Talk:Cryonics

Elon Musk - Citation & article reformatting

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.

---

The opening paragraph of this Article states, "Cryonics is regarded with skepticism within the mainstream scientific community. It is generally viewed as a pseudoscience, and its practice has been characterized as quackery."

The citations are from 2002, 1992, and 2013, respectively. Said opinions, quotes, and citations belong under the History section as they range from 10 to over 30 years old.

A more recent citation from 2020 follows (Google "Elon Musk Cryonics"). It's about 2 minutes of your time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+cryonics&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&sca_esv=9b41ab9b54a73dba&source=android-home&sxsrf=ACQVn0_iPjx49FuRDEv7qDOuC6anGB89SA%3A1706814842412&source=hp&ei=eu27ZeHmFruckPIP0L-IqAQ&udm=&oq=&gs_lp=EhFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocCIAKgIIAjIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzINEC4YxwEY0QMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJzIHECMY6gIYJ0joDlAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEByAEAqAIP&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:17e6285a,vid:MSIjNKssXAc,st:0 Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been raised before. Elon Musk is not a reliable source for anything except Elon Musk's views. Bon courage (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I could argue historical quotes from lesser known, less influential, and less educated people on this subject from 10-30+ years ago is a less reliable source than Elon, who is more known, more influential, and more educated on this subject...and, therefore more credible.

Matter of fact, that is my argument.

That's mainstream.

I'm not recommending removal of the existing antiquated citations/opinions, those should certainly be perserved...under History. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk is not "educated on this subject." The fact you think so is extremely telling. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Not just Elon Musk is not "educated on this subject." But also Elon musk is a person presenting various of topic. Some are just brainstorm, some are just speculative, some for fun, some are serious. Cloud29371 (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I googled "Elon Musk Cryonics" and found the following: "Elon Musk is asked about cryonics. In a nutshell, Elon answers that if the brain is frozen quickly after death, then it would be possible to extract enough information to revive the person"

He does not endorse cryonics. Cryonics today still failed to "frozen the brain quickly", so marketing cryonics as potentially able to "frozen quickly" using today science and revival in future (frozen today and revival in future is completely different from frozen in future and revival in future) still quackery and pseudoscience. Cloud29371 (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Google searches are not reliable sources for anything. And neither is Elon Musk.

The suggestion to move citations to History is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Are those citations not history?

I'm attempting to collaborate with all of you to update, and maintain, truth in this article.

Selective omissions because individuals hold an opinion that Elon is not reliable shocks me.

As for "non-starter", please show me your willingness to collaborate by telling me what counts as a starter. Need statements from PhDs? MDs? MBAs? JDs? No problem, just let me know so we can get to a neutral and truthful article. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You need to get some clue. Like, read WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia does not deal in your "truth", but reflects accepted knowledge. There is nothing to show the accepted knowledge on cryonics (it's a load of old fraudulent crap) is dated. That is the view now. Bon courage (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We need reliable sources as outlined in WP:RS. For a topic like this, to make the article say what you seem to want to make it say, that would mean peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals. We don't do testimonials, celebrity, MBA, or otherwise. MrOllie (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your professional response, relative to other responses I've received. The rules of engagement (WP:RS) are helpful as I learn how to collaborate with you.

Please review this book/information.

Cryostasis Revival: The Recovery of Cryonics Patients through Nanomedicine

© 2022 Robert A. Freitas Jr.

https://books.google.com/books/about/Cryostasis_Revival.html?id=MzbozgEACAAJ

It has been made freely available as a PDF download to the public as part of a US 501c3's mission to educate the public, available at this link:

https://www.alcor.org/cryostasis-revival/?noamp=mobile

I'm not trying to hide my identity, you likely already know who this is. I do NOT represent the publisher/Alcor Life Extension Foundation ("Alcor"), a tax-exempt 501c3. I do NOT receive financial benefit from this book or from Alcor; however, I was the CEO of said organization (until May 2022) when the decision was made to freely educate the public. I argue this ENTIRE "Cryonics" Wikipedia article needs a full review and rewrite in light of new information provided herein.

