Talk:Mike the Headless Chicken

AFD Nomination
This story is a hoax and should be deleted, because some readers find anything published on the Internet and believe it to be true. 8MM cameras were available as early as the 1920s. Why no footage of the chicken? With the tech available today, why has no one recreated a headless chicken and then explained how it was done. Gullible people read this on the Internet and worse in Wikipedia and believe it to be true. If you have removed the head of a chicken or watched the process in a backyard, the chicken dies. It runs around in a circle (running like a chicken with its head cutoff), bleeds out and dies. Nothing like a perfect (accidental) strike would occurs. If you planned to eat a chicken, you would not allow it to live, because it appeared alive. On the farm, if you want to eat the chicken, you would kill it and not doing so would be cruel.You finish the job and eat it. Wikipedia should not publish it with a warning stating that it "may or may not be true." Some believe the moon landing did not happen and was filmed in a Hollywood studio. Should the moon landing have a disclaimer on Wikipedia that "it may or may not be true"? ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜

This article has been marked for deletion as a hoax. Before anyone gets upset remember there is a process that takes place before the article gets deleted. Personally I don't thing the article needs to be deleted or should be. At the very least the festival and the story appear to exist, regardless of whether the story is true. It should be a simple matter to save the article: Just find a reliable source that claims it's a true story. If anyone can find a Guinness link that works, that'd be perfect. Failing that, if the article is reworded to state that a story exists, which may or may not be true, with a festival etc, that'd save the article too.

Best of luck. --HarrisX 02:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious. Everyone knows that Mike the Headless Chicken is (or was) real. --Diablorex 20:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright authority - emailed to User:Brookie 6th April 2005
We checked out your website and really like it. There’s some great information and we do have a “Mike” following in the UK. We are giving you permission to copy the www.miketheheadlesschicken.org photographs on that website. I did find one thing we would like you to correct and that is the date of the annual festival. Our first festival was on May 17th which was the 3rd weekend in May, 1999. We continue to have the festival on the 3rd weekend in May, but its not always on the 17th. Let me know when you have completed the changes.

Yvonne Piquette

City of Fruita

email: yp@fruita.org


 * Information on the festival date corrected and Yvonne emailed to confirm Brookie 16:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Institution in Fruita

 * Mike the Headless Chicken is now an institution in Fruita, and festivals in his honor occur regularly.

What's an institution in Fruita? I'm not familiar with the phrase and/or location. --pjf 09:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Fruita refers to Fruita, Colorado, as is referenced in the previous paragraph. "An institution" means something that everybody knows about in a particular community.  Some touchstone.  RickK 09:59, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

"Mike, Mike - where's your head? Even without it you're not dead!"
What is this quotation? Where does this come from? Lupin 14:30, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I remember singing this in the playground - don't know where it's from though - something from the time? McGnasher 17:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It is one of those things that stick in your mind for ages - goodness knows where it comes from - but seem apposite to poor old Mike - especially in its current abbreviated version! Mike Mike ....Brookie 17:37, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been humming that damn phrase all weekend! Mike is haunting me . Aargh.... McGnasher 10:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Me also - go away Mike Brookie 19:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Was Mike real?
Now just a second... There's no way this is real. I can't believe it! Is there any scientific explanation, or was one ever given? 24.245.29.229
 * I think the expanation was that a part of his brain stem was still attached, and that enabled him to still do certain things. That's how I remember reading it. Everyking 07:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, part of the brain stem and also a small part of the brain. Basically, enough brain matter to maintain some semblance of life, since Mike was still able to do things like attempting to crow or preen. With the number of people not believing this article, it looks like a good article to bring up to featured article status for next year's April Fools. :-) --Deathphoenix 13:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Inpossible. If the head was removed, so was the brain, since it's in the top of the head. Otherwise the brain would bungle outside and on top of the neck, along with the blood that feed the brain. In other words, this is a hoax. Nice try uncyclopedia. 213.84.109.51 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll diarise it! Brookie:The grass on the hill 14:02, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This story isn't real, is it? There is no way the chicken could have eaten without a head. So is the story an April Fool's joke? Then it should be marked as such. --Yogi de
 * Oh ye of little faith! This was a proper Chicken who was fed through a pipette! Smile it is not an April fool's joke! A curate's egg 21:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Mammals control movement primarly from the motor cortex of the cerebrum, but bird mostly control movement from the basal ganglia located near the thalamus. Is there any evidence that the basal ganglia of Mike's brain were left intact?  If so, that explains how he was able to walk around, etc. Onemanutopia 17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out a portion of an article featuring a way to "fake" a headless chicken (http://ccca.net/~bsliang/mike-a1.jpg)

