Talk:Cryonics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Quackery or not

It says "It is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community and has been characterised as quackery.[3]" but it has also been characterised as not quackery I think? (Scientific Justification for Cryonics - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321197). So what's correct here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I have had long discussions with a new editor regarding this article. I've encouraged them to move the discussion here in an attempt to get consensus for description of the subject, which currently appears to be that cryonics is pseudoscience. The word 'quackery' does appear in the lede, a strong indication that the subject is negatively viewed by mainstream medicine. Is this too strong? There are peer-reviewed articles which discuss how cryonics may one day be reversed. Contrast this with acupuncture, which will have hundreds of peer-reviewed articles supporting it as a viable treatment - even though there has never been a documentation of the invisible meridian lines which acupuncture needles supposedly adjust the "flow". While clearly labeled as a pseudoscience, it's not labelled quackery, which is a very negative description.

I am not bonded to this article, but would advocate that it continues to indicate that mainstream science and medicine views it with skepticism. At least until the first "patient" is revived. But, it may be too strong to label it as quackery. Ifnord (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ifnord, rather agree with you here, that's a fair assessment.

Indeed, "quackery" is way too strong, and emotional too. To use it as you say in the lede colours the readers perception of the rest of the article as well. Let's consider something more neutral in that position?

FWIW I actually don't believe it's pseudoscience either. Clearly cryopreservation of humans with clinical intent may be ill-advised medically speaking and the procedures deeply inadequate, but that doesn't make it pseudoscience, but more 'pseudo-medicine' :) or at best, 'heroic measures' see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_measure

Indications of mainstream sci-med scepticism can remain, agreed, but they need a better reference than a single instance of a non-peer reviewed popular book as appears to be the case at the moment.

Theodorus75 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's quackery. There's no credible reason to moderate the description - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Quackery is the promotion of fraudulent or ignorant medicine. Other than a single reference in the article, published over 25 years ago, I see no evidence of fraud or ignorance. Ifnord (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Ifnord, it's clearly not quackery. Too allay possible fears of misrepresentation though, may I suggest an expansion of the section 'Obstacles to success' if 'quackery' was removed? I feel that's a reasonable balance - Theodorus75 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The lead only says that it's been characterized as quackery, so even if it had been proven scientifically, the wording would still be accurate. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Quite :) It's also, rather robustly and credibly, been characterised as NOT quackery too. So which is it? - Theodorus75 (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Additional note: The 'quackery' statement includes "It is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community.." but then no evidence is offered in support of this (yes, I feel it is true too, but it needs evidence). The single reference in the article, published over 25 years ago as Ifnord describes is clearly not sufficient evidence of that. So this may be extra reason to support a proposal to remove it. - Theodorus75 (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's accurate to say it 'has been characterized' that way, in some sources, I'm just not sure it's appropriate in terms of WP:NPOV to have this in the lede. The word is prejudicial, and could encourage a prejudicial reading. It does make sense to inform people who are new to the topic about the harsh criticism it has received, including wording used, but this is not necessarily as the first thing they should hear about it. Lsparrish (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

An additional problem is that the source only condemns the marketing of cryonics as quackery, not the entire field/endeavor, and only insofar as it remains an unproven method. A broad label of quackery to the entire field is not supported by this source. Moreover, anti-quackery activist William T. Jarvis was not a neuroscientist or cryobiologist, so his qualifications on the matter would not necessarily sufficient to be authoritative on this matter. His PhD was in Health Education, and his emphasis was on the deceptive (intentional or not) promotion of health remedies as an alternative or complement to standard medicine. Given that the alternative to cryonics is mortuary in nature, I'm not sure what would make this qualify as quackery, unless he is comparing it to a hypothetical standard (as Kenneth Hayworth of the Brain Preservation Foundation does). Lsparrish (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Good points Lsparrish. I've actually also taken a look at that book reference. The author is/was a nutritionist. And the book itself appears to be a spittle flecked diatribe (please excuse the humorous characterisation, it's still accurate :) ) against anything the author considers 'alternative'. Cryonics is a short paragraph, just before an attack on 'crystal healing'. So not evidence of skepticism within the mainstream scientific community and yes, characterised as quackery but by someone making a living out of doing so. Not really good enough. Dubious or something should be re-added until we reach a consensus on this. - Theodorus75 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed 'quackery' from the lede. I think broad consensus is that this remains a fringe subject but labeling it a fraud in the lede would require a much better source than what was originally there. Ifnord (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the statement that it is characterised as "quackery", and added multiple cites to WP:RSes substantiating this; I think this is sufficient to state that it is widely characterised as "quackery".

Note that the statement does not need to fit spurious requirements of particular qualifications; to be accurate, we only need a wide range of characterisations as "quackery". I have supplied these. I have no doubt I can find more in RSes, if five aren't enough. The description is very negative, but it is also unambiguously a widely-held characterisation.

I've also asked at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Is_cryonics_"quackery"? for more eyes on this particular question - David Gerard (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No issue with it, it does not say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It's sourced. And it's not unreasonable or deceptive. ("Quackery" is selling dubious medical treatments to the general public.)

The Quackery article makes it clear that Quacks don't necessarily have bad faith. You can be both a Quack and a true believer.

It's true that "quackery" doesn't apply to pure research, only to treatments that are bought-and-sold, but it's my understanding of Cyronics that it's mostly a business and not a field of scientific endeavor. It's untestable as science because it relies on hopes and dreams about the capabilities of future generations. ApLundell (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics is closely associated in the popular imagination and in practice to neural cryobiology and brain preservation. These are legitimate scientific endeavors that are likely to be harmed by the use of 'quackery' in such a broad context. Also, I'll note that the sources added by Gerard are relatively frivolous media sources, not the statements of serious cryobiologists or neuroscientists. I think this should not be in the lede, if it merits inclusion in the article at all. Lsparrish (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The opinion of serious cryobiologists is that advocating the practice of cryonics is sufficient reason to be banned from the Society for Cryobiology. Cryonics is frivolous in mainstream scientific terms - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The Society for Cryobiology has a bylaw permitting (not requiring) the expulsion of a member for any conduct deemed detrimental to the society, if there is a two thirds majority vote, including "freezing deceased persons in anticipation of their reanimation". Given that social prejudice is harmful to the society (i.e. they do not want to bear the social stigma of cryonics), there's not necessarily any scientific reason for that. As to the frivolity of neural cryopreservation as a science, it is true that it has few if any applications outside cryonics. However, chemical preservation for scanning is very useful in neuroscience, and there is overlap in brain cryopreservation and other forms of whole organ cryopreservation (the value of which is obvious). I think by perpetuating the use of prejudicial language in this regard, you risk slowing down real science. Lsparrish (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics is mostly not a business, most organisations are formally charitable, in multiple countries, and hence recognised by governments. Governments do not allow the provision of fake medical treatments. Is this evidence that it's not quackery? Scientific research though minimal, is happening. The 'untestable' thing is fascinating. The contention by cryonics supporters is that the clinical trials are ongoing. Which though a bit strange, is actually accurate :). So it's incorrect to say 'it's untestable', it is, but it's a long test. Some 'hopes and dreams' yes but mainly it is projections about the development of biotechnology, neurotechnology, chemical engineering and other disciplines to aid revival. I have briefly examined if the projections could be formalised but have never found anything substantial- Theodorus75 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

No David Gerard :) It's the opinion of some cryobiologists. Others support it, and suggesting they are "not serious" is your opinion. The banning from the Society of Cryobiology is an amazing story, it refers to events now very old, and, anecdotally, if what I suspect is right, an embarrassing episode on the agenda for review. You can read an old account here - https://alcor.org/Library/html/coldwar.html

And not frivolous. Absurdly ambitious, yes, but not frivolous :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Even Alcor's own Cryonics magazine characterises the mainstream opinion as "quack medicine". From Cryonics, 2Q 2011, p10:

The traditional framing of the cryonics debate within the mainstream scientific community has always been set by the cryobiologists: “Until a person can be revived from cryonic suspension the entire practice should be viewed as quack medicine; after all, the person is already dead.”

I can't find another source for that quote - so it seems to be the cryonicists admitting what the mainstream thinks of them.

You seem to be pleading to possibilities, and not to the Reliable Sources. I strongly urge you to reread the Arbcom decision on pseudoscience and fringe science linked at the top of this talk page - David Gerard (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I promise to take a look at some point, I'll rely on your expertise to point stuff out in the meantime... :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why anyone would think that an extremely expensive "medical" procedure being marketed for use on "patients" and which has never ever had a single success would be characterized as anything but quackery. Surely the article should mention the fact that the procedure has never worked? - Nunh-huh 20:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

How do you measure success, to make the claim of failure? Nobody can be revived, reanimated, uploaded, etc. with current technology, but that is within the expected parameters of what is being promised / hoped for. Lsparrish (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It hasn't failed, it just literally has no idea how it would succeed?

But this is treating the talk page as a general forum, not a working area for the article. You have strong views on the subject, and that's fine; but, as you know, if you want those views in the article, you need to produce the reliable sources showing that cryonics is not regarded or characterised as quackery and is scientifically respected before it can go in the article - David Gerard (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I believe my comment was an appropriate response regarding the assumption that if it "worked" we would then have people walking around who have undergone cryonics, or something similarly obvious. Perhaps the article needs some work if it does nothing to correct this misconception. Validation has been weak thus far, and to some degree this is an exercise in speculation. So what? There are decent arguments for and against it actually working at this point. Informed cryonicists consent to the treatment (or is it embalming?) despite being fully aware of this uncertainty.

I have no objection to making a note of the fact that it has been characterized as quackery, but I do think placing that in the lead creates issues because it may encourage a prejudicial reading. Lsparrish (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please refer to this revision for sources characterizing cryonics as quackery. Per WP:OVERCITE they shouldn't be included in the article itself, especially the lead. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Given this is specifically a contentious point, this sort of gratuitous removal of RSes can be reasonably characterised as vandalism. I've put them into a single group cite for now - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulk citing, which I'm usually against, is a good solution here. UpdateNerd (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Really hard to read the refs now :-( on balance don't mind them being separate, it's not like there was a zillion of them or something - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I am rather disappointed that a fellow editor here, David Gerard, despite having been given time to do so has chosen not to respond to legitimate questions about the claim cryonics is 'quackery' and that it is widely characterised as such, and that this claim and characterisation over a multitude of possible others (see elsewhere on this page) should be the one given preeminent status in the lede of this article on cryonics.

And, that despite the wishes of multiple other editors here he has peremptorily and instantly shut down or reverted *any attempt whatsoever* to sensibly modify that bald claim with a cautious note suggesting it is open for discussion, as would befit an objective, neutral, encyclopedia entry on a subject.

Note: a response such as "It's quackery. There's no credible reason to moderate the description" as he has previously made is not good enough.

To repeat, once again:

Where is the evidence that cryonics is *widely* characterised as quackery? Manually selecting references simply claiming this isn't evidence. That requires something like a statistically representative opinion poll etc

Why is this claim being made at all in the lede when cryonics does not meet the majority of the criteria for quackery as described for example in the Britannica article on 'quackery'? nor can it even, arguably *in principle* be medical 'quackery' because it involves the post-mortem body?

Respectfully - Theodorus75 (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard ?? Many thanks - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

literally in the article, it's under one of the blue numbers - David Gerard (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look, apologies for burdening you, I will try and keep up :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Break

(Summoned from FTN) My opinion here might be a surprise to some, but I've always thought of cryonics as primarily speculative, rather than quackery or pseudoscience. There's a fundamental difference present in that the central claim only requires a non-zero chance of success, as opposed to promising miracle cures and so on. Additionally, the rationales are actually based in scientific principles instead of attempting to overturn them, even if overall they're seen as implausible.

I haven't looked at the sources recently, although I did read through many of them a long time ago. There is this article in Science News (which calls it speculative science fiction as opposed to quackery, and it links the idea to existing scientific advances), and chapter 19 of this book published by Springer. There is Best's paper in Rejuvenation Research (which despite the self-citation issues has always seemed like a fairly respectable journal to me, although others may differ), and this paper was written by Alcor but was published by the NYAS. All of those are old; I did a quick search for more recent sources and found this point-counterpoint [1] [2] in the MIT Tech Review, with the case for plausibility signed by a group of four professors across different disciplines (quote: Cryonics deserves open-minded discussion, etc).

Anyways, for the main question: I think there's definitely enough weight to mention it in the lead, but in this case I'm thinking a counterpoint would also be warranted. I'd probably be fine with the descriptor "widely", although I'd prefer to replace the sources from the popular press with better ones. I was actually going to cite Shermer's article (free link) in Scientific American as an example for this, but on looking it up he was actually less negative than I remembered, since despite a lot of important criticism he still calls it "borderlands science". Perhaps a distinction could be made with the marketing or current practice on one hand, and the remote technical possibility on the other.

Finally, as advice for the newer editors in the discussion: in order to support your claims, the best approach is to focus on citing support from academics with expertise in the relevant disciplines. ("Skepticism" is also a valid discipline, since many claims don't attract any attention from mainstream scientists.) Additionally, since even academics can promote fringe viewpoints, that support should occur via a reputable publisher. Then the strength of the sources can be compared and the viewpoints represented in proportion to their prominence. Sunrise (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Good points. What form could that counterpoint take ? - Theodorus75 (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've re-read this. Thank you again Sunrise. "primarily speculative " is a good characterisation. And the refs you give are good too - Theodorus75 (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

There are two matters here:

1. That it is 'widely characterised as quackery'. The cites don't demonstrate that. I can find an equal number of sources saying the opposite. To demonstrate 'widely' would require academic study (e.g. survey).

2. Even if that were true, it does not mean it actually *was* quackery, as people can be mistaken. Cryonics does not meet most of the characteristics of quackery as listed here for example https://www.britannica.com/topic/quackery.

I therefore believe, on balance, it can not be characterised as quackery, and this certainly can not be boldly asserted in the principal lede.

- Theodorus75 (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Re-adding 'dubious' in the meantime because of editor's misinterpretation of sources (or can someone add something more appropriate?) - Theodorus75 (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

And removing again, as another editor has removed it again. You're now trying to edit-war advocacy for unsupported pseudoscience into the article - David Gerard (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"I can find an equal number of sources saying the opposite." Mainstream WP:RSes? I have already suggested here on this talk page that such sources need to be produced, not just alluded to - David Gerard (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know the 3 revert rule :-o, will be careful in future, happy to unrevert or whatever :) anyway chat later, gotta take the cat out for his walk now - Theodorus75 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Where are the studies showing it is 'widely characterised as quackery'? I mean it could be true it is more widely characterised as something else e.g. desperate in which case why pick 'quackery' as the primary character at the top when it could be more widely characterised as something else? how do we know? - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: opposite sources, I think they are WP:RS, if not guess i can find some more that are, it would be nice to have them, balance things up a bit :)

https://www.biostasis.com/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321197

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542601/the-science-surrounding-cryonics/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/what-have-i-got-to-lose-inside-the-world-of-british-cryogenics/

https://philpapers.org/archive/CROICA-2.pdf

I honestly don't feel quackery is correct. I think what folk think about it is much more complicated - Theodorus75 (talk) 12:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

1. is not an RS, it's a primary source. 2. is an extremely questionable transhumanist advocacy journal, not trustworthy as an academic RS. 3. is an advocacy opinion piece from transhumanists. 4. literally says "Scientists remain skeptical of the practice of cryonics" - you've just listed evidence against your claim. 5. appears to be a thesis, not a peer-reviewed RS.