Please find these quotes in the free copywrite book:

"These results suggest that, when cryonics is carried out under favorable conditions, and when ice formation is prevented by vitrification, it has every appearance of preserving the structure and the molecular inventory of the brain."

- Gregory M. Fahy, Ph.D.

January 2022

(Current President of the Society for Cryobiology)

"There is now an emerging scientific consensus on the feasibility of cryopreserving complex mammalian tissues, and the Society for Cryobiology is no longer openly hostile to cryonicists, though still eschewing cryonics as part of its professional mission."

-Society for Cryobiology

The sources of these quotes meet the definition of published, context of the facts weighs heavily in favor of reliability, and a rewrite of the entire article is warranted due to the age of this freely available book citation (which I notice it's not currently listed).

I appreciate your guidance by pointing me to WP:RS, as I am still new to Wikipedia.

How do we start the process of review and rewrite to present non-biased truth to the world?

Thanks in advance for your response.

<Overton Window> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A self published book is not a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal. MrOllie (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal is not the requirement under WP:RS.

My submitted citation exceeds citation #3 (1992) from a non-scientist on every measure per WP:RS.

<Overton> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it does not. We do not use self published books as sources. If you read WP:RS and came away thinking that meets the requirements you have gravely misunderstood WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I did not publish the book, so that's moot. The author did not publish the book, so that's moot.

Yes, a US 501c3 freely published the book as part of their mission to educate the public.

That does not meet the definition of self-published.

Time's up. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to ask at WP:RSN, they will tell you the same. There is no way we can use that as a source. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

How long does it take for that book to be published? Ty in advance. <46> Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

however, I was the CEO of said organization (until May 2022) when the decision was made to freely educate the public

Per WP:COI, you need to declare this on your user page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:27, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want a User Page, but ok.

Disclosed, COI not an issue. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is just a question for you (the one behind the screen). I'm not asking specifically about editing the article... I'm asking why you think/thought COI was important? Educate me, please...

Did you think there was potentially a benefit for me?

Ty in advance for your answer. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter why someone chose to remind you of the rules.

The rules apply whether or not someone reminds you, so you should just thank the person who reminds you and move on.

ApLundell (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

If you read WP:COI it explains why. We are concerned when people have personal ties to a subject, as it makes it more likely they are editing with a bias to promote said subject beyond what is reasonable for Wikipedia's purposes. Sometimes that means a financial benefit to said editor, but other times it's just because they're friends/co-workers who want to make the subject look better in the public eye. And Wikipedia is not here for promotional purposes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks. Patrick Harris, Sr (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It's a non-starter because you're unilaterally trying to move quotes for reasons not based in Wikipedia policy. As Bon courage and MrOllie say, you need to familiarize yourself with our core policies and editing guidelines before making such suggestions.

Need statements from PhDs? MDs? MBAs? JDs?

No. We want reliable sources per that policy. Independent, secondary sources (not "statements" from individuals), preferably those with a history of fact-checking and reliable reporting. Not speeches from UFO proponents & their mouthpieces. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And since this is a fringe topic sources need to be WP:FRIND. Bon courage (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Elon Musk once said that aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. But for some reason they won't let me add that to Great Pyramid of Giza. MrOllie (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

or that some guy was a pedo? Bon courage (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

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.

Anthropological View

Based on a speculative science, cryonics is controversial in scientific debate and can be better understood as an emergent death ritual along a social evolution of human culture and technology.

Belief in an afterlife, or second life, where the phenomenological body endures a transition or resurrection is recurrent across ancient tradition, religion and science fiction. However, the increasingly socialized language of cryotechnology in health and wellness treatments, contextualizes waking of the un/dead into the biosocial sphere, framing mortality as something akin to illness which can be controlled or cured.

Cryonics draws into question the boundaries of the sovereign self (Foucault cited in:Friedrich 2017)) and the individual body, challenging legal definitions of personhood (Falconer 2023). These boundaries, however, are not universal and ideas which limit the self within the dichotomy of Cartesian dualism are defined through western philosophy and law.