THIS ARTICLE IS A DISGRACE TO THE WORD 'ENCYCLOPEDIA
Look, if the dang story is true, it's pathetic that Wikipedia junkies have let this article stand without so much as an external link to a Scientific American article or something like that on the subject. PATHETIC, PATHETIC, PATHETIC. Posted by anon user: 129.62.170.215


 * Thank you for your views - actually I think as a light article it is rather good - not everything is for PHd thesises! The curate's egg 06:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps their's no links to the Scientific American, because they don't archive their articles back to the 1940s. --  user:zanimum


 * Now that's what I call trolling Johhny-turbo 21:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's an epitome to "trolling" Anibar E (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?

 * The tone is fine - it is a light hearted article that's been here a long time

So what? I thought this was supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. How does one recognize "a light hearted article"? Can I insert some "light-hearted text" in the style of
 * Not quite sure what to do with his by now loose head, on the first night after the decapitation Mike slept with it under his wing; it was this touching tenacity to life and the now redundant organ that convinced Olson to reprieve Mike from the cooking pot.

into George W. Bush or into Superstring theory? Oh, too serious topic? So what about Groucho Marx?

--Mormegil 11:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is serious business. --205.146.140.242 16:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the article seems well supported enough to me, and the tone is apropriate to the content. That seems to me the most importan judge of such concerns. 198.137.27.40 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I put up the inappropriate tone tag, Just because the subject of the article is light hearted doesn't mean the article should be.Greatigers 23:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - disagree! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Brookie, I must say I'm glad to see there's someone here besides me that think of Wikipedia as more than "just an encyclopedia". It a shame that the admins will stop at nothing to keep it that way.... Chronus Valtiel (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

THIS DISGUSTING ARTICLE SHOULD BE DELETED!
'''This disgusting article should be deleted! This should not be an encyclopedic article.''' Not only is this case of this poor chicken a horrible animal rights abuse, it also damages WIKIPEDIA's image by even putting it as an encyclopedic article.
 * It's a weird world - there's room for all here. Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an article about Hitler, so why not the story of an unfortunate chicken? --Ravi12346 06:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the article is highly appropriate for Wikipedia. It is of historic significance --Diablorex 20:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No! This article is interesting and informative. It should be kept. I had no idea that this was possible until I stumbled upon this article. I do not understand why it should be deleted simply because it is about a chicken that was mistreated. IMOHO spreading information about past mistakes (and sufferings) makes it possible to avoid similar mistakes again in the future. /Magnus

Mike..... I LOVE you you little bird-brained.... uhhhhh.... semi-bird-brained little bundle of lovin'. May you crow loud and proud up there in chicken heaven. Sniff. I love you, Mike.Obbop 17:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with it. If you believe it should be deleted, report it. Good friend100 02:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED, and I wonder why you searched for headless chicken. Zanusi 10:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"A horrible animal rights abuse..." Not really. Taken from the article: Being headless did not keep Mike from putting on weight; at the time of his beheading he weighed two and a half pounds, but at the time of his death this had increased to nearly eight pounds. Doesn't sound like he had too bad of a life, considering that his fate was supposed to be a cooking pot. :) Naglfar or Gleipnir? (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly against this article as well. This is animal abuse and very mean, it should be deleted. I will refrain from doing any further editing to Wikipedia until this article is fully deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.23.70.122 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that WP shouldn't have an article about rape or child abuse or a widely known instance of such a crime because these are cruel things to do? Mike is notable, apparently his story is verifiable. Our personal views on the subject matter of an article have nothing to do with its encyclopedic value. 84.224.198.87 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I only think that it's disrespectful towards animals to have a picture of a headless chicken in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia. 22:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean like this? --77.186.98.254 (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I too think that the existence of this article badly damages Wikipedia's image as a serious encyclopedia. Just because something can be sourced does not mean that it should find its way into an encyclopedia. The only saving grace is that it is highly unlikely anyone is going to stumble upon this article. And if they stumble, let's hope they don't lose their head. Bus stop (talk) 02:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How is this animal rights abuse? We are talking about an incident that happened in the dandy 40s, this Chicken was supposed to be for dinner, they didn't mean to cock up (haha) its execution! And he had a good life, and seemingly wasn't in any pain and sadly choked to death. And Wikipedia is diverse, this article is notable in the fields of biology and avian fields, and dare I say it, celebrities. It's of a biological interest in the way he continued living long after he was mostly decapitated, interesting in the sense he was a chicken, and also, he became pretty famous. I don't see why it should effect the quality of the encyclopedia - you have to be rather specific to find this article (I only just did) in searching. Lets say they had something about Mike the Headless Chicken on the main chicken article, that would be kinda degrading I think. By having this here, it in no way lessons the quality of the Jupiter article, one of my favorites. Byebye --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * With respect, I don't understand the argument about WP being "serious" and therefore wrong to include this article. I think the "seriousness" should appear in the treatment of the subject (in the style, the NPOV, the depth of the article, the reliability of its sources, the legality of the pictures etc.). The subject matter itself need not be "serious", it should be notable and verifiable, basically. This chicken, in my understanding of these guidelines, is both, and that is how he finds his way into WP. His survival in this condition is a unique phenomenon. 84.224.166.13 (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with this article. It was even used to answer a Q we had over at the Ref Desk.  If we have articles on bullfighting, dog fighting, and bear-baiting, then we can have this, too. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Olson or Olsen?
All of the external links say the owner's name was Olsen. Can anyone verify this? --Ravi12346 06:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Going from the official website I guess it is spelt with an "e" - I have changed the article spellings Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