You don't seem to have read and understood WP:RS - these are trivially bad sources for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your sources aren't much better :) I will find some more. Then we can add them.

and "Where are the studies showing it is 'widely characterised as quackery'?" as above? - Theodorus75 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

You claimed it couldn't be substantiated, I substantiated it, now you're coming across as filibustering - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I certainly apologise if it seems I'm filibustering, not my intention at all, I will be "vigilant" to avoid that in the future ;).

OK, I've looked at your comment again above and accept some of your appraisal of the sources I presented. But, putting aside the totally non RS ones, I feel it may inadvertently have been be a tad partisan to not recognise how they do support my position too. Number 4 for example might say "Scientists remain skeptical.." etc but where have they said 'it's quackery"? Remaining sceptical doesn't entail a belief something is quackery! This source characterises cryonics as, I would suggest, "dismal and upsetting" (something I firmly agree with).

What about yours then? 1. Hoppe - wrong 2. Butler - bizarre polemic, non RS (biased / opinionated) 3. Review of a book on cryonics by a proven liar about the subject (successful lawsuit against him for false and defamatory content) 4. Pein - a magazine 'hit piece' (questionable source (rumour / personal opinion etc) 5. Miller - Irrelevant book review you maybe picked because you googled "quackery" "and "cryonics" :) and this popped up (but they are unconnected?) 6. Review of some kind of horror novel which in passing mentions vitamin supplementation and cryonics as quackery (ok then..) 7. Carrol - Another interminable book for amusement on 'scepticism' mentioning UFOs, crystals and cryonics etc

I'm not impressed. Not sure if whether or not they meet Wikipedia standards for cites is relevant or not, but it's basically folk repeating "cryonics / quackery" to sell writing for money possibly because they've heard this so often they think it's true and will titillate people. That's my first point.

Second more important point: it's a biased sample. Doesn't demonstrate 'widely' That needs something like a representative statistical sample, right?

Crucially though, why are we choosing to lead the article on THIS hugely emotive characterisation (i.e. of 'quackery'), true or not, when there are many many other valid or invalid ones, possibly equally 'wide'? I have listed some. We have a duty as Wikipedia editors to present a factual, truthful account of the essence of a subject, in this case cryonics (warts and all!). Not pick a nasty rumour and promote it.

It is not quackery, at almost any level, of course. And the more I research the almost insurmountable negatives in the 'obstacles' section and the agonised thinking of cryonics advocates regarding them, the clearer that becomes.

I do admire your scepticism, but with respect, you have substantiated nothing. It's totally wrong for what is likely to be a primary source of information of this subject for the public to be lead with a quackery allegation.

Many thanks. - Theodorus75 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You need not to hop all over the page when posting. Having found this one, your estimation of sources has already proven sufficiently unreliable that I don't think you've successfully impeached these sources in any way. The next stop would be WP:RSN if you really think you have a case for why RSes shouldn't be considered RSes in this claim - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @David Gerard: :) yes, sorry, no hopping after this I promise. I will take a look at WP:RSN, genuine thanks for that. OK possibly not impeached. But I didn't like them, they're mean and overemotional (Kim Souzza portrayal was bleak and depressing. She deserved better). We need to avoid emotionalism in an Encyclopedia. I will ask more about the Hoppe ref. Quackery is 'offbase'. If we absolutely must say something about 'how it is widely characterised' then for the public it's "oh, Walt-Disney-Got-Frozen yea + looks like a scam against rich folk, but who knows? + wow, science fiction".

And from the scientists / medics? Privately, disdain and but also some grudging admiration. In public if 'put on the spot' and forced to opine, they will say something anodyne and conservative about why it cant work (nearly always correct!). Approximately. NO ONE thinks "MATE, IT'S HEALTH FRAUD!". They don't even think about health because this is about *dead bodies*.

The article can't lead with that. The lead needs to be a wholly neutral expression of some basic facts about cryonics. We can have a full(er) expression of "it's widely characterised as quackery" in a section below, possibly an expansion of the Jarvis bit in 'Reception'. I appeal to your sense of painting a rigorously fair picture on this important topic and avoid slanting not only what people reading the article think about it, but also, what they think other people in general really think about it. - Theodorus75 (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure it can lead with it. It's extensively sourced to RSes that it can lead with that. We would be failing in our duty to the public in not leading with that.

Cryonicists really hate the Pein article, but that's not surprising really.

You're just repeating that you don't like the characterisation, but not making a case why these RSes should be impeached - David Gerard (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

David Gerard my dear chap, you appear to be confused so let me help you out :) As volunteer editors here we have no 'duty to the public' as you say. We do though have a duty to Wikipedia and its work and ethos. And Wikipedia, to REMIND YOU is not some sort of consumer protection agency against quackery or things that Mr Gerard esquire (excellent fellow though he may be) disapproves of. It's an Encyclopedia.

And this Wikipedia article specifically has no role to play in any campaign against 'cryonicists' you may or may not be engaged in (re: your statement "Cryonicists really hate the Pein article, but that's not surprising really"). And I am not simply repeating "I don't like the characterisation". It's you who is repeating "It's quackery..it's quackery" again and again.

I and others have repeatedly given substantial, very good reasons why having that particular claim of quackery / health fraud, in the lede is wrong, both factually (doesn't really meet the criteria), and in terms of bias (it's not neutral having it there).

We have repeatedly tried to inject a note of caution, a proportionate expression of another opinion, which you have summarily deleted.

I have offered reasonable compromises such as a full discussion of the quackery characterisation in the body of the article. You have ignored this and stonewalled.

It's a deliberate choice to bias the article with an accusation of health fraud in the lede. This is wrong - yes, I know you want that :) but it's still wrong.

I hope another attempt can be made to amend, but not by me, I'm too worried about getting sanctioned by Gerard for trying - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I have opened up a dispute thingy, hope someone can help me and David Gerard - Theodorus75 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

... and you have received the response you deserve. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 08:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"opened up a dispute thingy"? - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, found it. That's yet another person telling Theodorus75 that well-sourced science applies here, and that continuing as he is is likely to lead to sanctions. I must note, by the way, that opening a dispute and not bothering to inform the other party is directly against the rules of using that page, clearly written at the top - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I did tell you, I said I opened up a dispute thingy :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I thanked the person there for the advice. I appreciated it. But he did miss the point a bit so I hope we can continue. - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

He said the letter by scientists as a ref wasn't any good, fair enough. But the Technology Review and Telegraph articles above look OK. David Gerard referenced humorous pieces in 'coffee table' magazines found via possibly googling "quackery" and "cryonics". Which is why he has carefully ignored my questions above. - Theodorus75 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The "widely characterized as quackery" statement is supported by only two references, once being from 1992. That far back in history from the first space flight, space flight was considered quackery as well. The lede should mention that no patient has ever been revived, but that's widely known, and no proponents of cryonics claim otherwise, or promise guaranteed resuscitation. Compare that with truly widely-agreed upon examples of quackery, suck as astrology or homeopathy. -- Dandv 22:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

That far back in history from the first space flight, space flight was considered quackery as well

Refresh my memory: what conditions or diseases was space flight supposed to treat? --Calton | Talk 23:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure there's more than two RS refs there - David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Remind me too Calton, what what conditions or diseases is cryonics claiming to treat :) ? - Theodorus75 (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Death, according to this Wikipedia article Cryonics - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that an error David Gerard ? I mean I thought the idea was 'transport the patient into the future' and someone else can do the impossible? :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

What David said. Did you forget, User:Theodorus75? Do you need any other reminders of anything?

Don't be mean :) - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

And as long as we're here, perhaps YOU can explain how predictions of space travel constitute quackery? --Calton | Talk 13:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Who, me? No idea mate - Theodorus75 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics is a fiction technology. so cryonics research is not quackery or even not pseudoscience. Cryopreserved may be reversed, but not use today technology. However, promoting that it is possible to reserve cryonics procedure in future by using today technology procedure is a kind of pseudoscience and quackery. There are peer review article to claim that cryonics may be reverse by using future technology, I mean future technology for storing and freezing, not current technology. Joeccho (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

So, I have now read a good part of the discussion above, but not everything. Looking at the balance of the arguments in favor of and against the terms "quackery" and "pseudo-science", I am very surprised that no compromise has yet been found. Using terms such as "highly speculative", "experiment" and "gamble" would be much more reasonable and accurate. Let's use these terms. As others before me have indicated, it's not a pseudo-science, since cryonicists usually don't claim it to be science. It's an experiment (with a high probability to fail). See also the book (in German) "Unterbrochenes Leben?.: Naturwissenschaftliche und rechtliche Betrachtung der Kryokonservierung von Menschen" or the German Wikipedia version of this article. (User: Nico) 15:05, 02 October 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:C73C:C395:71A2:FFD8:F45:2EA7 (talk)

AE request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Lsparrish Guy (help!) 21:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The real controversy?

Isn't the real quackery issue here because the commercial cryonics outfits siphon huge amounts of money, patient hope, and research effort away from reputable cutting edge research on various forms of suspended animation and resuscitation which have empirical evidence and testing on small mammals behind them, in favor of decapitating humans after death and chemical antifreeze which have no empirical results on mammals of any size? Are there any sources which highlight that tension? The outfits like Alcor are so pernicious because they take money, time, and effort away from the actual cutting edge to provide what is a several million dollar industry based on what is clearly false hope. There is no shortage of amateur hour sources in medical journals which just assume that it might work someday in order to scaffold some exercise in speculative ethics, including the sources being proposed above as WP:MEDRS, which are certainly not. Aren't there any sources which explain what is really going on here? EllenCT (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not so sure cryonics does take resources away from cryobiology - real cryobiology is science with important real-world applications, so gets the sort of funding science gets. The market for cryonics, hence the source of the money, is gullible transhumanists - David Gerard (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What whole-mammal resuscitation research has there been since Alcor started up in the 1970s? EllenCT (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a good question from an ethics perspective. I don't think I've seen any sources evaluating the tradeoffs and plausibility of a scenario where cryonics organizations didn't exist and the result was faster achievement of cryonics-relevant objectives (whole brain being arguably nearer term vs whole body, as you can't have the latter without the former). It could be good to look at who is funding the field of neural cryobiology, or more generally, whole organ cryobiology. If these would be likely to attract more funding and interest without a cryonics movement, that would give at least an internally self consistent utilitarian case for pulling the plug on the whole endeavor. Lsparrish (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

What is your source for suggesting that "you can't have" whole body without whole brain? There are plenty of whole body mammal resuscitation experiments documented. EllenCT (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The mammals that have been preserved as whole body have not been lowered to the vitrification point, so the amount of time they can spend in storage without damage is capped by biological time, including the toxicity of any cryoprotectant used. If you lower to around -135° C, biological time is effectively stopped and viscosity is raised to a point where ice crystals cannot form, which is a superior approach over freezing when it comes to complex tissues. If you have time for a video, I recommend watching Greg Fahy's SocCryo 2013 talk which discusses the challenges of cryopreserving single organs. Also Wowk 2004, gets into why reversible organ preservation is much more likely to happen soon than whole body.

Nobody outside Sci-Fi thinks it's remotely plausible, so the chances of any research in the absence of "Big Corpsicle" seem remote on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at pp. 199-204, "Resuscitation of Supercooled and Frozen Mammals," in Smith, A. U. (Ed.) (1970) Current Trends in Cryobiology doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9933-0. But as I said, after Alcor started their decapitation woo in 1972, nothing more was done with resuscitation, while the rest of medical science marched on. EllenCT (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Guy, the problem with "Big Corpsicle" is the end product. Hollywood has already told us what to do with Zombies. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Fortunate that zombie literature has shifted a bit towards humanizing narratives. 😀 Lsparrish (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

hmm, true. Might be coincidental, of course. I wonder what cryobiologists asked would think (not even asking for RSes here, even just opinions) - most don't seem to talk about cryonics except when it's being a nuisance - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I think they were mortified by the quackery and didn't want to fuel it or be any further associated with such opportunism, as the letter to the editor on p. 205 suggests. EllenCT (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The brain is all that reasonably matters for current day cryonics, in the context of what it actually tries to do. So I would have to take issue with the "decapitation woo" rhetoric and suggest that whole body cryonics (such as exclusively practiced by CI) is much more misleading by its existence, assuming we want to stay focused on the actual scientific and transparency aspects rather than PR effects. In fact, if not for the risk of damage to the brain, it would make more sense to remove it from the head and store the brain by itself (which, in the context of brain banking, the public has no problem with). Lsparrish (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to provide WP:MEDRS sources that describe brain freezing as any more plausible than corpsicles. The only references I can find are in sci-fi. I quite like the We Are Legion (We Are Bob) take. Guy (help!) 16:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I haven't searched the journals for confirmation, but the issue of whole body vs organs was discussed by cryobiology researcher Brian Wowk in a chapter published in "The Scientific Conquest of Death" (2004). Here is a link to a PDF copy, see page 135, or you can read it here as republished on Alcor's website. Here is the relevant section:

Reversible vitrification of major organs is a reasonable prospect within this decade. What about vitrification of whole animals? This is a much more difficult problem. Some organs, such as the kidney and brain, are privileged organs for vitrification because of their high blood flow rate. This allows vitrification chemicals to enter and leave them quickly before there are toxic effects. Most other tissues would not survive the long chemical exposure time required to absorb a sufficient concentration to prevent freezing.

I'd be very interested in anything suggesting that whole body is, somehow, easier to achieve from WP:MEDRS sources. Lsparrish (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the WP:SYN element, you are avoiding the obvious. A brain-dead patient's brain may be in perfect physical health, but the patient is still dead. Guy (help!) 08:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

References

'Has been widely characterized as quackery'

Currently (8-8-19) the article reads "has been widely characterized as quackery" as part of the lede. Multiple low-quality sources were referenced in support of this controversial statement, which are as follows:

• Butler K (1992). A Consumer's Guide to "Alternative" Medicine. Prometheus Books. p. 173.
• Hoppe, Nils (2016-11-18). "Justice Cryogenically Delayed is Justice Denied?". BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics blog. Retrieved 2019-06-24. The mere fact that we feel the promises made by the cryopreservation industry amount to a most grievous form of quackery ...
• Zimmer, Carl; Hamilton, David (October 2007). "Could He Live to 2150?". Best Life. Quack watch: The following controversial treatments are all being touted as antiaging miracle cures.
• Harold Schechter (2 June 2009). The Whole Death Catalog: A Lively Guide to the Bitter End. Random House Publishing Group. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-345-51251-2.
• Pein, Corey (2016-03-08). "Everybody Freeze!". The Baffler. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
• Chiasson, Dan (December 2014). "Heads Will Roll". Harper's Magazine. ISSN 0017-789X. Retrieved 2019-06-24.; Miller, Laura (2012-06-24). ""The Mansion of Happiness": Matters of life and death". Salon. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
• Almond, Steve (2014-02-28). "Sparks of Life". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
• Carroll, Robert Todd (2003). The Skeptics Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. Wiley. ISBN 0471272426. A business based on little more than hope for developments that can be imagined by science is quackery. There is little reason to believe that the promises of cryonics will ever be fulfilled.