To understand the imprint of cryonics on the body politic (Nancy Scheper-Hughes 1987) it is useful to apply the Foucauldian definition of biopower. Ability to access and harness forms of cryotechnology (from cryostorage of food, blood or sperm) is historically bound to class, wealth and power. It is a life-enabling power central to health, fertility and treatment. In this sense, cryonics preservation is a mechanism in the ‘cold chain’ (Friedrich 2017) power structure with potential to produce, preserve but also restrict life.

References

Falconer, K 2023, 'Cryopreservation and the death of legal personhood', Mortality- Promoting the interdisciplinary study of death and dying, pp. 1–16.

Foucault, M 1997, “Society Must Be Defended”: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976, Picador, New York.

Friedrich, E 2017, 'The Rise of Cryopower: Biopolitics in the age Cryogenic Life', in EK Joanna Radin (ed.), Cryopolitics: Frozen Life in a Melting World, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 59-66.

Nancy Scheper-Hughes, MML 1987, 'The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology', Medical Anthropology Quarterly, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 6-41. PThornback (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources, but this reads like an argumentative essay, not a Wikipedia article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Dubious

In 2009, writing in Bioethics, David Shaw examined cryonics. The arguments against it included changing the concept of death, the expense of preservation and revival, lack of scientific advancement to permit revival, temptation to use premature euthanasia, and failure due to catastrophe. Arguments in favor of cryonics include the potential benefit to society, the prospect of immortality, and the benefits associated with avoiding death. Shaw explores the expense and the potential payoff, and applies an adapted version of Pascal's Wager to the question.

This is a really strange paragraph. It seems to me like there is some conflation between arguments for/against the technology working, and arguments for/against the technology being morally good. They are different things! Obviously flying airplanes into skyscrapers works as a method of killing people -- but saying that 9/11 happened does not, in any reasonable world, mean you're arguing "in favor of" it. I think the practical questions of whether it works or is a scam etc should be separated from this. jp×g🗯️ 06:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems odd yes. From this edit[1] it seems like this was an attempt to condense a point that cryonics might encourage people with early-stage disease to off themselves so they could "benefit" from a cure after being cryonically revived from their death, but that if cryonics doesn't work it's just suicide which is not good. Bon courage (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reasonable chance of revival, but cryonics could be useful to society for different reasons (e.g. archaeology of the future, medical research, and so on). Also, for terminally ill people euthanasia (by cryonics) is a valid option (at least in some countries).

E.g. keeping them frozen costs money, and if the institution keeping them frozen would go bankrupt, the frozen bodies will either be dumped or auctioned. I'm not saying it's likely to happen in the next three or four decades, but if we count centuries, it becomes at least probable. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Cryonics around the world

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.

---

Cryonics starts from the United States of America since 1960s. In 2005, KrioRus established, make it the first cryonics organizations serve outside the United States. In 2017, the first cryonics organization in East Asia established in Shangdong, China, make it the first cryonics organization outside US and Russia. Cloud29371 (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

References

For KrioRus at least we have some reaction/secondary coverage. For the Chinese outfit (the text for which fails verification) we don't; so it gives us no knowledge about cryonics. This is meant to be an article about cryonics, not a directory of outfits selling this quackery based on weak primary sources and churnalism. Bon courage (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There are already various newspaper from various country as secondary coverage. One of a source titled "leapfrog to the west" may give you an wrong intuitive about politics but content is more important. Cloud29371 (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no secondary coverage, just WP:PRIMARYNEWS churnalism with some daft Chinese propaganda mixed in. Bon courage (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

This is not primary news, but various secondary news. One from Hong Kong, one from India, one from Mainland China, one from Malaysia. Cloud29371 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A WP:secondary source "contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". A news piece on "Woman has body frozen for future" is not that, it's giving uncritical exposure to fringe nonsense. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems you only judge by reading the title not content. Cloud29371 (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so now the bad faith argument. China Daily is a crap source, and again it is giving uncritical space to quackery, while also not verifying your text about 2017. Bon courage (talk) 09:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