DYI?
So umm... any leads to a source with info on how to make your own survivable headless chicken? I'm sure this thought has crossed more minds than my own. --70.251.91.6 05:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cut as high up on the head as you can without crushing the skull, to try not to destroy the autonomous part of the chicken's nervous system. You may have to practice a bit, it'd be easier to practice if you own a chicken farm, of course, and different breeds of chickens may be better suited than others. I've heard it's not unusual for chickens not to die immediately upon decapitation. Tubezone 04:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not immediately, no. "Running around like a chicken with its head cut off" is even an expression, but cases such as Mike must be rather rare for the bird to achieve such fame. Also: ew! --Kizor 18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved the article
...to show that it's actually nonsense. This story got famous mostly becouse it was such a very good photo manipulation. Take a good look and you'll see that it's pre-pre-pre-photoshop from the times that they photoshopped with invisible tape, scissors and a re-photograph of the result. Pee-Tor 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this page be moved to a subpage of WP:BJAODN instead? -- Puckdude 01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Pee-Tor 10:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 17:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it should actually be moved to Uncyclopedia! Pee-Tor 12:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It did happened. Iamhungey 00:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's things like this that prove to me how stubborn people are. Even when something has been proven to exist you constantly deny it anyway.  It makes me wonder who the crazy people in the world really are....  Chronus Valtiel (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Apri1 1
This wouldn't be a bad article for the main page on April 1, 2007. It reads well and is ... funny, in the appropriate sort of way. :) Antandrus  (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be great. If it were a joke. Chronus Valtiel (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hoax/true
The current article gives the impression that this is true story. But is remains unclear of this is so. This should be cleared up. --Walter 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could contact University of Utah about this Best an Amercian can do that. --Walter 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And email has been send by a Wikinewsie, waiting for responds --Walter 19:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course it's true you non-believers!  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 12:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Excessive images
Why does this article have four nonfree images? I can see the benefit of a picture to illustrate the chicken, but the second and third seem redundant. I don't see what the purpose of including the logo is - we don't have a logo for Boston marathon for example. This logo could be replaced by a free photo of the chicken festival. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Go ahead and remove some. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the harm in the pics? Leave them all.  Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp !  (Whisper...) 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC "As little non-free content as possible is used in an article.". &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally I find this article hard to believe. The give away is the feeding of the chicken via syringe. It wasnt until 1946 until a production glass syringe was invented making the feeding story far fetched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiddi (talk • contribs) 10:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Boy chicken
isn't a male chicken a rooster? is this a female name mike? if so why does article refer to it as a he?♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because he was called Mike The Headless Chicken, the article title isn't a discription, its the creatures name.&#9775;Ferdia O'Brien (T) / (C) 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hens are girl chickens, roosters are boy chickens, but both sexes are chickens. According to the article, Mike was a rooster.  --CliffC (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: If Mike was a rooster, he could not lay eggs in the first place. A MALE chicken could never be "full of the bodies of unhatched baby chicks" because ROOSTERS MAKE SPERM, not eggs. The only way he could have been full of chicks is if either he was NOT a rooster, or he was eating them.