The Hoppe quotation is particularly problematic, as it is misleading when viewed in context. This has been discussed elsewhere on this Talk page, and the consensus appears to be that it needs to be removed, which has yet to be accomplished. The rest appear to be primarily media depictions from various highly opinionated non-experts. Such depictions may be particularly nonrepresentative of expert opinion, given the social stigma attached to cryonics at present. Although it seems adequate to say 'characterized by some as quackery', 'widely' gives too much weight to these sources. Therefore, I propose that, in keeping with WP:WEIGHT, the wording should be changed. Lsparrish (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Not liking a source doesn't make it low quality. NYT and Robert Todd Carroll, low-quality? Not in this world. And this is a sky-is-blue statement anyway. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A skeptic dictionary and an opinion piece about life extension that mentions cryonics only in passing? These are under-researched, non-expert opinions. It creates a huge issue of WP: WEIGHT to use them this way, particularly given that the wording has been placed in the lede. Nor is it sky-is-blue. Relatively few people would think to use this particular term, even in expressing skepticism. Lsparrish (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources are fine given the claim is obvious & commonplace. I think we should just WP:ASSERT that cryonics is quackery, since there's apparently no RS disputing it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To WP:ASSERT something, it needs to be fact, not opinion. If your personal opinion is so strongly held as to prevent you from even seeing the distinction, you may wish to take a break from editing this article. And no, it is not common -- the vast majority of criticism of cryonics employs far less extreme and decisive language. My point about WP:UNDUE is valid. Lsparrish (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In Wikipedia terms that which is not disputed in RS is a fact. From RS it seems cryonics is quackery (obviously - it's a fake "medical" thing for which money is charged). Thus we assert it. Alexbrn (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You are really just ignoring the point I made. The quality of sources matters. In this case, the references are very low quality for the strength of the claim being made. Lsparrish (talk) 04:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. We know that organizations charge people money to freeze their brains or bodies in the hope of a future restoration. We also know that no reliable source suggests such restoration is more than hope. Hundreds of articles concern similar pseudoscience and WP:REDFLAG + WP:PARITY apply to all of them. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hope equals pseudoscience? I think that's an obvious overgeneralization. Nor does it make sense to say that allowing people to place a bet on their hope is quackery. The citations given thus far are not reflective of any of the kind of deep thought or scholarship that would be realistically required for a lede placement of this opinion. Lsparrish (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, no matter how many times you repeat yourself - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly frustrating. I know my point is valid, but I see something like 5+ editors who are determined to ignore it. I feel excluded from the prospect of consensus. It looks like a large number of people have entered this article with the idea that cryonics being pseudoscience and quackery is somehow obvious to the degree of not needing significant substantiation beyond a few shallow newspaper quotes relaying personal opinions. I am grateful to see that the Hoppe reference was corrected, at the very least. Lsparrish (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

How do you think the five editors feel about needing to debate a settled issue with someone with a total of 48 edits in 2019, all of them concerned with cryonics? Your first few edits, in June 2015, were also focused on this topic, examples: diff + diff. Experience from editing a wide range of topics helps in understanding standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"I know my point is valid" ... "5+ editors who are determined to ignore it." I'll just note these comments, rather than reply to them. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I get that it's a hassle to deal with inexperienced editors, and I've tried to expand my reach to other articles as well as my understanding of Wikipedia procedure over the years. But I've been careful to restrict my activity here mainly to Talk discussions in an effort to minimize this potential for hassle. Would it really be better if I had edited the article itself during this discussion? Alexbrn and David Gerard, who have expressed strongly hostile opinions, have not been shy in doing so. And my few edits have been reverted quickly with no discussion -- indeed, I was accused of edit warring because I unintentionally went over the 4 revert rule on one occasion, and the primary target of my edits (the Nils Hoppe ref, a settled issue in Talk at that point) went unaddressed for over a month. I feel efforts to make such simple and obvious corrections ought not to take so long or be so fiercely opposed. Today, even the simple addition of a POV tag, which should not be controversial at all at this point, has been reverted, by someone who has yet to even comment on the Talk page. This has been an unbelievably frustrating experience on my side. None of you is forced to participate in this discussion, but presumably you see something valuable in it as I do. It's worth getting this right. Lsparrish (talk) 08:40, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Try reading WP:1AM. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting essay. I'm not sure I agree with it 100%, but it makes some valid points. There are actually a few other editors who share my concerns, so I wouldn't call it a one vs many situation at this point. But it seems we are in the minority, with the majority endorsing open hostility towards, and misrepresentation of cryonics. Lsparrish (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This topic has had problems with WP:SPAs, WP:ADVOCACY and WP:COI-tainted editing. That is never going to overturn WP:CLUEful editing. What you see as "hostility" is just conscientious editors ensuring that Wikipedia takes a respectable, mainstream view of this topic as it must. Bacially, Wikipedia is not going to be pretending cryonics is anything other than a lot of disreputable hooey. If you want to advocate for it, this is not the venue. Alexbrn (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is unashamedly reality-based (see WP:LUNATIC). Cryonics is currently objectively bollocks, and we will not be saying anything else until there are experiments showing successful reanimation of higher animals. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

You are conflating cryonics with a completely different concept. I'll note here that none of the 5+ people have had the expertise to call you out on this. It's fine for you to personally reject the premise of cryonics, but what you are doing here is misrepresenting it, which is different. Successful reanimation of higher mammals would of course be a much more desirable and compelling thing than cryonics, but setting that as the benchmark for whether it's a valid concept or not is akin to expecting videotapes of apes turning into humans as the minimal criteria for believing in evolution. (Apes turning into humans would be a completely different thing from evolution. Just as evolution does not claim apes will turn into humans, cryonics does not claim that higher mammals can be revived.) Lsparrish (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It is sold (you know, for money) as "caring for terminal patients". Pseudoscience and quackery, obviously. Clue: you don't see any real scientists or reputable health organisations seeing it their way. Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Cryonics is well outside the specialization of modern medicine. The situation could have developed to be different with regards to the clinical side, but there are social (stigma/confusion) and economic (1-2 cases per year) reasons it hasn't happened. It also attempts to do something substantially different from medicine, because it is an exercise in applied futurism. Medicine does not predicate its success on speculation about the limits of future technology -- that is only relevant to the funding of research grants. The reason the medical jargon was brought in by the cryonics industry appears to be as a way to differentiate itself from the funerary industry, which is not practiced with the hope of saving the patient's life. The analogy works, as long as you are appropriately aware of its limits. I think that to make a non-specious case for this being quackery, you would need to show that they violate the principle of informed consent by misrepresenting their service as proven to work, not dependent on future technology, etc. In reality, cryonics organizations seem to devote a lot of time and attention to clearing up such misconceptions and clarifying that their work is indeed speculative and contingent on future technology. Lsparrish (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Taking money for woo = obvious quackery, and sources accordingly say so. Our article refects that, not the vacuous hand-waving you argue for. If you want to advocate for cryonics, maybe start a blog or something: here you are just starting to be disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

As a conscientious editor who values reality-based WP:NPOV, I feel I must protest your extreme position on this matter. That being said, I have no desire to advocate for cryonics here. Lsparrish (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Your self-image is out of line with the opinion of other more experienced Wikipedians. Guy (help!) 20:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! I wish to rebut “any real scientists or reputable health organisations seeing it their way”. Example of a “real scientist”: Brian Wowk (his papers). Example of a “reputable health organisation”: HTA Human Tissue Authority (Department of Health and Social Care, UK). mbee (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

When are you going to start Rebutting things? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. The HTA does not describe cryonics as "caring for terminal patients"; it does however describe it is "scientifically unproven". I don't think Wowk uses such a phrase either, even though he is on the Board of Alcor. Alexbrn (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it’s about “caring for terminal patients”. I see. So let’s begin. To rebut refute “no A or B exists” it’s enough to prove there is an A. Here it is: Brian Wowk “Indeed, cryonics (now or ever) is not about preserving dead patients, but about preserving terminal patients.” So looking at HTA is not necessary for the rebuttal, but still interesting. I think cryonics provider agree that cryonics is an experiment in progress. Thus “scientifically unproven” (while certainly not being marketing) does not really contradict their view. The HTA texts about cryonics are good examples of neutral and sober descriptions. I wished the quality of the Wikipedia article could match this. mbee (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your problem here is that the preserved "patients" are all legally and medically dead, with no remotely plausible way to bring them back, and no realistic signs of any progress towards that aim. Guy (help!) 08:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

So you accept the rebuttal? Fine. Agreed, there is no way to bring them back today. But nobody knows about the distant future. Anna Bågenholm was once dead by current medical standards (flat EKG, flat EEG) and is yet alive. However, I do not suggest to call them “patients” in this article, just something neutral like “bodies”. Just using the more optimistic term “patient” does not qualify cryonics to be quackery. mbee (talk) 09:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In the future maybe we could reconstitute people from scraps of fingernail, or photos, or maybe recall their spirits into artificial bodies? All that matters here is that we reflect decent mainstream sources, which say cryonics is quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 09:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a rebuttal. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 10:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I think strictly there has been a rebuttal, but not a refutation (problem with faulty premises). But in any case because WP:NOTFORUM this is all irrelevant here. Are there any more sources bearing directly on the quackery question which might apply to the article content? Alexbrn (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

But that was pathetic, more like hand-waving from behind the walled-garden wall. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I observed how the arguments of SBHarris were ignored (see above) just because they were considered too long (“giant walls of text”). Thus my rebuttal was to the point. However, I do not expect any trolls to understand that. mbee (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but English is not my native language. Looks like I used the wrong word. I meant refutation, not rebuttal. So I proved that your statement is indeed wrong. Anyway, I provided you with a source from a cryobiologist. Which of your sources is from an expert in this field? None, right? mbee (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is repudiation. It's not a rebuttal, much less a refutation. Guy (help!) 20:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Logic isn’t your strong suit, is it? Which part shall I explain to you? mbee (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

And proper use of language isn't yours, so you don't get to be critical. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

The beauty of your words blinds me. Thank you. mbee (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

More relevant voices on the quackery question: “It is easy to dismiss controversial practices such as cryonics and gloss over the research surrounding them, but we should remember and even respect that prevailing views are often shown to be incorrect, and that what is impossible now may be possible in the future. For example, Ignaz Semmelweis, the father of germ theory, was widely ignored when he proposed in the 19th century that nurses and doctors should wash their hands before treating patients. Even today, physicians are frequently incorrect when predicting outcomes in end-of-life situations. Cryonics deserves open-minded discussion, as do mainstream efforts to understand the nature of consciousness, preserve human tissue and organs for life-saving transplants, and rescue critically injured patients by understanding the boundaries between biological life and death.” David W. Crippen is a professor in the Departments of Critical Care Medicine and Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh. Robert J. Shmookler Reis is a professor in the Departments of Geriatrics, Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, and Pharmacology/ Toxicology at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. (source) mbee (talk) 10:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This highlights exactly the problem with your argument. The cautious source you propose does not rebut the fact that it is "widely condemned as quackery". What you are doing is arguing that X source is cautiously supportive, therefore you don't think it is quackery, therefore it is not characterised as quackery. That is a very normal misunderstanding among inexperienced users of Wikipedia who have an ideological commitment to something generally considered to be nonsense. You need to show that it's not widely characterised as quackery (i.e. that the scientific consensus has changed), not that some dispute that it is quackery, based on a source that does not even use the word. Do you see how that works? Guy (help!) 11:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

My point is: I cite relevant sources (cryobiologist, critical care professor, biochemistry and toxicology professor) that are “recautiously” supportive whereas your sources (from non-scientists or scientists who are not working in relevant fields) are irrelevant. The voices of those experts should be reflected in the article, not just public intuition which you confuse with scientific evidence. mbee (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not relevant. Calling for "open minded discussion" is not an endorsement of doing this stuff (pseudoscience), and charging for it (quackery). Our sources are fine. Alexbrn (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Scientifically unproven" is a good description. Let's go with that. Unlike "quackery", it does not WP:MORALIZE unduly or confound the issue. Lsparrish (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed! mbee (talk) 05:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

No. "Scientifically unproven" is typical quack-speak to imply that a breakthrough is just around the corner and those who have spent a large chunk of their estate on being frozen will soon be celebrating after restoration. Wikipedia does not obfuscate core information—there is no possibility that someone frozen this year will be restored—those promoting cryonics are promoting quackery. Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So you’re accusing the Human Tissue Authority of using quack-speak. Wow. Also nowadays cryonics is about vitrification, not freezing. mbee (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Just saying "scientifically unproven" would be a kind of dishonesty by omission. We need to be clear that it is generally thought that cryopreserving an entire body would be too complex for cryonics to be successful. Alexbrn (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

“"scientifically unproven" would be a kind of dishonesty by omission” implicates the HTA to be dishonest, does it not? mbee (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't understand. WP:CIR. Alexbrn (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, please? mbee (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

So you’re accusing the Human Tissue Authority of using quack-speak

And you're putting words in his mouth, which is not a good start. --Calton | Talk 07:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for that. So do you think “scientifically unproven” is quack-speak on those HTA pages? And if not, why do you think “scientifically unproven” is typical quack-speak if used in Wikipedia but not so on the pages of the Human Tissue Authority? mbee (talk) 20:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

To repeat, with emphasis: Just saying "scientifically unproven" would be a kind of dishonesty by omission. We need to be clear that it is generally thought that cryopreserving an entire body would be too complex for cryonics to be successful. (note emphasis: we cannot WP:CHERRYPICK wording out of sources in a way which misrepresents them). Please pay closer attention. Alexbrn (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2019

Change "His body was frozen by Robert Nelson, a former TV repairman with no scientific background" to "His body was preserved by Robert Prehoda (author of the 1969 book Suspended Animation), Dr. Dante Brunol (physician and biophysicist) and Robert Nelson (President of the Cryonics Society of California", since the former sentense ignores the involvment of the other men, and also doesn't take into account the fact of Robert Nelson as President of Cryonics Society of California. Veehmot (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Partly done I have shuffled the text around as what we had failed WP:V and there was some copy/paste from the source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

Change "Cryonics proponents go further than the mainstream consensus in saying that the brain does not have to be continuously active to survive or retain memory." to "Cryonics proponents note that the brain does not have to be continuously active to survive or retain memory." The original implication is unsupported by citations, and there are multiple published falsifying cases. Here are some citations: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19818943, https://www.wired.com/2006/09/brainshock/ . MironC (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Your first cite doesn't back the claim of memory preservation at all, do you have the medical RSes on the second? It's not clear you understand the claim you're disputing - David Gerard (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

MironC, That's a novel synthesis from primary sources. Guy (help!) 08:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Lede reads like an attack on cryonics

Lede references gory & violent imagery, claims of pseudoscience, alleged skepticism within the mainstream scientific community and an unproven extent of characterisation as "quackery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theodorus75 (talk • contribs)

An neutral assessment may perturb a supporter of a person, group or concept. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to be hostile to all fringe science topics. It would otherwise be overrun by enthusiastic supporters. They just don't explain that very well, sometimes. So no, it's not neutral, but that's ok.JordanSparks (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

