(5):976-983;


 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28612398 Polyethylene glycol-induced motor recovery after total spinal transection in rats. Ren S, Liu ZH, Wu Q, Fu K, Wu J, Hou LT, Li M, Zhao X, Miao Q, Zhao YL, Wang SY, Xue Y, Xue Z, Guo YS, Canavero S, Ren XP. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2017 Aug;23(8):680-685).

I think these are reliable sources, I am reverting the delete edit and adding the NCBI links I found. Moscowdreams (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sociology research paper on head transplants
Here is some information which can be added to the article.

Moscowdreams (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)