I do not doubt that Mike the Headless Chicken existed, but the "full of dead chicks" part of the story is either untrue, or Mike was female. Does anyone know? (talk) 10:05, 10 Sep 2009

Bingo? unlikely
I say that some one should delete the vulgar "bingo event" mention, especially in the light of it needing citation! It is obviously not true, and just an attempt to draw attention by making up something vulgar.69.210.142.103 (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This type "Bingo" is actually a very common event at festivals in many areas of the country. Some places use horses, some use cows. I'm not sure what other animals are used. The way it works is like this: an area is marked off in a grid, and the spaces numbered. The numbered spaces in which the animal droppings fall determine the winners. It's all in good fun. No animals are hurt doing this. Actually, the animal is often fed extra food and water, in hopes of the show progressing faster. So, regardless of how "vulgar" it may seem to you, this type of "bingo" is not at all uncommon,,, unless you've never left the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrothump (talk • contribs) 02:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll stay in the city, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.79.132 (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never played Chicken Bingo but heard of it. And I used to play Cow Chip Bingo every Labor Day weekend at a local festival. Its real. Its messy. Its fun! Sector001 (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither chicken nor cow bingo have articles. What kind of encylopedia is this. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference Time magazine
(Savechris (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)) After an intensive search I have found the rumoured time magazine article that mentioned Mike the Headless Chicken.

Time thought it was a rooster. That's why it was difficult to find. It wasn't really an article anyway.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,776319,00.html

A few facts about these 'facts'
The whole thing smacks of a hoax. 1. If the guy killing the chicken missed the neck, why did he not try again? Why go into the whole tale about killing it for supper for his mother-in-law and then the story dies right there? What happened? Why didn't he kill it? 2. If you look at the pictures, these isn't a single one that show a clear shot of the head - there is one with someone holding his or her hands over the body, with what appears to be an intact head sticking out. 3. The story says Mike was a rooster. All the pictures of the supposed Mike show what appears to be a hen - there ia a marked difference between a hen and a rooster, even if this difference is less noticeable is some breeds. If you look up pictures of the Wyandotte breed, you will clearly be able to tell males and females apart. 4. The story tells us that Mike would attempt to crow. Hens do not crow, only roosters do. Also, the fact that it tells us that it was "unable to crow at dawn" tells us this is a folk legend - roosters crow any time of day; it is only in cartoons and storybooks that we see them crowing to wake up the village! 5. If most of its head was severed - therefore incuding the part of the head where the eyes are located, then how could it jump onto perches? It would have to be able to see the perch to be able to climb onto it. 6. Stories differ on how the chicken died, some saying it choked on food, others that it choked on mucus and some saying that the severed trachea did not allow enough air in. How could it live for 18 months, and then suddenly die because it could not get enough air in? 7. How can a post mortem conducted 18 months after the incident determine that a blood clot prevented the bird from bleeding to death? There would be no sign left of any blood clot whatsoever. --Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He's not a hoax. Read the entire discussion page. It'll make sense. Galuple (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The post mortem is incorrectly cited and/or positioned in the article. The Guiness reference says that the University of Utah determined that a blood clot was involved, a week after the beheading, rather than at the time of death 18 months later. Most of the inconsistency appears to come from the Salon article.ferret (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"1. If the guy killing the chicken missed the neck, why did he not try again? Why go into the whole tale about killing it for supper for his mother-in-law and then the story dies right there? What happened? Why didn't he kill it?" - When you cut off a chickens head it may run around for a while, even when completely decapitated. Ask any farmer. It walking around a bit would seem normal to the farmer. Feel free to watch the folowing video, although you may find it disturbing: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b36_1379964539 "2. If you look at the pictures, these isn't a single one that show a clear shot of the head - there is one with someone holding his or her hands over the body, with what appears to be an intact head sticking out." - Google image search "Mike the headless chicken" There are photos of both the chicken and the remains of its head. If you look it seems that what was cut off seems more like the front of the face, not the neck. "3. The story says Mike was a rooster. All the pictures of the supposed Mike show what appears to be a hen - there ia a marked difference between a hen and a rooster, even if this difference is less noticeable is some breeds. If you look up pictures of the Wyandotte breed, you will clearly be able to tell males and females apart." - This was from the 40's. Don't expect all the details to be correct. "4. The story tells us that Mike would attempt to crow. Hens do not crow, only roosters do. Also, the fact that it tells us that it was "unable to crow at dawn" tells us this is a folk legend - roosters crow any time of day; it is only in cartoons and storybooks that we see them crowing to wake up the village!" - See above. "6. Stories differ on how the chicken died, some saying it choked on food, others that it choked on mucus and some saying that the severed trachea did not allow enough air in. How could it live for 18 months, and then suddenly die because it could not get enough air in?" - If its neck got clogged with mucus then it wouldn't be able to breath.Dalekmun2010 (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The only supposedly scientific reference does not exist (anymore)
Many believe Mike's story to be a hoax. So do I. It is a well-known story, many people want to know more about it, and as such it deserves a place in an encyclopedia. In Wikipedia too. But either the story itself is a hoax, or it is not. If it is not, the article should contain valid references that make the factual nature of the story convincingly clear. It the story is a hoax, 'well known' and all, it should be presented as a story or a legend, and not as fact.