This page is in a very different state than I remember it from a few years ago. I was surprised. I suggest that, if others are equally surprised, that you resist the urge to edit and instead study the Wikipedia guidelines. For example, Wikipedia:Fringe theories, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (feel free to suggest more resources) Since this page is clearly more contentious than a few years ago, it's important that edits are made that adhere to the rules. Editors with many years of experience will have a clear advantage in knowing what those rules are, which means that this page will lean in a very different direction than it used to.JordanSparks (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what your point is? -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My point is that there are a lot of new inflammatory, pejorative, and unscientific terms such as "corpse", "severed head", "cadaver", "resurrection", and "penis". None of those words are appropriate, but it looks like we may have to live with them because there is enough hostility and bias that we cannot overcome it. There are perfectly good neutral ways of describing the issues, even while still pointedly calling cryonics a fringe theory, but that's not going to happen here. I'm trying to prevent edit wars and I'm trying to come to terms with the unfairness of it all. It's very complicated to edit a page that has become contentious. This is not obvious to some people. JordanSparks (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

According to the reliable sources we use the cryonics companies charge to store corpses and severed heads (and, yes, penises). So Wikipedia says so too. That is what neutrality is. Alexbrn (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Jordansparks, these terms appear to be both scientifically correct and well supported. Guy (help!) 22:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Except the sources simply do not say that. Out of the 14 instances of "corpse" on this page, only about 4 are actually supported by references. Wikipedia is supposed to accurately reflect the references, not the editor biases. It's much more common for the sources to simply say bodies. JordanSparks (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Being faithfully to sources does not necessarily mean copy and pasting exact words. The sane sources inform us the bodies are unequivocally and irreversibly dead, so we have to be clear they are corpses (and avoid buying into the cryonics scam whereby this is glossed over or denied). WP:NPOV is core policy folks. We could equally well say "dead bodies" if people like extra syllables and letters. This has been discussed ad nauseam before. Alexbrn (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just reviewed some of the edits from the following users: 40,000 Alexbrn, 157,000 David Gerard, 126,000 JzG, 22,000 Roxy the dog, etc. Not only are there a very impressive number of edits, but I am really very thankful for the tireless work they all do to counter the enthusiastic fringe science supporters. Taken in that context, their insistence on "corpse" over "body" is entirely understandable, and I'll just back off. I really would prefer that Wikipedia lean hostile toward all fringe science topics (there are SO many). It makes the world a better place, overall. JordanSparks (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Policy is not to be "hostile" to fringe science, but pseudoscience and quackery must be presented from a reality-based perspective. WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL are part of WP:NPOV. Alexbrn (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course it's hostile. Here's the most reliable secondary source in existence: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/541311/the-false-science-of-cryonics/ It's scathing, it's current, it's from a scientist, etc. Dr. Hendricks is talking in plain English from a reality-based perspective. He calls cryonics "snake oil" and says we deserve his anger and contempt. But you know what he doesn't do? He doesn't talk about corpses or severed heads. That's not professional or neutral. That's hostility. I'm ok with it, but I object to the denial. JordanSparks (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Tough. Deal with it. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

And in fact the Cryonics Society say the cryonics companies freeze "cadavers". That is the mainstream take that Wikipedia likes to follow. Alexbrn (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Cherry picking. The same paper uses "body" twice and "adult mammal" once. Your ratios are way off, and it's still not "corpse". The exaggeration demonstrates bias. Admins crow about having bias against pseudoscience. Bias and hostility aren't necessarily bad. JordanSparks (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no policy on "ratios" - we align to the view of the sane, respectable mainstream - not the quacks, loons & fraudsters doing this stuff. Only the marketers call the corpses "patients" - though there are various other legitimate verbose synonyms: but why say "dead body" when "corpse" is less wordy? Maybe read WP:GOODBIAS too. Anyway, in lieu of any useful proposals I suggest we are done here. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

There is so a policy on ratios from good sources like this one. It's called WP:WEIGHT. Those 4 terms all came from the same good source which means you would normally align with that ratio. But what you're saying is that the WP:GOODBIAS overrules all the normal rules in the case of pseudoscience, and that exaggeration is encouraged. JordanSparks (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is appropriate. To repeat: we align to the view of the sane, respectable mainstream - not the quacks, loons & fraudsters doing this stuff. No decent source disputes that these are corpses (or some synonymous term). We sometimes day "dead body" or "cadaver" too for variation. What we are not going to do is user the dishonest brochure terms like "people" or "patients". Alexbrn (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The mainstream sources overwhelmingly simply say "body", not "dead body", "cadaver", or "corpse". It's confusing to people that you are allowed to violate basic WP:NPOV by substituting an agenda-laden word for the original term. This would not be allowed on most pages. It's especially confusing to people that you keep insisting you are aligning to the sources when you're obviously not. I'm only talking about the good quality mainstream sources here. JordanSparks (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggested once before that we use the word “stiffs” but the idea didn’t gain any traction. See what you get, naysayers. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

The current 'Reception' section is well written however currently incomplete. The research of several very prominant phiolosophers and scientific researchers have not been included. Including Prof Nick Bostrom, Prof Anders Sandberg, Ray Kruzweil, Dr Aubrey de Grey who are generally supportive to cryonics often citing a modified form of Pascals wager, or Prof Clive Cohen and Prof Nils Hoppe who are skeptical to premise of cryonics. .

Therefore I would like to open the discussion to consider significant additions to the Reception section to include the opinions of the aforementioned individuals. Beginning, as a starting point, with the listed references. Due to the controversey surrounding this topic, I would also propose any additional references be cited from prominent and well known sources not known to peddle pseudoscientific topics or quackery.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

References

 Not done Please only use this template after consensus has been established for an edit, per its usage instructions. Alexbrn (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Understood, moving discussion to another thread on the talk page. 12usn12 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

As a sci-fi fan, I prefer corpsicle, obviously. Guy (help!) 19:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

As a sci-fi fan I wholeheartedly support your proposal. 12usn12 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additions to the Reception section.

The current 'Reception' section is well written however currently incomplete. The research of several very prominant phiolosophers and scientific researchers have not been included. Including Prof Nick Bostrom, Prof Anders Sandberg, Ray Kruzweil, Dr Aubrey de Grey who are generally supportive to cryonics often citing a modified form of Pascals wager, or Prof Clive Cohen and Prof Nils Hoppe who are skeptical to premise of cryonics. . 12usn12 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Therefore I would like to open the discussion to consider significant additions to the Reception section to include the opinions of the aforementioned individuals. Beginning, as a starting point, with the listed references. Due to the controversey surrounding this topic, I would also propose any additional references be cited from prominent and well known sources not known to peddle pseudoscientific topics or quackery. 12usn12 (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

References

De Grey basically sells this bullshit, so his opinioin is not reliable. Guy (help!) 16:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think it may be possible to add to the list of people who've booked decided to have their corpses frozen for larks, but the way it was done was WP:PROFRINGE making it seem like there was some kind of scientific endorsement in play. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we could have a section of notable people who have decided to take part in cryonics without giving the presentation that there is a scientific endorsement for cryogenics as a whole. Of course, for scientific endorsement we would need peer reviewed academic articles published in reliable journals! I believe Dr De Grey sells a different kind of snake oil through his 'SENS' foundation which is not specifically cryonics. 12usn12 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I have made a separate discussion considering an addition to the Notable People section below, any thoughts here are appreciated. 12usn12 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional Notable People

I recently made an addition to the 'Notable People' section of the wikipedia article. I was very careful to use prominent and noteworthy sources, in particular The Independent and Financial Times which have direct quotes from the notable people in question:

Professor of Philosopy at Oxford University, Nick Bostrom is a supporter of cryonics and has made arrangements to be cryogenically preserved after death . Additional proponents who have also made arrangements for cryogenic preservation include: Professors Anders Sandberg and Stuart Armstrong fellows of research at the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, Dr Aubrey de Grey Chief Science Officer at the SENS Research Foundation and doctoral alumni of Cambridge University, Paypal cofounder and venture capitalist Peter Thiel, and Google director of engineering Ray Kurzweil .

Does the community have any advice on how I can re-write my edit to avoid the WP:V issue which was cited when my addition was reverted? I have found a few additional sources which are closer to the notable people in question, for example from the personal blog of Prof Nick Bostrom , would such a source be valid under the WP:V criteria? Perhaps I could balance my edit by including some notable people who disagree with the concept of cryonics on scientific or philosophical grounds?

The thoughts of the more experienced editors who have carefully curated the page over the last few years would be much appreciated here (Alexbrn).

References

The Bostrom source is self-published so no thanks. You cited the Independent article twice. The similarity between this and the Mail article suggests these are based on PR from Alcor - churnalism, basically. The FT article also draws heavily on Alcor, whose site at least looks more sciencey than KrioRus I guess, but it doesn't mention asny of the people you list. De Grey is part of a crank group so we should ignore him. Guy (help!) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but if I could kindly ask you to regulate your tone? I'm just trying to help out and improve the wikipedia article. Im simply trying to add a list of notable people who are part of the 'cryonics pact', this is a factual addition to the article. My intention is not to legitimise cryonics as a scientific concept, thoughts appreciated! 12usn12 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I should expand on my earlier statement My intention is not to legitimise cryonics as a scientific concept, not only is this not my intention, my proposed edit is entirely factual in nature too (see above) 12usn12 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The proposed edit is problematic because there is no source saying Bostrom is a "supporter" of cryonics or that the others are "proponents". We don't usual sprinkle WP:HONORIFICs around and they have the effect here of making it look like Wikipedia is trying to big up the credentials of folk who've paid for a berth for their body in the cyro-freezer. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

12usn12, for some values of factual, as Alex notes. Guy (help!) 17:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, I am fairly new as an editor wikipedia so not entirely confident with making changes. Your thoughts on the following addition to the 'Notable People' section would be appreciated:

Many individuals have made arrangements with cryonics company Alcor to be cryogenically preserved after death, including: phiolosophers Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg, biomedical gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, venture capitalist and Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel, and Google director of engineering Ray Kurzweil .

That sounds like an appeal to popularity. The Indie source is still churnalism, by the way. Guy (help!) 23:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

'Economic reality' assertation

The assertation in the first section of the wikipedia article is very subjective:

"Economic reality means it is highly improbable that any cryonics corporation could continue in business long enough to take advantage of the claimed long-term benefits offered."

The citation is not published in a reputable journal and doesn't provide proper justification for what is claimed in the quoted sentence and written in this wiki article. Furthermore, most cryonics organisations are not corporations, but non-profit organisations therefore the term 'cryonics corporations' is further inaccurate.

A similar correction should be made to the following sentence:

"Taking into account the lifecycle of corporations, it is extremely unlikely that any cryonics company could continue to exist for sufficient time to take advantage even of the supposed benefits offered: historically, even the most robust corporations have only a one-in-a-thousand chance of surviving even one hundred years."

It's also worth noting that although most cryonics organisations have failed, most people undergone the cryopreservation procedure in the last 50 years still remain cryopresrved. In order to maintain neutrality and balance this point should also be mentioned also - which it currently is not.

In a list of notable subjects undergone cryopreservation several examples were noted none of which have actually undergone the cryonics procedure because as noted in the article they 'later changed their mind'. Surely this precludes these individuals from the list of 'notable subjects'. Most bizzare is the mention of Jeffery Epstein:

"Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein wanted to have his head and penis frozen after death so that he could "seed the human race with his DNA"."

Epstein was ofcourse not cryopreserved following death therefore perhaps shouldn't be listed in the 'Notable subjects' section (im open to discussion in this regard)? I am trying to assume good intent but after reading the notable subjects section I really feel the author has a specific negative agenda regarding cryonics and this shows through in the bias and tone of this section. I propose this section be removed until further work can be done to written in a more impartial tone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12usn12 (talk • contribs) 18:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Section should stay. Renamed to "Notable people" to solve. Alexbrn (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Alexbrn do you have any thoughs on the aforementioned 'economic reality' assertation, the source for which seems quite dubious. Either we should find a better source or remove the statement. 12usn12 (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The section was renamed. What source is "quite dubious"? Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn I am referring to the following statement: Economic reality means it is highly improbable that any cryonics corporation could continue in business long enough to take advantage of the claimed long-term benefits offered. . I looked through the paper, it a very interesting academic account of cryonics, but the reference doesn't support the statement in the wikipedia article. I just wanted to flag this and leave it up to other editors to discuss. 12usn12 (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think what we have is well supported by our sources. Alexbrn (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Read throught the paper, and can confirm that, as 12usn12 points out, the sentence beginning with "Economic reality" is not supported by the citation. If the statement is supported, it should be possible to find a relevant quote from the paper or find a different source. Suggest removing the sentence or significantly changing the language. AndrewBroz (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems to have been added because it's sensationalist. It's also hearsay. Epstein's notoriety is transient. There are far more notable people who have discussed cryonics but are not listed here. It demonstrates bias.JordanSparks (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

well, it is only cited to a non-notable and irrelevant source like the (checks notes) New York Times, so ... no, it stays? - David Gerard (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's worth noting David Gerard, that no reputable cryonics organisation would allow freezing of the head and penis for the purpose of "DNA seeding" as Epstein seems to have wanted to do. Having said that, it seems like the weight of opinion is towards keeping this quote therefore I won't try and force through the change 12usn12 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

essay

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know what we do, for this essay that I wrote and that I published here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieuc3ABCMMA ? Þþanon (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Ignore it as unreliable. Alexbrn (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

To which authority should I address to have a judgement in order to, in case of favorable judgement, see my process undertaken, please ? 2A01:CB0C:38C:9F00:3995:A59E:126B:3055 (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

There is none: see WP:NOTLAW. If you want to understand how Wikipedia works, start at WP:5P; once you have gained even a little understanding you'll know why your video will be ignored. Alexbrn (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You got your answer. Wikipedia draws on reliable independent secondary sources. This does not appear to fit any of the trifecta, whereas we require all of them to be met. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I talk about it to my mayor ? Someone else ? Þþanon (talk) 12:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disney may have had a facination with cryogenics.

I found this discovery which was never brought to the Public's attention watch this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1mawENadI Of some Boys exploring Discovery Island especially at 24 minutes thirty seconds into the video. The Theme Park may have had different reasons for existing than just Entertainment. Revco is not a typical fridge or freezer. It may have been accidently left in a hurry for some reason. What I googled can be seen in this long link, https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&ei=OraXX6j0ApnI0PEP9f2O8Ag&q=revco+freezer+1990&oq=revco+freezer+1990&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIFCAAQzQIyBQgAEM0CMgUIABDNAjIFCAAQzQIyBQgAEM0COgcIABBHELADOgIIADoECC4QQzoICC4QxwEQrwE6BAgAEEM6BQgAEMkDOgUIIRCgAVDCJlicSGDFTGgBcAB4AIABhgGIAZQHkgEEMTIuMZgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrIAQjAAQE&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwio-byCi9TsAhUZJDQIHfW-A44Q4dUDCA0&uact=5 then found Revco™ ExF -86°C Upright Ultra-Low Temperature Freezerswww.thermofisher.com › order › catalog › product Ensure uncompromised sample protection for -50 to -86C applications with Thermo Scientific Revco ExF -86C Upright Ultra-Low Temperature Freezers. Very odd. Silentsuccessdgbth (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Would need at least one reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protected?

Stopping by to ask why this might have been semi-protected. I can't imagine this would get a lot of vandalism. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from corpsicle fans, I think. Alexbrn (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is kind of biased and it appears someone doesn't want that to be corrected (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience and economics

"Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community. It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery."

