Talk:Experiments in the Revival of Organisms

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JessicaLynn13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Sorry, but this film is an obvious fake based around loose facts and it needs a major editing (when I get a chance). It uses basic scientific facts - like real work with a heart-lung machine and then leaps into science fiction - like completely draining the blood of a dog and then re-filling the dog like his vascular system is a simple bottle.

Science is built upon the premise that people both are prone to mistake and capable outright lying (sometimes convincingly) for no apparent reason. Because these “experiments” have not and can not be reproduced by a 3rd party, and any “scientific” notes on the “experiments” are lost, and they defy basic anatomy and the laws of physics, this movie must be regarded as fiction.

When a vascular system is drained of blood, it collapses. As a result it is impossible to re-introduce blood as is shown in these “experiments”. If there is any hope of succeeding as they purport to do, this is one of the many complications that render these “procedures” fiction.

Simply by knowing some scientific possibility and staging a movie around it does not in and of itself replace actual science and actual fact. Thus, though we know building an interstellar space ship is physically possible, we would hardly argue that StarTrek is “fact” or anything close to actual science. This film has no more credibility than any episode of StarTrek (ref. Spock’s Brain).

--Riluve 00:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The alterations you suggest should be fairly easy; you just need to revert some of the changes that were made almost a year ago "to remove bias" (see below). This article was half decent before these changes were made, but I think the reversions should be made by someone who'll not be accused of vandalism by default. [anonymous]
I was the one responsible for the major edits roughly a year ago. They were the result of a large research effort, as the original article sourced almost nothing. The current state of the article was arrived at after not only online fact checking, but also contact with Bryukhonenko's archivists in Russia. But perhaps the most important research came from digging through university libraries - I would urge any editors to do the same, as this experiment and others like it are extensively documented in medical texts on the history of transfusion and transplantation. Far from being lost, details of early transplantation experiments are readily available, and any claim to the contrary demonstrates a lack of actual investigation. That said, I believe the current article reflects a neutral point of view, voicing the valid concerns of those who claim the film is fraudulent, while at the same time detailing those circumstances which can be verified.
--72.144.174.154 06:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A layman's question: if for 70 years we have been capable of keeping alive a severed dog's head, shouldn't we have head transplants by now? There must be lots of terminal conditions in which the head is still perfectly healthy and can be transplanted on top of a brain-dead donor's body, if the technique documented by this film is genuine wouldn't you expect that by now it would have been perfected so as to be used to save lives?--84.108.212.141 (talk) 07:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and also think it´s fake. There is no reliable scientific source or documentation that proof the authenticity of the experiments. If you read the articel, you get the impression everything in this movie is undoubted reality, which it isn´t. There is a discussion about the authenticity. IMO there has to be at least an advice like "The authenticity of the experiments shown is controversial." --Foozy7 (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 25, 2006 Edits[edit]

I have edited the article to remove bias and add more information about the experiment. I have moved criticism of the film's veracity from the summary to the new "Fact or Fiction" section, which also includes scientific evidence supporting Bryukhonenko's work. I have added 3 public domain pictures - a still from the film, a patent diagram, and a rare and less glamorous view of the procedure. Lastly, I have expanded the links section from one link to seven.

--24.92.139.189 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think saying it publicly will be a cause of something[edit]

Like mentally-deranged people try to do it in home? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.46.74.98 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we cant apply "dont put beans in your nose" on everything that is inherently dangerous (or simply very, very, VERY wrong) to perform. 95.109.102.252 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerking Head[edit]

"Also, the head jerks and moves at some moments, which would be impossible without the neck muscles attached to the torso and spinal bones."

I disagree with this sentence. A head has a jaw, and moving this jaw would make the head move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.2.157.208 (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to have the fact that this debate exists in the article, but the "source" for the "fact" that it's impossible looks very untrustworthy to me (based on the unscientific language used in the article itself and the fact that it just references the Wikipedia page)... Can we find a better source for that? CherepaxaDeMuerte (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fact or Fiction[edit]

Anybody else notices it now says absolutely nothing about it being fact or fiction?

Should consider changing the name or add something stating the controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.63.21.202 (talk) 08:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section still says nothing about what the controversy was... 70.39.231.189 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FACT and Fiction[edit]

The film itself most likely was developed as a demostration piece for the actual medical procedures that took several hours. The experiments did indeed occur. Here is a site with some great links an dinfo explaining how it was done. http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=109;t=000769;p=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.221.177 (talk) 01:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Experime1940.ogv to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Experime1940.ogv will be appearing as picture of the day on June 15, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Experiments in the Revival of Organisms is a controversial 1940 motion picture that documents ostensible Soviet research into the resuscitation of clinically dead organisms, mostly dogs. Narrated in English by J. B. S. Haldane, the film credits Sergei Brukhonenko with the operations.Film: Techfilm Studio, Moscow
Archive – More featured pictures...

Peer Review and Wikipedia MEDRS[edit]

How many times does this experiment need to be repeated for it to be considered real according to wikipedia? In order to meet wikipedia MEDRS standards wouldn't multiple dogs need to be decapitated every five years or else it can't be used as a credible reference? Also why is this not part of wikipedia project medicine, it's clearly a medical topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't medicine, it's film criticism. That overbearing guideline is trouble wherever it shows up, but certainly decapitating dogs is no part of accepted medical practice! Wnt (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed part of medical history! The autojektor was a primitive heart-lung machine, the history of which is a fascinating one. The history of medicine is filled with experiments like this, things we now take for granted, such as organ transplantation, the heart-lung machine, blood transfusions, yes even surgery it self was pioneered by invasive procedures done on animals. The only controversy here is the authenticity of the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.158.21 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Experiments in the Revival of Organisms. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture[edit]

In the popular culture section, should that much have been removed? It seems like it was stripped of everything that made that section. I feel that instead of removing everything, we should instead keep things that directly include or reference segments from the film. GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If this is not challenged by the end of the day (about 9 PM CST), I'm going to edit the page accordingly. GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content you should only include segments that are relevant and verifiable. Quote: ""In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject."
Here are my rationales for the removals for each one.
- TF2: AFAIK no reliable source says the outfit was inspired by this specific film. It seems highly likely but seems to border on original research. Did any people who worked on TF2 say that it was based on this film specifically? If so, that can stay, but I couldn't find any instance of that outside of the TF2 wiki (not reliable)
- That Hideous Strength: Unsourced and unspecific. From how it's described, likely also a passing mention.
- Bloodline: Unsourced and unspecific reference to a book that does not have a page. How much of the plot is based on it? Did he say it was based on it or is this original research? Is it remarked upon in any sources? As far as I can tell, no.
- The Paper Chase: Questionably notable band, sourced to music video.
- Marble Hornets: Notable series, but using a few frames of it is not more than a passing mention.
- William and Mary: Passing mention that doesn't even name the film, not remarked upon elsewhere as far as I can tell.
In my opinion the ones already in the article are still pretty extraneous (especially the Lemon Demon one), but at least they're more direct/notable than "it was mentioned once" PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
u rite GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i think i was just butthurt abt the marble hornets one bein removed. i fuckin love that series
ur explanations make sense to me tho so i will not push further GordonFreeman1997 (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries I get it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

to do[edit]

  • expand on production
  • expand on showings/reactions to it
  • make synopsis clearer/better cited
  • expand on medical legacy

PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Experiments_in_the_Revival_of_Organisms&oldid=1207417261"