So here's the problem: the article does NOT contain any serious reference that supports a factual nature of the story, while the story is presented as true. This is unacceptable for a serious encyclopedia. The only supposedly factual reference is note 1, and note 1 is a dead link. If a university in Utah actually did issue a scientific report or article in which the facts about Mike were presented, it should be referenced here. But it is not.

So I suggest that the wording of the article is altered, unless someone is able to add a serious reference that proves beyond scientific doubt that the main 'facts' about Mike are actual facts. Please note that I am not interested in whether a case like Mike's is *possible*, but that it actually happened along the lines presented in the article.Mcouzijn (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this will help support the page; I found it in a search of Google Books. It seems to be a serious scientific work, but I personally have no familiarity with it.  The book uses Mike as an example of how in chickens, most of the regulatory functions are controlled by the brain stem. Kelly Lambert and  Craig Kinsley. 2004. Clinical Neuroscience. Worth Publishers, Incorporated  Pinethicket (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The essential question is whether in the source you mentioned, Lambert & Kinsley actually "prove beyond scientific doubt that the main 'facts' about Mike are actual facts". Maybe they just take Mike's story for granted and use it as an example in the case they want to make. I haven't read the book, neither have you, and it is not retrievable by the link you provided. So I'm afraid it is of no use right now. Unless some protagonist from the 'Mike's story is true' side is prepared to do the research.


 * No, I did not read the book, but I did read the section on Mike, which pretty much goes along with the info in Wikipedia article. I went to the book's title page and the two authors are professors at well established universities; so to me at least, their academic credentials are not in question.  I am concerned by your statement “it is not retrievable by the link you provided”--were you not able to read the section on Mike thru the Google Books preview provided link?  I just checked it and it seems to work fine on my end.  You are able to navigate the book (sorta) by searching for key words in the search window.  That was how I was able to go to the title page and check the affiliation of the authors.  I admit that the Google Books link is not as usable as an e-copy of the book or a hard copy, but it beats a trip to the local university's library.  The authors cite a 1945 Life Magazine article and another reference: Quirk Fowl Play 1999.  If you are interested you might try to track then down.  Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 10:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't open the Google Book from here (Amsterdam, Netherlands). Maybe it is only regionally available? Apart from this, it is unwise to automatically take for a fact anything that 'professors' have written. Many 'professors' have erred, and many 'professors' disagree on particular issues. Specially when it comes to historical 'fact'. Besides, all 'professors' base their theories on assumptions, for which they do not provide nor seek justification. Maybe Lambert & Kinsley's aim is not to provide proof for the truth of Mike's story, but to reason from the assumption that Mike's story is true. That is perfectly legitimate for a professor, but cannot be taken as the required factual basis for an encyclopedic lemma presenting Mike's story as 'true'.Mcouzijn (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

"Born" ?
Shouldn't the infobox say "hatched" ? I don't know if it's possible to change that, however. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems
I have a few problems with this article, first the statement:
 * "Olsen chose a five-and-a-half-month-old cockerel named Mike."

The bird in the picture that is supposedly Mike the Headless Chicken is almost certainly female. I've put that picture here, and below it there is one of a (definitely) male chicken, note his distinct hackle, saddle, and tail feathers which "Mike" lacks. In addition, males have prominent spurs, but I fail to see any on the headless bird.

