Jump to content

Talk:Cryonics

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 3 August 2022 (→Let's avoid an edit war; "bodies" vs "corpses"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nomineeCryonics was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 12, 2007, January 12, 2008, January 12, 2009, January 12, 2010, January 12, 2011, January 12, 2016, January 12, 2017, January 12, 2018, and January 12, 2021.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pseudoscience

WP:POINTy and non-productive. The purpose of this page is to discuss article improvements. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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


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

Necrosis of neurons and their irreversible morphological changes likely can be detected within 4 hours after death due to ischemia[1]. Moreover, global changes in cell metabolism [2] and gene expression after death[3][4] 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[5]. Damage of 5% of neurons in the human forebrain[6] in a stroke event leads to negative personality changes[7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What reanimation methods have been tried so far?

Nothing here about improving the article. Please heed WP:TPG. Alexbrn (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

References

  1. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7709411/
  2. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24278469/
  3. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28123054/
  4. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33758256/
  5. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30263951/
  6. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16339467/
  7. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15548488/
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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cryonics&oldid=1102180359"