Jump to content

Talk:Alcor Life Extension Foundation

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

Policies on sustainment and "thawing"

[edit]

-The article should mention how funding is managed for sustaining clients and how and when the organization decides to "revitrify" its clients. -74.132.209.231 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revitrify? This is the first I have heard of that. (Cardsplayer4life 22:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps it is possible that it can be specificed on a person to person basis? Aristoi 20:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means "unvitrify" or whatever the real term for that is. Bobtheowl2 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.I.

[edit]

-The Sports Illustrated portion doesn't sound very technical or cite what month or article. "some of Williams' DNA was missing", I hope they are not meaning that DNA was removed and now the head is lacking any. Hopefully they mean some quantity of blood or tissue was taken. As for the part about cracking, in the newsletter I get from them that details recent cases cracking/fracturing is unfortunately still common. They even have special microphones "crackphone" to listen for fracturing events that occur below the "glass transition temperature" and then the next line says "Contrary to media reports, fracturing is not a result of mishandling." Bobtheowl2 03:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: 71.160.248.79's cryonics edits

[edit]

Anonymous user 71.160.248.79 tried to revert a reference to a news article suggesting that Alcor personnel had deliberately hastened Ted Williams' death[1], claiming that it's unsupported (which can't seriously be true, since there's a link to the news report). Since 71.160.248.79 has been quite involved in editing pages relating to cryonics, I thought this would be a good time to ask for comments regarding this particular reversion, as well as his other edits on the subject. Bi 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edits and the RfC description (here and on the RFCsci page) are completely unsupported by the article, and patently defamatory. Is it possible that you are acting based on what someone else told you the article said, and did not actually read the article yourself? I can think of no other reason why an erstwhile good editor would make such edits. It is even more remarkable that you would escalate without checking the article. What's going on? 71.160.248.79 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits made by Bi and this RfC created by Bi do not make much sense. The edit claims that Ted Williams was murdered by lethal injection and the support given for this assertion is a newspaper article referring to the investigation of a 1992 murder allegation (unproven) of an AIDS victim. Ted Williams died in 2002 and he was reputedly cryopreserved by Alcor. There have been many complaints about Ted Williams becoming a cryonics patient, but this is the first time I have heard it claimed that Ted Williams was murdered, or that there was suspicion of murder. Wikipedia should not be used to spread unsupported allegations or misinformation. --GirlForLife 22:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71.160.248.79's `rebuttal' contains no facts whatsoever.
As for GirlForLife: what? You've not heard of the murder suspicion before, so the murder suspicion doesn't exist? My edit didn't say Williams was murdered; it said that Williams was suspected to be murdered. And the suspicion indeed exists. What's wrong with reporting precisely that? Bi 08:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I defy you to quote a single line from the news article you cited which says that there is a suspicion that Ted Williams was murdered. Ted Williams and his 2002 death is mentioned, and a description is made of a suspicion of murder in a 1992 AIDS case. You are inventing a suspicion of murder. That is fabricating a rumor, and is unencyclopedic. --GirlForLife 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur with GirlForLife here. I went to the cited article, and it doesn't mention anything about Ted Williams being murdered. It is a completely different person they are talking about in that article. (Cardsplayer4life 21:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I've fixed that. Bi 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cost of preservation

[edit]

Hi, is someone able to write about the cost linked to cryopreservation? would be interesting. --Ernie 76 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the general fee that customers pay for the service of being cryonically preserved is definitely germane, and something that should be added to this article if it is to be considered properly encyclopedic. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 6??

[edit]

Reference 6 seems to be missing. Does anyone know what this was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.193.126 (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does Alcor preserve pets?