This is “cherry-picking”. To properly make this kind of claim we’d want broad surveys of scientists in relevant fields (AMA survey for doctors, surveys of the NSF, etc). What we have cited instead are citations from 20 to 30 year old newspaper articles and a researcher giving his own opinion. That’s drawing a very big conclusion from a very old and limited set of sources.

"Economic reality means it is highly improbable that any cryonics corporation could continue in business long enough to take advantage of the claimed long-term benefits offered.[11] Early attempts of cryonic preservations were performed in the 1960s and early 1970s which ended in failure with companies going out of business, and their stored corpses thawed and disposed of.[12]"

This is a bit like saying smartphones could never work because “early attempts at smartphones performed in 2002 ended in failure with companies going out of business, and their supply of unsold smartphones being tossed into landfills”. Also, almost no company is designed to last a very long time at the cost of short term profits - which Cryonics companies explicitly are, so this comparison is half-baked at best. HaViNgT(talk) 11:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This is settled pseudoscience, so we call it as it is. As for phones, your analogy is wrong - it's more like saying committing to one brand of cellphone - like Ericsson say - is unlikely to be feasible because most companies go out of business within 100 years. We've already seen cryonics companies go bust so their business "design" would not seem that smart. As always, follow the sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Larry King

Under notable people, the article states, "People known to have arranged for cryonics upon death include television host Larry King,[66] PayPal founders Luke Nosek[67] and Peter Thiel,[68] and Oxford transhumanists Nick Bostrom and Anders Sandberg." Although Larry King spoke of being cryopreserved many times, it appears that he was not cryopreserved after all. This source [3] says that "After much consideration, he decided he did not want to be frozen." I don't know how reliable that source is (Inside Edition). This source [4] Max More says that he cannot confirm or deny whether Larry King is preserved at Alcor because of privacy issues. I've also seen several sources that say that Larry King's desire to be frozen was his fear of death, and I've also seen many sources say that he overcame his fear of death. I am wondering if there should be a change in the wording of the article. I suppose it is still technically correct to say that Larry King arranged for cryonics even if he later cancelled those arrangements, but it can seem kind of misleading to say the he arranged for cryonics upon death when it is likely that he was not cryopreserved (assuming the Inside Edition article is reliable). Maybe it could say, "Larry King arranged for cryonics upon death, but he later changed his mind and was not preserved," (if the Inside Edition article is reliable), or "Larry King arranged for cryonics upon death, but it is unknown whether those arrangements were followed through," (if the Inside Edition article is not reliable). Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I think Inside Edition is usable, if in doubt then as an attributed source - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Claim about reanimation is unsupported by reference

The claim

It is, however, not possible for a corpse to be reanimated after undergoing vitrification, as this causes damage to the brain including its neural networks.

is unsupported by the reference given. The reference is this Guardian article which does not make the claim that it is not possible for a corpse to be reanimaed after undergoing vitrification. The closest that the article gets to making that claim is when the article states,

This is where the science of cryonics really falls apart, according to Clive Coen, a professor of neuroscience at King’s College London. “The main problem is that [the brain] is a massively dense piece of tissue. The idea that you can infiltrate it with some kind of anti-freeze and it will protect the tissue is ridiculous.”

however, the article continues by citing Anders Sandberg,

"Anders Sandberg, of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute, has such a life insurance policy that, for £15 each month, will pay for his head to be frozen in the hope that the brain’s contents might be “downloaded” into a robotic agent in the future. He gives the freezing, thawing and reanimation process “maybe a 5% chance” of working."

directly contradicting the claim that it is "not possible for a corpse to be reanimated after undergoing vitrification."

I'll remove this line from the Wikipedia until a reputable citation can be delivered that supports the claim.

--Cusku'i (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Cusku'i, cite that 5% to a reliable independent peer-reviewed source and maybe we can talk about it. As it stands, it's clearly rhetorical and can't be taken as anything else. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Was fine as was. The lede summarizes the body where we learn: "cryonics is impossible and will never be possible, as cryonics proponents are proposing to 'over-turn the laws of physics, chemistry, and molecular science'." Sandber's speculation about "downloading" does not contradict the statement about corpse reanimation, in any case. Alexbrn (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Concur with Alexbrn. Coen is a medical source, Sandberg's made-up numbers are not medical sources - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Responding to Coen being a medical source and Sandberg's numbers being made up. Isn't Sandberg also a "medical source"? Sandberg "holds a PhD in computational neuroscience from Stockholm University, and is currently a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford". Also, Coen asserting it's not possible is equivalent to saying there's a 0% change which may also be viewed as a "made up number", it's completely Coen's opinion.

If we look beyond just Coen and Sandberg, there are in fact many scientists from legitimate institutions who believe cryonics is possible. Researchers and scientists from prominent institutions have signed an open letter saying:

   there is a credible possibility that cryonics performed under the best conditions achievable today* can preserve sufficient neurological information to permit eventual restoration of a person to full health.

This includes:

* Gregory Benford, Professor of Physics, University of California

* Nick Bostrom, Research Fellow; University of Oxford

* Manfred Clynes, Professor in Department of Oncology and Department of Physiology and Biophysics, Georgetown University

* Daniel Crevier, Professor of Electrical Engineering, McGill University

* Aubrey de Grey, Research Associate; University of Cambridge

* D. B. Ghare, Principal Research Scientist, Indian Institute of Science

* Peter Gouras, Professor of Ophthalmology, Columbia University

* Kenneth J. Hayworth, Research Fellow; Harvard University

* Ravin Jain, Assistant Clinical Professor of Neurology, UCLA School of Medicine

* and many more

And it's not just this particular claim we're discussing that seems off in this page. The whole introduction has taken a really strong stance against Cryonics and is passing off this opinion as fact. -- Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Not the "open letter" again. For any crank theory it's possible to find a gaggle of "scientists" to support it (cf intelligent design, climate change denial). By contrast, Wikipedia needs reliable mainstream sources. Are there any we're missing? Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The issue at hand here is that the Wikipedia article makes a claim that is unsupported by its citation. So when the claim is questioned as being unsupported, it's not the Wikipedia way to respond along the lines of: "Well, can you prove that the claim is not true?".

The claim made is that it is "not possible for a corpse to be reanimated after undergoing vitrification", and the article quotes one person saying it's not possible and one person saying it may be possible. If we can't find any reliable mainstream sources that make this claim, then we should remove it. Zephyrus Tavvier (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:ASSERT. That which is said in RS, but not contradicted in RS, is assertable for Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia assert things that are NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in RS, just so long as they can't be proven false by RS? Or is it the case that any editor can make up whatever the hell they want and put it in an article, and then slap a citation next to it, and even if the cited source DOES NOT say what they say it does, it shall be deemed "to have been said in RS" by Wikipedia (even though it doesnt). That IS what you all are arguing for, here. You take it at face value that every single citation to a reliable source actually says what the wiki editor attributes to it, and not only deem it unnecessary to VERIFY, you seem to consider anything to the contrary to be an impossibility.

The UNCITED CLAIM shall be removed. Firejuggler86 (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Three different admins clearly stated above that you should not do that. The whole point of a talk page is to agree to edits before making them.JordanSparks (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I want to remind newbies that this page has been deemed pseudoscience. See List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. As with all pseudoscience pages in WP, the rules are a little different. It is explicitly excluded from the usual WP:NPOV requirements. Because of WP:GOODBIAS, it is intentionally written in a style that is derogatory. Don't try to change this style to be more "neutral" or unbiased because there are a large number of admins who watch it like a hawk and will revert. JordanSparks (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That's just wrong. NPOV applies to all Wikipedia articles, and is non-negotiable. The NPOV considerations for pseudoscience are at WP:PSCI, and the WP:FRINGE guidance expands on them. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The hostile tone of this article goes way beyond the guidance you cite. I'm not suggesting changing it. I'm trying to stop people from fighting it. If people simply understand that this tone is normal for "pseudoscience" articles, then they won't waste everyone's time arguing about it.JordanSparks (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:POINT and stop wasting people's time. Alexbrn (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No need to be hostile. I've read WP:POINT. When they talk about disrupting WP, they describe it as making disruptive edits, which I have not done. The recommended alternative is to explain the issues on the talk page, which is what I am doing. This thread is much more concise and constructive than the massive emotional arguments that I see mostly filling this talk page. JordanSparks (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to WP:PSCI, or cite it accurately, if you feel it's necessary to make some specific point on the talk page. Don't comment vaguely and incorrectly that the article is "intentionally written in a style that is derogatory" when WP:PSCI is perfectly clear about the guidelines and policy: "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. " Mischaracterizing that statement as "intentionally... derogatory" is absolutely disrupting the purpose of this talk page to make a point. So don't do it. ComicsAreJustAllRight (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The Wikipedia standard for pseudoscience is as follows: It has been characterized in reputable sources as being pseudoscience, and there has been no solid refutation or consensus showing that all of the elements are based on science. WP:PSCI states, "The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." JordanSparks (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We Must Specify What Goals & Presumptions Within Cryonics are Pseudoscience and Which Are NOT.

The idea that technology will soon allow humans to be fully revived after being frozen using current techniques is pseudoscience. Then again, any statements that future cryonics technologies have been shown to be impossible, or will likely always remain impossible is ALSO pseudoscience. Science rarely makes statements about what is impossible.

The intent of this argument is to show that cryonics does not attempt to be a science, it attempts no predictions, and therefore cannot be rated as a pseudoscience. Rather, cryonics is an engineering goal, and as such should be judged by whether this goal violates any known scientific or material principles, which it does not.

Alternate examples:

• All cancers cannot be cured today. Such a promise is pseudoscience. This does not imply that this capability won't be found someday. We don't denigrate cancer researchers nor their volunteer patients even those volunteering for experimental procedures that have almost no chance of success.
• Sending probes to distant stars is pseudoscience today, yet many scientists are actively researching methods to design exactly this engineering objective.
• The space elevator is currently an impossible engineering goal due to its many known physical limitations, such as collisions. The lunar elevator does not experience most of these limitations. Yet both of these ideas are respectfully treated by Wikipedia.
• In 1776, it was pseudoscience to suggest lightning might be used to cause a lifeless heart to beat again.

The point of these examples is that strictly speaking pseudoscience, or rather "impossible engineering quests" must violate known laws of science, thus no credible scientist would work in such a field nor suggest it possible. E.g. no credible scientist is trying to design a perpetual motion machine because it violates several laws of science. Cryonics violates no known biological nor thermodynamic laws which would prevent any or all possible freezing protocols from potentially working. This can be demonstrated by the large number of examples of smaller life forms which have successfully been frozen for millennia, in some cases, and returned to life after warming. The study of these animals and how they achieve this feat is certainly not pseudoscience, yet these studies are intimately connected to the avenues of investigation which cryonics researchers are following.

To this end. Let us continue to use the derogatory style against any suggestion of early success, and let's be clear to any readers that successful reanimation using current techniques are very unlikely, but let's not denigrate the scientists who are trying. Let us not prevent funding for the many related areas of cryobiological preservation which have been successful, are currently helping people, and are very likely to expand into additional helpful medical processes.

I recommend a few immediate changes:

• We should be clear that no known scientific principles inherently prove that a successful freezing protocol can never be found, that cryonics is therefore a very difficult engineering goal and not a science. Let's recognize that negative speculations by researchers in the field of cryobiology does not constitute a scientific proof that cryonics will always remain impossible and therefore a pseudoscience.
• We should also be clear, using similar logic, that there are no known scientific principles that would fundamentally prevent the repair of badly frozen tissues and cellular organelles, such that humans frozen using current techniques could be brought back to life. Relatedly, such repair techniques are currently unknown, might be extremely difficult to discover and implement, and future research might even discover scientific principles which do, in fact, fundamentally prevent such repairs. As a result it might be considered a scam to optimistically advertise such capabilities.
• "Corpse" should be redefined to apply to any human body for which there is no intention to preserve.
• The term "Frozen Body" should be used for the bodies which are currently in storage or being intentionally processed for storage. Some other term might best be invented here, "corpsicle" is probably a tad too derogatory.

There is medical precedence for such terminology. We don't call organ donors "corpses", yet one of the goals of cryonics research is to allow doctors to preserve bodies when their organs are not currently needed. Similarly, when doctors use hypothermia during open heart surgery, we don't call the patients "corpses", and we didn't call the early experimentation, on this now highly successful process, a pseudoscience, 20 years ago. --WmBliss (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done We should follow sources, as the article currently does. The proposal changes (without sources) seem WP:PROFRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

No textual changes have been presented, only suggestions for discussion on consistency. WmBliss (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience does not mean "We can't do it yet.". But neither does it mean "Against all laws of physics."

Pseudoscience is when people make claims that are either entirely not based on the scientific method, or are partially based on the scientific method, but ignore results that don't make them happy.

"Pseudoscience" is at least as much about the behavior of the researchers as it is the physical possibility and/or impossibility of the subject. That's why appeals to what may happen in the future are unconvincing.

(By the way, "corpse" appears twice in Organ Donation, both times referring to the donor.) ApLundell (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Ask any doctor whether they prefer the term "donor" over "corpse". WmBliss (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC))

Sure, but the doctor isn't trying to imply that the corpse isn't really dead, or might someday stop being dead, they're being polite. ApLundell (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I am seeing good examples here as to why pseudoscience should be differentiated from "difficult engineering". Healing stones is pseudoscience because there exists zero theoretical or experimental evidence to suggest it might work. Cryonics is not pseudoscience because it is an engineering design problem which does have experimental supportive evidence and does not violate any known principles. As editors we need to be mature enough to admit that Wikipedia is not as consistent in how it treats speculative engineering goals as it should be. WmBliss (talk) 09:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Articles at Wikipedia should convey key facts in the first few sentences. That must include the most important fact, namely that cryonics is a simple idea that is impossible to achieve using any known technology. If someone is thinking of spending $100,000 on the procedure they should be told the mainstream view, namely that it is pseudoscience and quackery. There is no reason to hide that fact other than to mislead readers with hand-waving logic saying that nothing can be proven to be impossible. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I can sort of see where the OP is coming from, as there may possibly in the far future be some way of preserving (presumably non-dead) people. But that would likely be something very different from today's reality of corpses, power tools and fluid pumps - and likely called something other than "cryonics" too. The cryonics sales pitch does much to fudge such a potential future into the sales offering, but we need to cover "cryonics" as it is today - essentially a scam. Alexbrn (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I guess there's two separate appeals to the future being made:

• "I'm going to freeze your corpse, and 'one day' science may think of a way to thaw and revivify you."
• "In the far future, it may be possible to freeze people. Perhaps for space travel."

I would argue that the people who say the first thing are absolutely, 100%, engaging in pseudoscience. To me, it seems like the article is almost entirely about that first idea.

