Talk:Cryonics

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)

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)

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)

Achieving editorial excellence through the prevention and removal of biased language

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)

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.[1] 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.[2] 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[3] 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)

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[4] 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.[5] 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."[6] 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)

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