Furthermore,
 * "It is not recorded what was eaten for supper that night."

that sounds like an attempt at a joke and I do not think that is desirable.
 * "His crowing, though, was less impressive and consisted of a gurgling sound made in his throat, leaving him unable to crow at dawn.",

Was it that his crow was less impressive, he couldn't crow at all, or is it that his crow was apparently disabled during the early morning hours? (forgive me, now I'm making bad jokes)
 * "Mike also spent his time preening and attempting to peck for food with his neck."

I might believe the first statement, but the second, quite frankly, is silly.

If Mike the Headless Chicken is real (and I'm not saying he's not), this article possesses some inaccuracies. As the Crow Flies (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed the supper sentence and tweaked the other sentences. I would do more except these claims sound like nonsense to me and I just don't like it. —  Reatlas  (talk)  13:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional Photo
Can we add this Image? It provides Information about the everyday life of the rooster.

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/37/3797/NVYIF00Z/poster/bob-landry-mike-the-headless-rooster-being-fed-through-eyedropper-directly-to-his-esophagus.jpg

Source: www.allposters.de/-sp/Mike-the-Headless-Rooster-Being-Fed-Through-Eyedropper-Directly-to-His-Esophagus-Poster_i5312858_.htm

--Jonas Dralle (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It does serve to show that there ARE additional photos and disproves the accusation of photo-shopping made above.CFLeon (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

The Age calculation seems incorrect
I was going through this wiki page and found a little miscalculation in age.

Here is the text: Born	April 1945 Fruita, Colorado, U.S. Died	March 1947 (aged 1) Phoenix, Arizona

- Here, (aged 1) should be (aged 2). I am not able to edit.

Apr-1945 - Mar-1947 = 2 yrs

Please correct this if the DOB & DOD are correct as per the information.

The link for "Mike the Headless Chicken at Life magazine" - is also not working http://time.com/photography/life/curiosities/mike-the-headless-chicken/?iid=lf%7Clatest#1

Thanks Kallol Sarkar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallol.sarkar (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why the heck did you let him live that long!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.67.207.29 (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2018
Chickens are not born, they are hatched. Suggest you change the wording from "born" to "hatched" 110.23.252.137 (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Due to technical reasons, it is not possible to changed this L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request followup, 29 May 2018
It is interesting that you would claim the change could not be made, because it can: Infobox animal has "hatch_name" and "hatch_date" and "hatch_place" fields which will do what we want. I suggest that the "birth_" fields in this article's infobox be converted to "hatch_" fields. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2018
On September 10, 1945, farmer Lloyd Olsen of Fruita, Colorado was planning to eat supper with his mother-in-law and was sent out to the yard by his wife to bring back a chicken. Lloyd knew his mother-in-law would be dining with them and would savor the neck. He positioned his ax precisely, estimating just the right tolerances, to leave a generous neck bone. "It was as important to suck-up to your mother-in-law in the 40's as it is today." . Olsen chose a five-and-a-half-month-old Wyandotte chicken named Mike. The axe removed the bulk of the head, but missed the jugular vein, leaving one ear and most of the brain stem intact.[3][4] Petep44 (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021
the way he died on this page is incorrect he choked on a build-up of fluids and llyod did not have an eyedropper that he usually used to remove any fluid buildups due to mike not being able to swallow. Noonnothooman (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Could the "hoax" nonsense please be excised from this talk-page?
The historical fact of the incident has long been established, and that chickens can run around decapitated isn't even rare, even with the brain-stem entirely gone. They can even 'fly', after the fashion of chickens:
 * youtube: "Chickens fly headless after having heads chopped off part two.AVI Kate Hames"

The only exceptional element about Mike was the curious circumstances of the healing of the wound and the owner's unique interest and skill in feeding the creature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohndanR (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

He or It?
This article is currently inconsistent: it refers to Mike both as "he" and as "it". Sources are also inconsistent: this one uses "he" in para 1 and "it" in para 4 and at end. But it would be good if we had consistency in this article, one way or the other. Pam D  07:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2023
Under the LEGACY section change "Mike the Headless Chicken Day" to "Mike the Headless Chicken Festival" and imbed a link to their website https://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org 65.60.217.209 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Provide secondary reliable source for "Mike the Headless Chicken Day" to "Mike the Headless Chicken Festival" as I could see that the current supporting citation for "Mike the Headless Chicken Day" is a secondary source as supposed to primary source. For that website, we don't link external link in the body as per WP:ELPOINTS.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  05:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike's Fate?
So is it known what happened to Mike's body? Was it preserved in a museum somewhere or eventually did the family have Mike for dinner?CFLeon (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)