But perhaps it shouldn't be? Perhaps the focus should be less on the quacks, and more on the legitimate research that's been done? Even though it's not as fun as what the quacks would want us to believe, at least it's real. (This entertaining paper was recently featured by Tom Scott.) ApLundell (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Necrosis of neurons and their irreversible morphological changes likely can be detected within 4 hours after death due to ischemia. Moreover, global changes in cell metabolism and gene expression after death can impede the recovery of normal nerve cell function. The number of non-functional nerve cells during freezing in laboratory conditions depends on storage time and reaches 40% already after one year of storage. Damage of 5% of neurons in the human forebrain in a stroke event leads to negative personality changes. Therefore, it should be expected that freezing the human brain even under ideal conditions will also lead to irreversible personality changes.7R41N3R (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are all WP:PRIMARY sources, which are not generally used in WP. Your use of the word "therefore" is WP:SYNTHESIS. JordanSparks (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Mlgeorge925.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

What reanimation methods have been tried so far?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It says in the article that cardio-pulnonary bypass is used to lower the temperature after death. So I understand that appropriate cannulas are in place. What if we put warm, oxygenated blood to them that would systematically "unfreeze" the blood of the patient in his arteries and finally the blood would circulate again and reworm other tissues. Can someone try this with mice? 93.49.39.207 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How does this relate to improving the article? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be interested in this research paper. Which, in the interests of dragging this on-topic, I think could probably be worked into the article. Right now the article is entirely about the snake oil vendors preserving corpses. But there was a time when it seemed like cryonics as a form of suspended animation (for living people) was right around the corner.

For example, Suspended_animation#Temperature-induced links here, but if a reader clicked through for the definition, they'd be confused, because this article is purely about corpses. ApLundell (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Open Letter

I'm trying to make an edit to reference an open letter signed by 60+ scientists in favor of cryonics, but my edit is getting rejected. I don't really understand what needs to be different here, as I'm referencing the letter that was actually published. I guess maybe there's an objection to my use of the world "notable" in part of my edit, which I can remove I just didn't realize that was a problem, but it seems like that's not going to solve the sourcing objection I'm getting.

Direct link to the original publication of the open letter is here https://www.alcor.org/docs/cryonics-magazine-2006-01.pdf and the secondary source I linked in my first attempt at the edit is here https://www.biostasis.com/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/

Here's the attempted edit and undos for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cryonics&diff=next&oldid=1120065867 Gworley3 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

attention @Fountains of Bryn Mawr Gworley3 (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:V material/claims need to be cited to reliable, independent, published sources, not pro-industry publications. Adding this content with an "Although" statement is "unduly calling the validity of the first statement into question while giving undue weight to the credibility of the second" and minimizing cited opinion by changing "generally viewed" to "many consider" is WP:PROFRINGE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This independent thing seems weird, but like if the open letter was referenced in the New York Times then I could cite it via the New York Times mention but not the literal thing itself just to say that people have signed it? I don't think anyone is disputing that fact that these people actually signed it and that they all have PhDs from top-tier universities.

What's a phrasing that would be okay then? This seems kind of weird to me, as I hardly see what difference the change I made had. Seems like this is just a matter of how you're interpreting the words in this case? Like I'm not trying to do anything other than say that some bunch of scientists signed a thing and think cryonics is worth researching, not to do anything else. Feels like there's literally no way I can say that and not have it objected to, even if it was cited in an acceptable way. I guess I'm just struggling here because the rules feel really subjective to me and like they aren't based on facts but on popular opinion. Gworley3 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Not the "open letter" again. For any crank theory it's possible to find a gaggle of "scientists" to support it (cf intelligent design, climate change denial). By contrast, Wikipedia needs reliable mainstream sources. Are there any we're missing? Bon courage (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  The open letter has already been talked to death on this talk page. I'm pretty sure you can still find that historical discussion. JordanSparks (talk) 05:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of the attempts to add this pro-Cryonics material is from IP/low edit/SPA/sleeper accounts. Looks like someone's continual sock-puppet campaign to me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that. I just want to try to improve this page a bit by adding some additional context that exists out in the world. I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, I just read it often, and try to contribute to the few pages where I happen to know something that I think is missing or could be improved. It's kind of frustrating as a casual Wikipedia user to get accused of acting maliciously when I'm just trying my honest best to make this site better, and instead get linked to obscure acronyms I have to figure out what they mean and maybe what I did wrong.

The comments in this thread seem prejudicial to me, which I guess is okay for Talk but not for the article, but reads to me as a relative outsider like you have a bias against adding stuff to this page that might oppose its current slant, and may be applying a standard of evidence here that you wouldn't apply if I tried to add content which said cryonics is dumb.

Sorry this became a bit of a rant, but I find it frustrating that this page reads as so biased to me rather than neutral, and that makes me seriously question what else on Wikipedia suffers this problem and how much I can really trust this site. Gworley3 (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

also @Jordansparks unclear to me what historical discussion you're referring to. I searched but couldn't find one, hence why I created a new discussion topic. Gworley3 (talk) 06:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The standard of required evidence that this stuff works is higher than for calling it dumb. WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Bon courage (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You can always view the history of the talk page. Go back to 11 April, 2016. There are 59 references to the Open Letter.JordanSparks (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I realize this is not your fault, but oh lord that's a terrible way to find older discussions or even reasonable know they exist or what to look for. Gworley3 (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Bon courage, sure, but why is exceptional evidence required to say that some scientists said they think we should research it? That doesn't in itself seem to be an extraordinary claim. This article in its current form seems to suggest literally no respectable person thinks cryonics is worth considering, but that's not the case other than I don't have a citation which meets (what feel to me like) selectively applied standards for what's allowed. Gworley3 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

If there were some reputable scientific source commenting on the letter then they might be usable. But if science has ignored the "open letter" then Wikipedia should too, to avoid giving undue prominence to a WP:FRINGE PR move. This is an encyclopedia and meant to be a tertiary source. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

WP should use secondary sources. The Open Letter is a primary source. The secondary source you listed is not a valid secondary source.JordanSparks (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's avoid an edit war; "bodies" vs "corpses"

Alexbrn you've now reverted two of my goodfaith edits without offering any substantive reason. I've had this article on my watchlist for many years, and I discovered today that the word "corpses" had been added recently. Cryonics may be pseudoscience and quackery, but in keeping with WP:IMPARTIAL and MOS:EUPHEMISM, there's no reason at all why "bodies" (which still denotes a dead person) shouldn't be used over the term "corpses." Per MOS:EUPHEMISM, "The goal is to express ideas clearly and directly without causing unnecessary offense." Wikipedia is not neutral or impartial about fringe, pseudoscience ideas, but it should be impartial about the tone and language it uses to describe such ideas. I am going to revert to my original edit. Hopefully we can resolve this issue here amicably. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, if the use of this terminology has been previously resolved by a survey or decision in the past, please let me know. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

A "body" is not dead, I can assure you (I have one). A "dead body" (or more simply, "corpse") is. So what we have is correct. Your edit saying that "people" were being cryopreserved was even worse, mirroring the quackery of the cryonics brochures. You have been advised of discretionary sanctions in effect for this topic. If you edit war you can expect to get sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You reverted my edits three times without discussion and you're now threatening me? This doesn't sound like a civil dialogue (WP:CIV) based on assumption of good faith (WP:AGF). I assumed good faith in posting this. I'm still willing to do that. I believe that the use of the word "body" here will be understood as a body that is dead (as will the use of the words "person" or "people"). Indeed, it's the fact that I'm trying to adhere to WP:IMPARTIAL and MOS:EUPHEMISM that I think "bodies" is more appropriate than "people" throughout most of the article. Please kindly refrain from leveling threats against me again. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please could you explain the nature of the "threats" Alexbrn has supposedly made against you? Thanks. - Roxy the English speaking dog 18:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No problem: Someone has reverted your edits three times. They did so without any explanation, and without engaging in any Talk discussion with you. Then they tell you that you've been "advised" of "potential sanctions" for "edit warring" even though *you* are the one who started a Talk topic and *they* are the one who reverted your edit three times. Jeez, it's not that hard to be civil and discuss this, especially since I agree that cryonics is fringe, pseudoscience, quackery, and that anyone cryopreserved is dead. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"I believe that the use of the word "body" here will be understood as a body that is dead" ← it's not so understood, as I wrote. Why use ambigious euphemisms instead of correct impartial language? Alexbrn (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that is "not so understood." I believe that "body" or "dead body" is as precise as "corpse" while being more neutral and not implying a point of view. Reliable secondary sources can be used to establish such a point of view, not the editorial and potentially inflammatory tone of the article. Your assertion of WP:FRINGE here just shows that you're misunderstanding the issue and pushing a point of view through tone and word choice since it's irrelevant; this is an MOS issue. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You're telling me I'm lying about how I understand it? What? "Dead body" is fine (if you like extra syllables over "corpse") but "body" is factually wrong. The idea that "people" are going into the freezer vats is WP:FRINGE, yes. Alexbrn (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"You're telling me I'm lying" This is the second time you insist on not assuming good faith. No reasonable person could construe my comment as an accusation that you are "lying." Please stop being argumentative, that's not helpful. I do not agree that in the context of this article, the use of the word "body" would not be understood to mean a "dead body." And now you are stating views that I've already repudiated here; I stated above that I prefer the use of the word "body" or "dead body" to "people." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"Body" does not unambiguously mean a corpse. A quick look at Surgery will confirm that. Surgery is not normally performed on corpses, but it is regularly performed on bodies.

I'm not saying anything about any user here, Perhaps not everyone understands the context, but the ambiguity is exactly why the pro-fringe crowd wants to use the word "body". The quackery seems more plausible when ambiguous words are used. In my mind, that's a good enough reason to use an unambiguous word if such a word fits. (and it does.)

I guess "human remains" would also work. Similar articles like Embalming seem to use the two terms almost interchangeably. ApLundell (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Right. "Human remains" might be better since it's as often severed heads/brains/penises whatever going into the vats, as whole cadavers. Oh, and also dead pets. Alexbrn (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your comment here, especially since "corpse" is not an accurate description of a severed head. You say "it's often severed...penises" but I'm not aware that any cryonics organization has ever cryopreserved a penis. Again, hyperbole and exaggeration don't fit with an impartial tone. The facts (via reliable secondary sources) need not be impartial, but I think the tone should be (so no penises, please). However, while I like "human remains," it might be unwieldy to use as a replacement for "corpses." I can give it a try if you won't just revert my edit without discussing it here. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I'm open to putting the issue to a survey of past editors of this article. My point of view is straightforward: "body" or "dead body" in this context is just as correct and precise as "corpse" while being more impartial. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking back at the article history, it appears that essentially all reverts done within the past few years were carried out by Alexbrn. I think it would be wise to involve other editors so that we can include additional perspectives beyond just 1 or 2 editors. How about WP:RFC? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"that the word "corpses" had been added recently"

I don't think this is a true fact.

I just randomly clicked back to the last time I edited this article back in November, and the word "corpse" appears 16 times. (In Alexbrn's version, it appears only 15 times.) The same holds true if you go 500 edits back to August.

How far back to we have to go to find the "good" version of the page in your estimation?

ApLundell (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"Recently" means within the last couple of years. I haven't looked at this article in years, but I'm quite sure it did not include "corpses" the way it does now for the majority of its existence. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Also worth noting that in 2016, the word "corpse" appeared in the article once...as an excerpt from a reference. At that time, the lead stated "The first human being to be cryopreserved was Dr. James Bedford in 1967. As of 2014, about 250 people were cryopreserved in the United States, with 1500 more having made arrangements for cryopreservation after their legal death." This was the version last edited by Roxy the dog at that time. It was changed by Alexbrn to read "The first corpse to be cryopreserved was that of Dr. James Bedford in 1967. As of 2014, about 250 bodies were cryopreserved in the United States, with 1500 more having made arrangements for cryopreservation after their legal death." though it was not added elsewhere in the article at that time. Were all subsequent additions of the word "corpse" or "corpses" added by Alexbrn? That's perfectly fine if it improves the article, but I'm not sure that it has, and along with the fact that almost all reverts over the course of the last several years (going back at least to 2016) were by Alexbrn, it at least suggests that we should solicit additional input from other editors so that the article can reflect a more diverse set of perspectives rather than just one. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been much discussed at WP:FT/N, as well as here. Wikipedia requires merely good content, and is not an exercise in democracy. I (and others) have improved the article over the years. When you last edited it in 2013 is was a screaming festival of POV by today's WP:PAG standards. Alexbrn (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how the date of my last edit is relevant at all here, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. As far as Wikipedia, it's an exercise in discussion and consensus via WP:CONS. "When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I think this discussion has skipped a step.

Could someone please back up and explain why using the word "corpse" is a problem that needs to be addressed at all?

ApLundell (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. #1) It's not accurate or precise enough. As Alexbrn mentioned above, many (even most?) of the "patients" cryopreserved by cryonics are actually body parts, such as severed heads. I don't think it's accurate to refer to a severed head as a "corpse." #2 It is not in keeping with an impartial tone via WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. WP:FRINGE does not negate these, which means that the *tone* of the article should be without editorial bias. If the only word for describing a dead body was "corpse," then there would be no problem; but if there are other synonymous words that are unambiguous and more in keeping with WP:IMPARTIAL, why not use those words instead? "Human remains" is a good potential alternative. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually looking at the article we already vary "corpse", "remains" and "dead body" quite nicely. The idea that among "synonymous" words some can be more "impartial" than others, is illogical. Alexbrn (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It is not "illogical." If a person's loved one has just died in an ambulance, and they get notified that their loved one is now a "corpse," that would be considered offensive. The use of the word "corpse" is offensive and potentially emotionally charged even in cases where family members agree that the person is now dead. Indeed, have you ever heard anyone whose loved one died refer to that loved one as a "corpse"? The pseudoscientific beliefs of cryonicists are not at issue here, the tone is at issue. Can you please point me to other articles on Wikipedia where specifically named dead people (such as Ted Williams) are referred to as corpses? If you added the word "corpse" to Ted William's biography to describe what happened to his remains, do you think your edit would stand? Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

1) If precision was your motivation, then I feel confident in saying : You screwed up. Your version is considerably less precise.

2)This feels like the real meat of the argument, but I still don't understand it. For the benefit of the slow, could you please spell out why describing human remains, bereft of life, as a "corpse" is impartial?

ApLundell (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I say that it is *less impartial* than other synonymous terms because specific deceased individuals are generally not referred to as corpses. See my comment above. If there is any wikipedia article where specific individuals who have living relatives are referred to as "corpses," I'm not aware of it. Please point me to such an article. That's what I mean by "corpse" not being "impartial." Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The "caused their clinical death" blurb in this version is particularly bad, as is the use of "person" in lieu of corpse. I support Alexbrn's version.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Dispense with it. But I don't think that referring to specific individuals (ie Ted Williams) as a "corpse" is the choice of terms that is most in keeping with descriptions of *specific* deceased individuals on Wikipedia. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely some WP:PROFRINGE edits from the OP in this article, then as now. As to other article, I can commend John Southworth (martyr), not just because it talks of his corpse, but because it interesting prefigure cryonics (only use par-boiling rather than freezing). Alexbrn (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. And obviously all bets are off when it comes to a martyr without living immediate relatives. It may also be relevant that most of the 250 dead bodies cryopreserved are not the bodies of notable public figures. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well you asked for "other articles on Wikipedia where specifically named dead people are referred to as corpses", but are now moving the goal posts. So maybe look at poor Javed Naseer Rind instead. Anyway, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and this seems futile. Time to drop the WP:STICK methinks. Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope. Re-read what I said above. "specific deceased individuals are generally not referred to as corpses.' If there is any wikipedia article where specific individuals who have living relatives are referred to as "corpses," I'm not aware of it. Please point me to such an article." It may also be relevant that most of the 250 dead bodies cryopreserved are not the bodies of notable public figures. For the record, I actually think it would be fine to use the word "corpse" in this article perhaps when referring to cryonics procedures or the processes involved (eg "The corpse is then stored in liquid nitrogen.") because this would not a description of any specific deceased person with living relatives. Again, given that there are synonymous terms we can use to describe *them*, I don't understand the argument against using such terms. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Calling the bodies in question "corpses" goes beyond WP:IMPARTIAL. We do not take sides in our wording of fringe articles, we just state the facts as presented by source. Also falls under MOS:WTW - "Use clear, direct language." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

"Bodies" or "remains" is just as clear and direct, while refraining from referring to specific named individuals who are not notable as "corpses" (which is not in keeping with standard practice on Wikipedia). Regardless, we now have a range of opinions from editors here and it's clear where consensus lies. No point dragging this out any further. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That's an easy challenge. Elizabeth Short.