[edit]

I think this is an interesting question for people who consider to get their pets into suspension. So does anyone know that? H3iu.87xW.k44r.0H3d (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Alcor only preserves pets for its Members who have made full cryopreservation arrangements for themselves, on the theory that a pet should not be isolated from its master. By contrast, the Cryonics Institute preserves pets for any Member who has at least paid one full year of Yearly Membership dues, whether or not arrangements have been made for themselves. Very often people have their pets die before they have had time to make arrangements for themselves. Sometimes people want their pets to have future life whether or not they make arrangements for themselves. --Ben Best 13:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then i would suggest to insert this into the article. I also found a blog entry from November 15, 2007. At this time, Alcor had 33 pets in suspension. H3iu.87xW.k44r.0H3d 14:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useful RS reference

[edit]

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/newsfocus/909474-the-cryonic-man-how-alcor-life-extension-preserves-your-dead-body MaxPont (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Alcor Life Extension Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alcor Life Extension Foundation. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 09:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power

[edit]

To add to this article: how does this company keep its freezers going when there is a power blackout? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they keep a little Honda generator in the shed out the back. -Roxy the dog. wooF 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like an advertisement

[edit]

Advertisement 208.180.93.146 (talk) 06:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Bon Courage removed my original edit with the explanation: "Seems off-topic / coatrackish". I don't agree and I have reinstated the content changing the section heading to "In fiction and popular culture". A novel based on Alcor by a notable writer and scientist does not appear to be off-topic to me. The reference used is solid (Los Angeles Time) and very relevant to the article (Cryonics is discussed in length and Alcor is mentioned directly). Furthermore, Benford's association with Alcor appears to be important to the company, from the long and detailed member profile page (used as source as well).

I've also included another reference to Alcor in literature, a novella by Greg Bear. The source (printed) is the author's introduction to the story in which he directly talks about Alcor as the inspiration for this work.

I think Alcor's impact in fiction is quite relevant. If my edit needed some work I would have appreciated the help in improving the writing and/or material, instead of outright removal. Alan Islas (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper is a reasonable source. The others aren't. But the newspaper only mentions Alcor once in passing and does nothing to expand our encyclopedic understanding of the organisation. Bon courage (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your initial explanation for removing this content was "Seems off-topic / coatrackish". I contend that is not and I have not seen an strong argument on your part supporting your reasoning, only a fast second reversion and the comments above. Including a section about the topic's impact in popular culture or the arts is relevant and has broad precedent, see WP:IPC. It is also not "coatrakish". From WP:COATRACK: "Material that is supported by a reliable, published source whose topic is directly related to the topic of the article, is not using the article as a coatrack.".
The material you removed is about two works of fiction by notable authors based on Alcor or at least inspired by the organization. One of them, Benford, is also a scientist associated with the organization. From Benford's extensive member profile on the Alcor website it appears to me that the foundation considers this association important.
Finally, you wrote that two of the three sources I included are not reasonable. One of them is from Alcor's website (Benford's member profile mentioned above) and I think the usage is consistent with WP:PRIMARY. The other is a printed source, a published short story collection by Greg Bear, specifically the author's introduction to Heads, where he directly talks about Alcor and his motivation to write this story. How is this source not reasonable? Alan Islas (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles need to be based on secondary sources. Also good to avoid the WP:ARSEHOLES problem. In short, what are independent, secondary sources saying about Alcor in fiction? We can't just have "In 1990, Benford's friend and fellow science fiction writer Greg Bear published Heads, a novella set in a Lunar colony and in part inspired by Alcor" which, without any source, just seems like WP:OR. Bon courage (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source, which you don't deem acceptable. Anyway, I find your approach to be dismissive and not conducive to collaboration. I don't want to spend more of my limited WP time on this. I'll submit a request for a third opinion and move on from this article. Alan Islas (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the time of another editor kindly providing a Third Opinion is also valuable. However, from the discussion so far I have strong doubts that a resolution can be reached without the input from another editor. The help will be very much appreciated. Alan Islas (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]
Response to third opinion request:
I actually feel that all the sources that Alan Islas provided in the section are reliable. That said, I ultimately agree with Bon Courage that the section feels like a coatrack for Mr. Benford because despite his separate notability, including him there feels like giving shine to a random board member, especially because he hadn't been mentioned in the article at all except for in that section; in addition, "in fiction" is kind of used in the wrong sense there. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 02:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks @Erpert for looking into this and your feedback. Alan Islas (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alcor_Life_Extension_Foundation&oldid=1250876235"