Talk:Cryonics

Lede reads like an attack on cryonics

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

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

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

'Economic reality' assertation

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

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

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

A similar correction should be made to the following sentence:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2019

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020

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

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

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

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

Pseudoscience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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