Use of the word "corpse" not uncommon in articles about murder victims, or other people who's remains had some sort of notability after death.

Of course the individuals are not referred to as "corpses". Just their remains, as in this article.

And not just this article. This article's topic is a subset of Disposal of human corpses, which uses the word a lot and actually has it in the article topic. ApLundell (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-read what I said above very carefully. Also see my comments about when I would be fine with the use of the word "corpse." Heck, I wouldn't even mind if corpse was strictly used in possessive form exclusively (i.e. "the corpses of the members" or "their corpses"). Regardless, it's neither here nor there since it's now clear where consensus lies. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 19:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It was already clear, you just couldn't see it. - Roxy the English speaking dog 20:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As we can see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/26/style/cryonics-freezing-bodies.html the independent source in the form of NYT calls cryopreserved people as: people and patients and they never even once use the emotionally charged term 'corpse'. Wikipedia should be impartial in its tone of wording, just like NYT is. We should avoid using the word "corpse" and stick to more neutral terms such as: (dead) bodies, remains, patients. NYT doesn't have an issue calling them 'patients' and 'bodies' in their own reporting. Specific quotes from NYT: "Michael Perry checks on patients at Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Arizona." "The business of cryopreservation — storing bodies at deep freeze" "It was an elaborate workaround, especially considering the patient had been declared legally dead more than a day earlier." "restricted the application of its medical-grade antifreeze solution to only the patient’s brain," "That meant that when the patient was eventually sealed into a sleeping bag and stored in a large thermos-like aluminum vat" "the damage caused by this patient’s “straight freeze” could probably still be repaired by future scientists" "fee in a trust to guarantee future care of its patients" "But there is an almost even gender balance among KrioRus’s 80 patients" "help a revived patient rebuild memories" "repair and reanimate the body but even a long shot" "if the body is turned to dust" "company got a court order and had the body returned to Arizona" "Christians complain that they would not like to be dragged back from heaven by having their body revived" Deeriox (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you adding to a topic that ended four months ago? - Roxy the dog 21:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that wikipedia articles cannot be revised over time? That's very bold of you. I provided an independent and highly regarded source showing what an impartial wording of an article looks like, which clearly shows that this wikipedia article in its current state is not living up to this standard. I provided a plethora of quotes from a NYT article to show how it is professionally reported. That sounds like a good reason to revise the article. Deeriox (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

But why are you adding to a topic that ended four months ago? - Roxy the dog 05:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has rules about how fringe topics are treated. Corpses and not going to be described as patients (other tham, at present, as a quotation) to avoid giving credence to WP:PSCI. This topic has been done to death, and trying to revive it is inadvisable. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Is reanimation via nanotechnology impossible?

The introduction of this article asserts that it is "not possible for a corpse to be reanimated after undergoing vitrification, as this causes damage to the brain including its neural circuits." This statement seems to be biased and inconsistent with the rest of the article. The "Conceptual Basis" section discusses the possibility that nanotechnology could potentially repair the damage to neural circuits. The previous statement asserting its impossibility cites an article from The Guardian which makes no mention of nanotechnology that could supposedly repair the damage, so the citation provided does not adequately demonstrate that reanimation is impossible. So how is it that the possibility that this damage-repairing nanotechnology could exist in the future has been ruled out? ImmortalRationalist (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency as the nanotech stuff is just what cryonics advocates say, which is kind of WP:MANDY. Bon courage (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

That article quotes a professor of neuroscience, so it doesn't really matter if he's right or wrong. When a significant number of mainstream professionals characterize something as pseudoscience, then WP treats it as pseudoscience until it's overwhelmingly proven to not be pseudoscience. Interstellar Travel is described as "hypothetical" and "difficult", but not as pseudoscience, so on that page, all of the hypothetical strategies can be laid out in great detail. The same would not be appropriate on a "pseudoscience" page because it would give too much weight to the supporters of the topic, making it appear legitimate. JordanSparks (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics does not involve "freezing"

Cryopreservation of one's body by perfusing with cryoprotectants followed by vitrification in liquid nitrogen at -200C is not "freezing". Freezing is the act of immersing an object in liquid water following by cooling to just below 0C. Anyone who disputes this is not a fact-checker; they are promoting a pseudoscientific and biased lie. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Dicdef = "Solidification phase change of a liquid or the liquid content of a substance, usually due to cooling." - Roxy the dog 07:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Right. We explain about the process in the article, but in common language anything stored at these kinds of extreme low temperatures is "frozen". See Webster's.[5] Bon courage (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Freezing is misleading and violates not one, but multiple Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. As the article goes into extensive technical detail about cryopreservation, it is biased to refer to "vitrification" as "freezing" as anyone with a basic knowledge of cryonics, which is provided by this article, can recognize that this is patently false and defamatory. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Vendors refer to it as preparation and freezing, and more to the point decent independent sources do too. KrioRus seems to offer a discount "flash freeze" service for corpses too.[6] Bon courage (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

KrioRus' offers for patients do not represent the vast majority of the cryonics community, which uses reliable and tested vitrification methods. It is unfair and borderline defamatory to refer to it as "freezing". As for the independent sources, they are not remotely "decent" if they can't understand basic cryonics terminology. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont think defamatory means what you think it means. - Roxy the dog 07:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

lying about how a procedure works in an attempt to discredit the procedure is exactly what defamatory means SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Even Alcor's supposedly "classic" paper[7] refers to the process throughout as "freezing". So yeah, this is a good broad descriptive term. Bon courage (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Using the word "freezing" repeatedly, and in conjunction with "dead", "corpse", and "bod(ies)" strongly implies bias against cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Well you'd better take up your freezing complaint with Alcor, KrioRus, Webster's Dictionary and the hundreds of other sources that use it. Wikipedia reflects sources. Bon courage (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Alcor almost always refers to cryonics as vitrification, not freezing. As Alcor staff are human, there may have been a few nonstandard uses of "freezing". SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Did you just accuse me of lying? That's very rude, and also a personal attack. See WP:NPA - Roxy the dog 08:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't accuse you of lying, and I apologize if my words were construed that way. I'm referring specifically to how the wording would sound to an average reader. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, I have not found any mention of a KrioRus "flash freezing" plan. It appears contrary to the motives and interests of reputable cryonics nonprofits. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in the link I gave, as "Unprepared cryopreservation". Bon courage (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

KrioRus cannot be described as a "reliable source" for English info about cryonics, as it is a Russian company and its English website obviously has spelling mistakes. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, "unprepared cryopreservation" is not regular cryonics. It's for patients in emergency situations, patients who have been autopsied or partially autopsied, and for other exigent and by definition non-standard circumstances. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't find any dictionary that defines "Freeze" so narrowly as SurfingOrca does.

As a native English speaker, I don't really expect to find such a narrow definition.

Some dictionaries list "store (something) at a very low temperature in order to preserve it" as a definition of the word, which sounds correct to me, and applicable here. "To lower something's temperature to the point that it freezes or becomes hard" seems to me that it also fits here.

I get that the corpse is (usually) heavily prepared, and the freezing process is (usually) highly specialized, and that they don't just toss the body in a freezer, but unless I'm very much mistaken, lowering the body's temperature in order to preserve it is still a core aspect of the technology. ApLundell (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

As this is an article that includes at least some technical discussion of cryopreservation, it is not appropriate to use the (disputably) umbrella term of "freezing" to refer to the procedure used to deanimate patients. Neither "freezing" nor "vitrification" can be considered to be a highly technical term, so the use of "vitrification" should be preferred for scientific accuracy and to avoid painting a misleading picture of cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, as ApLundell observed, "freezing" strongly implies mistreatment of patients, such as indiscriminate submerging into a vat of cold tap water, followed by turning the thermostat down to 0C. Referring to cryonics as "freezing" or "body freezing" in the modern era shows either a lack of understanding of cryonics, which does not seem to be the case here, or a bias (explicit or implicit) against cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I made no such observation. ApLundell (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"I get that the corpse is (usually) heavily prepared, and the freezing process is (usually) highly specialized, and that they don't just toss the body in a freezer"

Your first thought when thinking of "freezing" in relation to cryonics is that they "just toss the body in a freezer." People who know less about cryonics than us would probably think that way too. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misinterpreted me. I was trying to make you understand that I understand the distinction you're trying to make.

But even though I understand the distinction you're describing, I still don't think it applies to those words the way you think it does. ApLundell (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources commonly use the words 'freeze', 'frozen', etc. We're supposed to follow the sources, not overrule them. Also, it is better to use common terminology and not technical jargon. - MrOllie (talk) 01:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The largest cryonics provider in the world, Alcor, never uses the word "freezing" in a way that describes the procedure of deanimating patients on their website. "Vitrification" is always utilized in place of "freezing". "Freezing" either represents lack of basic understanding about cryonics, or bias against cryonics. WP:NPOV SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't adopt the sort of language used by 'providers', it is one of the ways we avoid sounding like advertising. WP:NPOV does not mean what you seem to think it means. See WP:GEVAL MrOllie (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

All non-technical articles/scientific papers that don't egregiously misunderstand or misrepresent cryonics use the term "vitrification". "Vitrification" isn't a made-up word by cryonics providers; it's a scientific concept that is commonly used in physics, cryogenics, and many other fields. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No true scotsman MrOllie (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No, people who prefer the term "freezing" for cryonics also tend to believe that patients thaw if the electricity goes out, cryonics is only for billionaires, and that cryonics companies are run for profit. So no no true scotsman. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's[8] what happens when the container fails:

The bodies in the container partially thawed, moved, and then froze again — stuck to the capsule like a child’s tongue to a cold lamp post. Eventually the bodies had to be entirely thawed to unstick, then re-frozen and put back in. A year later, the Dewar failed again, and the bodies decomposed into “a plug of fluids” in the bottom of the capsule.

Bon courage (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"When the container fails" does not refer to when the electricity goes out. No electricity is used in the long-term care of patients. Dewars are checked regularly at all major cryonics providers to prevent, discover, and repair leaks before it's too late. Additionally, patients are stored upside-down in dewars, so that the brain is the last affected part if the liquid nitrogen starts boiling off. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

So why are you going on about electricity? This is WP:NOTAFORUM. At this point if you have a concrete suggestion for improving the article, with sources if necessary, it is time to make it. Otherwise, I think we're done. Bon courage (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My concrete suggestion is in the title of this section, and always has been. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Besides, I did not ask about what ensues after a container failure; it's about the reliability of websites that openly spread falsehoods about the procedures involved in the deanimation of patients as Wikipedia sources. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The Alcor postmortem is probably not usable as a source by itself.[9] But it does confirm that even they use the freezing/frozen/thaw terminology. Bon courage (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You're referring to older Alcor articles; before cryonics providers recognized the importance of using correct, even if not layman-friendly language, to avoid misinformed attacks by media outlets. See the below sources for what modern cryonicists and unaffiliated experts actually think. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

SOURCES: There were too many reliable, up-to-date, scientifically backed, fact-checked and peer-reviewed, and widely-cited sources stating that cryonics involves "vitrification", not "freezing" to include even a measurable fraction of them.

References

SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not going to use industry jargon, but common words (like in Alcor's postmortem). We explain the "process" so there can be no confusion in any case. Bon courage (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Vitrification" is not remotely industry jargon. Vitrification is used to describe all processes that involve cryopreservation using liquid nitrogen, including in non-cryonics fields. Use of "vitrification" is particularly important in this article to avoid defamatory language. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsupported assertion that cryonics cannot succeed

The intro of the this article states, verbatim: "It is, however, not possible for a corpse to be reanimated after undergoing vitrification, as this causes damage to the brain including its neural circuits." This statement constitutes absolutism; it is also unsupported by scientific research. Although some skeptics may doubt the mere possibility of cryonics working, there have been no scientific studies proving that it is theoretically impossible to reanimate patients. After all, the entire premise of cryonics is that technology advances exponentially; and therefore there may be future advancements that we can't even begin to fathom that could lead to reanimation. The "damage to neural circuits" portion is patently false; while there is (minimal) damage caused to synaptic connections by current vitrification methods, it does not destroy them in any reasonable interpretation of the word "destroy" and therefore it is incorrectly to postulate that cryonics is certain to fail. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"it is also unsupported by scientific research" ← you're claiming research has shown cryonics can succeed? Citation required! More generally, the current text is a fair summary of source which has a real scientist saying "The idea that you can infiltrate [the brain] with some kind of anti-freeze and it will protect the tissue is ridiculous". Remember, cryonics is not science (per our sources). Your reversed-burden of evidence ("prove it can't work!") is an anti-science gambit, and not relevant to this article. Bon courage (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that cryonics can succeed; no cryonicist asserts that cryonics will definitely work. I'm saying that there's no scientific research showing that cryonics definitely does not work, which is a very different statement than "cryonics definitely succeeds". The opposite of "cryonics does not work" is not "cryonics definitely works"; it's "scientific research is not certain if cryonics work or not; current cryonics patients may as well be patients in a clinical trial on the efficacy of cryogenics-aided deanimation on curing current diseases". The burden of proof rests on those who claim that cryonics certainly does not work to prove their claim; it is certainly not on cryonicists to prove that cryonics is guaranteed to succeed. SurfingOrca2045 06:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As a treatment that relies on potential future technologies; the burden proof can and should be shifted. More importantly, you're claiming that the opposite of cryonics definitely not succeeding is cryonics definitely succeeding; this is unscientific and fallacious. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

https://waitbutwhy.com/2016/03/cryonics.html

The above article, while falling slightly short of the standards required for a peer-reviewed scientific paper, explains in great detail why it's wrong to assert that cryonics is certain to fail; it's unlikely to modify your beliefs, but I hope it can lead to a consensus regarding this statement. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

By "falling slightly short of the standards required for a peer-reviewed scientific paper", I think you meant "useless". Why bring unreliable sources here? I note however your source defines cryonics as "the morbid process of freezing rich, dead people who can'’t accept the concept of death". Bon courage (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No. You didn't even glance at the remainder of the article, or did and ignored it. If you had simply scrolled down, you would have seen that the sentence was referring to the author's preconceptions about cryonics. Let's keep this factual.SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The article's title is Why Cryonics Makes Sense, so why would the author honestly describe cryonics as "morbid" and "freezing"? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Because they're quoting a non-fringe source? Anyway, we're not going to be citing random blogs for exceptional claims. Bon courage (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The author is a Harvard-educated scientist, with a multitude of expertise ranging from AI to sociology. Why would that be a "random blog"? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

see WP:BLOGS. Bon courage (talk) 09:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

WaitButWhy is not a blog by any definition of the word "blog". It's an aggregation of humanity's best knowledge, and should be cited as such. I wasn't genuinely attempting to use the article as a source; I initially shared the link thinking that it would provoke some open-minded discussion, but that doesn't seem like the case now. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Creating high-quality blog posts."[10] This entire page seems to becoming about how words don't mean what they mean. Bon courage (talk) 09:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus and open-minded discussion is how Wikipedia improves. WP:CON. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia utilizes a neutral point of view and tone for all subjects; WP:NPOV

Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any views, including anti-cryonics views. It's time to admit that there's no scientific or Wikipedian consensus that cryonics is impossible, and modify the article accordingly. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, many reputable scientists, including Ralph Merkle, one of the founders of public-key cryptography, and Eric Drexler, the first to propose nanotechnology, have spoken out in favor of cryonics. It is egregiously wrong and misleading to say that the scientific mainstream opposes cryonics, and to ignore the arguments made by pro-cryonics scientists and thinkers, giving undue weight to anti-cryonicist arguments. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You get scientists, even Nobelists, supporting all kinds of tosh. This is why Wikipedia has rules for sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no scientific proof that cryonics is definitely, certainly, 100% indisputably impossible. Cryonics relies on future technology--it's all about delivering patients from the less-advanced Hospital A to the more technologically sophisticated Hospital B, except the hospitals are separated temporally, not spatially. Cryonics uses techniques such as vitrification that have been used to successfully preserve biological specimens such as gametes and microorganisms, and it is at least plausible that it could succeed for larger organisms. Therefore, it is not accurate to state that cryonics will certainly not work due to damage to neural circuits. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-falsifiability is indeed a hallmark of pseudoscience, which is why the sources are as they are. WP:FRINGE topics must be treated in accord with the the guidelines. Bon courage (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics is not a fringe topic; it's an experiment for which the clinical trials are still being run today. Additionally, actually pseudoscientific topics such as homeopathy and astrology are readily falsifiable; the mere lack of existence of a disproof of cryonics proves the scientific basis of the technique. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying patients. Just a reminder that they are not patients, but corpses. There is a rather essential distinction between the two that you clearly havn't realised yet. Roxy the dog 10:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't realize that COVID-19 corpses were being hospitalized and ventilated. I'll keep that in mind for the future. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 10:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I forget that CPR is just performing gymnastics on corpses.

