Talk:Cryonics/Archive 4

Page vandalism/edit warring
The current version of this article states "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." The citation provided for this statement is this article, which is obviously not credible; it's a pop science article that quotes a *single* scientist. By these standards it would also be justified to put "climate change is not caused by humans" on the climate change page, since there exist many scientists who hold that belief and have been quoted saying as much. Wikipedia exists to reflect the scientific *consensus*, not the beliefs of a single crackpot who managed to get quoted in a news article.

As the rest of the main page explains, and has been extensively discussed on this talk page, speculative statements about future technology are not proven and cannot be assumed to be true on Wikipedia. Yet that's exactly what this line of the article is doing; making an unproven claim about what future technology will be able to accomplish.

I corrected this error and explained my reasoning in the edit summary. User Bon Courage reverted by edit without providing any justification, which I believe qualifies as vandalism. KingSupernova (talk) 07:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry what is the "vandalism" referred to? What we have is fine: this is a fringe topic so per WP:PARITY the view of relevant independent experts is necessary to counteract the bullshit. Additionally, referring to Clive Coen as you have is a serious BLP violation which is likely to need admin action. Bon courage (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A quote by a single reputable scientist is credible and is considered sufficient by Wikipedia to determine that a topic is pseudoscience. Climate change was able to overcome this by solidly refuting any such opinions and developing clear consensus. Cryonics has not yet overcome this hurdle.JordanSparks (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)