View source for Talk:Cryonics

{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
| action1       = GAN
| action1date   = 2007-06-12
| action1link   = Talk:Cryonics#GA: Not successful
| action1result = failed
| action1oldid  = 137461722

| currentstatus = FGAN
|otd1date=2007-01-12|otd1oldid=99901144|otd2date=2008-01-12|otd2oldid=183347223|otd3date=2009-01-12|otd3oldid=263560788|otd4date=2010-01-12|otd4oldid=337335069|otd5date=2011-01-12|otd5oldid=407464143|otd6date=2016-01-12|otd6oldid=699483435|otd7date=2017-01-12|otd7oldid=759462794|otd8date=2018-01-12|otd8oldid=819899562
|otd9date=2021-01-12|otd9oldid=999560998
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Death|class=B|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Transhumanism|class=B|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=Mid}}

}}
{{Discretionary sanctions|ps}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Cryonics/Archive %(counter)d
}}

==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==
[[File:Sciences humaines.svg|40px]] This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available [[Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Michigan_State_University/IAH_209_Autopsy_(Spring_2016)|on the course page]]. Student editor(s): [[User:Mlgeorge925|Mlgeorge925]].

{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 18:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Claim about reanimation is unsupported by reference ==

The claim

<blockquote>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. </blockquote>

is unsupported by the reference given. The reference is [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/18/the-cryonics-dilemma-will-deep-frozen-bodies-be-fit-for-new-life 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,

<blockquote>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.” </blockquote>

however, the article continues by citing Anders Sandberg,

<blockquote> "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." </blockquote>
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.

--[[User:Cusku&#39;i|Cusku&#39;i]] ([[User talk:Cusku&#39;i|talk]]) 08:57, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
:{{u|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. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 12:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
: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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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 - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk: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"?  [[Anders_Sandberg|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 [https://www.biostasis.com/scientists-open-letter-on-cryonics/ 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. --  [[User:Zephyrus Tavvier|Zephyrus Tavvier]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Zephyrus Tavvier|Zephyrus Tavvier]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Firejuggler86|Firejuggler86]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Jordansparks|JordanSparks]] ([[User talk:Jordansparks|talk]]) 03:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

== Pseudoscience ==
{{archive top|[[WP:POINT]]y and non-productive. The purpose of this page is to discuss article improvements. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 07:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)}}
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. [[User:Jordansparks|JordanSparks]] ([[User talk:Jordansparks|talk]]) 16:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:That's just wrong. NPOV applies to all Wikipedia articles, and is <u>non-negotiable</u>. The NPOV considerations for pseudoscience are at [[WP:PSCI]], and the [[WP:FRINGE]] guidance expands on them. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Jordansparks|JordanSparks]] ([[User talk:Jordansparks|talk]]) 19:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
:::See [[WP:POINT]] and stop wasting people's time. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Jordansparks|JordanSparks]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ComicsAreJustAllRight|ComicsAreJustAllRight]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Jordansparks|JordanSparks]] ([[User talk:Jordansparks|talk]]) 03:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== 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 [[Interstellar probe|probes]] to distant stars is pseudoscience today, yet many scientists are actively researching methods to design exactly this engineering objective.
* The [[Space elevator|space elevator]] is currently an impossible engineering goal due to its many known physical limitations, such as collisions. The [[Lunar space elevator|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 [[Plectus parvus|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.
--[[User:WmBliss|WmBliss]] ([[User talk:WmBliss|talk]]) 19:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
:{{notdone}} We should follow sources, as the article currently does. The proposal changes (without sources) seem [[WP:PROFRINGE]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 19:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
::No textual changes have been presented, only suggestions for discussion on consistency. [[User:WmBliss|WmBliss]] ([[User talk: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.) [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 19:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
::Ask any doctor whether they prefer the term "donor" over "corpse". [[User:WmBliss|WmBliss]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:WmBliss|WmBliss]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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. ([https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1113/jphysiol.1955.sp005323 This] entertaining paper was recently [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y featured] by Tom Scott.) [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk: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<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7709411/</ref>. Moreover, global changes in cell metabolism <ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24278469/</ref> and gene expression after death<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28123054/</ref><ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33758256/</ref> 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<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30263951/</ref>. Damage of 5% of neurons in the human forebrain<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16339467/</ref> in a stroke event leads to negative personality changes<ref>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15548488/</ref>. Therefore, it should be expected that freezing the human brain even under ideal conditions will also lead to irreversible personality changes.[[User:7R41N3R|7R41N3R]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Jordansparks|JordanSparks]] ([[User talk:Jordansparks|talk]]) 15:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

== What reanimation methods have been  tried so far? ==
{{archive top|Nothing here about improving the article. Please heed [[WP:TPG]]. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 02:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)}}
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? [[Special:Contributions/93.49.39.207|93.49.39.207]] ([[User talk:93.49.39.207|talk]]) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
:How does this relate to improving the article? -[[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the grumpy dog</small>.]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''wooF''']] 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

: You may be interested in [https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1113/jphysiol.1955.sp005323 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.  [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 22:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}
{{archive bottom}}

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

{{u|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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk: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. - [[User:Roxy the dog|'''Roxy''' <small> the English speaking</small>]] [[User talk:Roxy the dog|'''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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk:Global Cerebral Ischemia|talk]]) 18:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|"I believe that the use of the word "body" here will be understood as a body that is dead"}} &larr; it's not so understood, as I wrote. Why use ambigious euphemisms instead of correct impartial language? [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk: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." [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk:Global Cerebral Ischemia|talk]]) 18:20, 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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk: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 {{u|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]]? [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cryonics&oldid=1054739734 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cryonics&oldid=1038761326 500 edits back] to August.
:How far back to we have to go to find the "good" version of the page in your estimation?
:[[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Global Cerebral Ischemia|Global Cerebral Ischemia]] ([[User talk:Global Cerebral Ischemia|talk]]) 18:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)