I forget that organ transplantation is just a hopeless and vain gesture to save corpses.

I forget that all of modern medicine, including antibiotics, vaccines, and hospitals, are just a doomed and pointless attempt to play god on corpses by people who can't accept the concept of death.

No. Cryonics operates on patients, period. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. Do you have a COI? - Roxy the dog 10:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No. It is just unfortunate that the Wikipedia community cannot evaluate facts based on scientific evidence in certain situations. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 10:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We've gotten to the distressing point where the indentation of the replies has reached the right of the page, yet still have not reached consensus on the basic fact that cryonics is based on scientific techniques, and has not been proven impossible by any reputable scientific investigation or publication. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

... because it isn't a basic fact. - Roxy the dog 11:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

So you're saying that there's reputable scientific evidence that cryonics has a 0% chance of working? Citation needed! SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not required to falsify unfalsifiable claims, just as we don't have to prove that a teapot does not orbit the sun between the Earth and Mars. MrOllie (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics is not unfalsifiable; if there was scientific evidence that long-term cryopreservation prevented revival, or if repeated attempts to reanimate patients led to failure, then cryonics would be falsified. Cryonics is an experiment; just because it's not possible yet to have data that falsifies an experiment, doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable. E.g. we wouldn't call COVID shots unfalsifiable at the beginning of clinical trials, simply because it was not possible to have data yet that falsified the efficacy of COVID vaccines. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In addition, many proven pseudosciences, like homeopathy and Lysenkoism, were falsified; if there's no clear and convincing evidence that cryonics is unfalsifiable, and cryonics has not been falsified, then maybe it's time to stop calling it false? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To claim that something will be invented at some time in the future is an unfalsifiable claim. One could just as well claim that cryonics is unnecessary because we will one day invent a method to resurrect people by examining water memory or the akashic record. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics makes specific and falsifiable claims about what methods would be used to reanimate patients, including use of molecular nanotechnology or mind uploading. These claims can and would be falsified if cryonics truly were false; they haven't, so it's misleading to state that cryonics can't work, period. In addition, cryonics would be wholly falsified if there was evidence that cryonics irreversibly damages neural circuits, like stated in the intro of this article; there is none. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We have consensus. If you want to challenge the WP:FRINGE classification of cryonics, there's a section currently open at WP:FT/N#Cryonics again where many more editors are watching. Bon courage (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we have consensus. A 2-1 majority is not "consensus". WP:CON SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus is rough agreement in accord with the WP:PAGs. As I say, if you want more eyes go to the relevant noticeboard. Bon courage (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, no consensus according to that definition, either. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

If you want to reach consensus, then like I said before, we could reach a compromise. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Why? I'm not sure where you got the idea that only two people were involved in the current consensus, or that only two people believe that the WP:FRINGE guidelines should be followed.

The current article, and the current FRINGE guidelines already represent a compromise, and you haven't explained why either is insufficient.

Individuals demanding dramatic changes to fringe articles happens all the time. If we compromised with all of them, every single time they showed up, within a year we'd have an encyclopedia that says that ghosts are real and science is not. ApLundell (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, cryonics is not a "fringe" subject. Even if it were, it would not be accurate to state that it is "impossible"--a bold claim for a falsifiable subject without scientific evidence. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, this conversation is just going in a circle, points are being restated that didn't convince the first time they were stated.

Unless anybody has anything new to add, I think it's safe to say that consensus isn't going to change. ApLundell (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what's happening--consensus is being disputed on the noticeboard, for instance. Additionally, editors are taking time to thoughtfully consider with an open mind the evidence presented in this section. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, it's being disputed by only you. Using the same arguments that failed to impress here on this talk page. ApLundell (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I never demanded "dramatic" changes to this article. I politely requested rewording to reduce bias, or the perception of bias, and the removal of unscientific and unproven language, such as the assertion that cryonics is certain to fail. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't do false balance here. MrOllie (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this discussion, at least for now, until mainstream scientific understanding catches up to what cryonicists have known for decades, which will probably happen when AI-assisted techniques lead to the first reanimation of a patient in long-term care in the next several years.. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Achieving editorial excellence through the prevention and removal of biased language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As Wikipedia editors, we believe that we should strive to create non-biased and inclusive content. The wording of previous versions of this article unequivocally fails to meet this standard. Referring to cryonics patients as "corpses" or "bodies" does not further this goal. It implies, contrary to the viewpoints of many, if not most scientists and thinkers, including respected experts such as Elon Musk, Robert Freitas, Eric Drexler, Ray Kurzweil, and countless others. Referring to the patient as a "person", "human", or "patient" is neutral-even the page on homeopathy, an obvious pseudoscience, states that the recipients are "patients" and not "scammees" or "poor, gullible schmucks". Use of the word "patient" neither implies life or death; it merely states the subject through the lens of cryonics: a person undergoing medical treatment. This issue is not about the validity of the science behind cryonics; it's about making Wikipedia a better place for everyone. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we managed to achieve editorial excellence through the prevention and removal of biased language, that you introduced. - Roxy the dog 08:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I stopped reading at "respected experts such as Elon Musk". Bon courage (talk) 08:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Your inability to listen (or even read, for that matter) anyone who disagrees with you just shows unequivocal proof for my statement, as does your need to publicly and proudly trumpet your bias.

SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, in the meantime, I have reverted my edits, to allow for further discussion within the community and as an expression of good faith.SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

For which an admin will likely block you. In the meantime you should read this page's archives and the many discussions at WP:FT/N over the years if you want to understand why Wikipedia must be as it is. Bon courage (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Cryonics is not considered to be a fringe science by most thinkers. There have been no scientific literature or research published that has debunked, or anything close to that, the science behind cryonics. On the other hand, cryonicists have been unfairly painted as fringe thinkers and pseudoscientists by anti-cryonics activists, including on this Wikipedia page. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have only made three reverts, not four, and the same number of reverts that you made. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

A revert is changing text back to your preferred version, not necessarily using the revert/undo function. This is explained in the warning you were given. Bon courage (talk) 08:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Even considering that, only three reverts were made, compared to a combined four between you and Roxy the Dog. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I changed "freezing" to "vitrification". Nobody disputes this. Cryonics does not involve freezing in any manner. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Think again. risible comment btw. I laughed my socks off. - Roxy the dog 06:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What's risible is your ardent and intransigent belief that cryopreserving one's body by perfusing with cryoprotectants followed by vitrification in liquid nitrogen at -200C is "freezing". SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You are right, this entire article is very biased. The whole "Notable People" section with phrases like "Disgraced financier" should be completely redone or just outright deleted. Kuraczan (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah this article was totally written by a hater. It's gotta be entirely reworked. LesbianTiamat (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It needs to follow the mainstream reliable sources, and so far as I can tell that is exactly what it does. If mainstream science is 'biased' against a particular topic, Wikipedia is going to reflect that, since that is what content policies require. MrOllie (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

'Referring to cryonics patients as "corpses" or "bodies" does not further this goal.'

In my perception, "corpse" implies that they are dead, "patient" implies that they are alive, but "body" is neutral and implies neither. — Omegatron (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

They are dead. Bon courage (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Last two sentences of first lead paragraph

While I am not alleging bias, these two sentences leave much to be desired. We should rephrase it based on WP:MEDRS, who are unequivocal enough about the lack of merit of cryonics, and stop citing freaking newspaper articles, per WP:BESTSOURCES. Cryonics' likelihood of success and medical merits are strictly biomedical claims. DFlhb (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Don't think Shermer is reliable for anything much (and his view changed anyway) except cycling. You're objecting to Jens Karlsson[11] being quoted for pseudoscience? What? Cryonic claims are not biomedical; numerous sources point it is not even science. Bon courage (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

We currently rely largely on journalists, including three book reviews (one in an WP:MREL source) to describe its scientific merits. That's silly.

We can keep the first sentence as-is, but should likely replace the second one with one or two quotes by medical experts (who we deem representative of the scientific consensus) that specifically address cryonics' lack of medical merit. Karlsson is a great one, who I've never objected to, as anyone can plainly see by checking the revision history. DFlhb (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds fine in principle, though I would probably add the MEDRS denials to what we already have instead of replacing the existing sentence - pseudoscience and quackery labelling aren't exactly medical issues, more a judgment of how the research is conducted than the results. Do you have a draft sentence in mind? MrOllie (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The "second one" is: "Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community. It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery." What's wrong with it? Bon courage (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

... would you believe nothing at all? - Roxy the dog 17:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Are editors so reflexively used to shooing away pro-fringe editors that reasonable sourcing concerns get dismissed out of hand rather than discussed? DFlhb (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what the sourcing issue is, and for which sentence. Bon courage (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure.

• REF3 is excellent thanks to Karlsson
• REF4 Butler (nutritionist) quotes William T. Jarvis, who calls it quackery.
• REF5:
  • Hamilton (organic chemist) merely argues cryonics isn't happening "anytime soon", quoting Alcor in agreement
  • Schechter (literature professor) gives greater prominence to proponents than critics, and lavishes praise on Alcor and Ben Best (check that out).
  • Pein (a reporter) calls the field "utter crock" in a funny critique of a pro-cryonics New York Times article.
  • Chiasson (lit professor) calls it "quack science" in passing, in a review of an anthropologist's book
  • Miller (Salon.com)
  • Almond (lit professor) cryonics "quackery" in passing, in a review of a fiction novel.
  • Carroll (philosophy professor, skeptic), calls it quackery.

Karlsson, Jarvis are the only scientists here, and they're merely providing brief quotes to intermediary works. My concern is that we have no idea what the appropriate tone and balance is, with such insufficient sourcing. For example, I'd have phrased it a lot more strongly than the quaint regarded with skepticism. But it's contentious, and we don't know what exact phrasing to use unless we look for in-depth coverage in high-quality sources (doctors and scientists; doesn't need to be strictly MEDRS, could even be self-published). DFlhb (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

REF5 is just reinforcement specifically for the quackery idea (here and in the body). Could probably be trimmed a bit. Carroll is good on what's quackery and not, as is Jarvis. Bon courage (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks much better now. I like User:MrOllie's idea of adding rather than replacing. Such additions might even belong in the last lead paragraph rather than the first; the last paragraph is properly sourced, but focuses on the business side rather than assessing the medical merits. DFlhb (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe "(the current sentence) However, cryonicists have pointed out that cryonics does not make any unscientific claims, and that it makes no guarantees of reanimation." SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't look like moving on as you said you would at ANI. Do we need to reopen that? MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

No, unless there's a reason why this is considered not "moving on". I'm not topic-banned from cryonics. This has nothing to do with either fringe status discussion nor the "neural circuits" sentence. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

By "moving on" you implied you were dropping the topic "until the scientific community catches up and/or the first patient is reanimated." Neither of those has occurred, yet here you are.

If you meant you were only moving on from the FTN discussion, that was not clear from your statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm self-topic-banned from cryonics due to your interpretation of my statement? SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing basically a reworded version of the same point that the center of the argument you said you were dropping.

I don't think there's such thing as a self-topic-ban, but that ANI discussion was closed because you were dropping it. If you didn't mean what everyone thought you meant, perhaps that discussion should be reopened. ApLundell (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

So, according to your interpretation of Wikipedia policy, I'm self-topic-banned from cryonics. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 08:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the point is you said you were dropping the argument for now, then came right here to keep arguing. Step away from cryonics for a few days, a week, a month, whatever, just take a break for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. News articles are not the right way to source on any scientific Wikipedia article, when there are higher-quality sources readily available. EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I'm mostly concerned about the sourcing of the article now. SurfingOrca2045 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

See also - brain in a vat

Does this item really belong in the see also list? The brain in a vat thought experiment isn't related to this subject. Very Average Editor (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead paragraph unnecessarily harsh

The sentence " It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery." is too extreme, given the current state of the field. It cites three sources, all of which are at least 20 years old. Many in the scientific community still approach cryonics with a healthy dose of skepticism due to the lack of empirical evidence for its success on complex organisms, categorizing it outright as 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' is too dismissive. Cryonics is rooted in legitimate scientific principles related to low-temperature biology and preservation. The significant challenges lie in translating these principles to real-world application, especially in humans. As with many frontiers of science, the distinction between vision and viability is nuanced, and it's essential to approach cryonics with informed caution rather than outright dismissal. I believe that it makes more sense to simply conclude with the preceding sentence "Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community." 213.47.205.143 (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects what the best available sources and the mainstream scientific consensus think about a topic. In this case they are quite harsh, so the Wikipedia article is harsh as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia gets hit with a lot of pseudoscience like chiropractic, naturopathy, supplements, acupuncture, anti-vaxxing, etc. There's a LOT. So WP has a fairly low bar to deal with this. If it's ever been characterized in reputable sources as being pseudoscience, and there has been no solid refutation or consensus showing that all of the elements are based on science, then it's treated as pseudoscience. Harshness is allowed beyond what the average scientist might feel. The only way out is to change WP policy or develop rock solid scientific consensus on all elements of cryonics. Since I would rather fight pseudoscience, I don't mind cryonics being swept up into the pseudoscience category on WP even though it feels a little unfair.JordanSparks (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)