New Straits Times (Posted in August 15 2017) : IT HAS been three months since Gui Jumin’s wife Zhan Wenlian became the first Chinese person to be cryogenically frozen. Cloud29371 (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The first Chinese cryonics patients is in 2015, and the first Chinese cryonics organization was launched in 2017. Cloud29371 (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Come back when there's some decent secondary sourcing commenting on this. Until then, this content is undue and inapproporiate. Bon courage (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Fine. You can even claim that "earth is round" cited by MIT is not appropriate. Cloud29371 (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What has that got to do with promoting an outfit selling pseudoscience? Bon courage (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look what article you are editing Cloud29371 (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The point is we don't cover every outfit springing up offering this stuff just because they get a press release churned in the news. It adds nothing to the readers' knowledge of cryonics, unless there is some secondary coverage to explain any significance. Bon courage (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The first cryonics outside US and Russia, is it significant enough ? Cloud29371 (talk) 09:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No. That's not even true. This is why trying to imply stuff with primary sources is a problem. Bon courage (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

But by the way, I agree the "leapfrog to the west" for a pseudoscience like Cryonics is definitely not a "good pride of China". In fact, it can be a negative image. Only leapfrog to a legitimate advanced science, such as large language model and quantum computing can be a "real pride of China". Cloud29371 (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

do not attempt to WP:OWN the article

• I have included the relevant policies and the MOS in my edit summary: WP:LOADED, WP:IMPARTIAL, and WP:TSI. I'm sure you're as familiar with those as I am.
• The tone throughout the article is inappropriate. The policies are well known.
• Contributions are appreciated, and it's best to stay civil, for the benefit of the Encyclopedia and the editors involved. That does of course include the edit summaries.
• It's hard to miss the many threads in the archive, the existence of venues carrying long and tiresome engagements, and the patterns of the arguments. Could you remind me of how many reverts are allowed per day on this topic?
• This is not a dispute over the facts or the sources, but the tone of the article, and the use of specific words throughout. That, as I see in a summary, degrades the article.
• The characterization as pseudoscience and quackery is shown prominently in the lead, as well as the skepticism of the practice by the scientific community; the issues with the technology are explained and cited in each relevant section. Even newer citations, from good and respectable sources are available for use. It's the wording in the prose that's problematic. The use of "corpse" throughout, in place of "body", creates the impression that you're reading about horror fiction. (Leaves a bad taste to be frank.) Few times is it used in the sources, and WP:IMPARTIAL, all that, still applies.
• You may not have noticed reverting a 2022 citation [2] about the twins born from frozen 30-year embryos. An example from that particular section, the order of "animal cells, human embryos, and even some organized tissues" is a clear and unambiguous illustration of this problem. Others aplenty.
• My wording is reasonable and I hope to reach a consensus here without excessive reverts, so that other things can be worked on.
• Again it is good and best to collaborate and to keep the arguments short, for the sake of all. As they say, there are No Angry Mastodons here, except the ones we raise from the frozen ground. In good and excellent faith here.

Skullers (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

You're seeking to replace clear language with fuzzy language. Sometimes telling as it is has to be appreciated. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. The current language is careful and accurate. The mooted changes are either wrong, ambiguous or fringey. A news piece about embryos is of no relevance here. Bon courage (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• What's ambiguous about "bodies"? Celestial bodies? Newtonian bodies? Who's going to not know what it refers to in this context? Skullers (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• The additional reference about long-term cryopreservation of human embryos supports the statements made (cryopreservation of cells, tissues, and embryos). The section also needs updating. The 2015 article was 7 years before the event. Secondly, the text "animal cells, human embryos, and even some organized tissues" for some reason emphasizes tissues over the entire body, which is much more relevant to long-term cryopreservation of humans. Vitrified, stored in liquid nitrogen, for 30 years, brought to life. They were in fact selected for being stored the longest.[3] Embryos are made of tissues and tissues are made of cells, to put human embryos in the middle and then to emphasize "and even some organized tissues" is something else. Skullers (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Bodies can be living; corpses aren't. Cryopreservation is a separate topic, and not relevant here. Bon courage (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Does not exist in a vacuum; relevant advances in cryopreservation and cryobiology are applied to cryonics and the relationship and distinction is discussed in academic sources on the subject.

• While it's possible and practical with embryos, to then explicitly say it's impossible with anything else, going forward, is something other than skepticism. Matters of information theory and of available technology determine the outcome. That the required tech, in this case nanotech is not sufficiently advanced (as of) is really not enough to state with confidence that something is not possible. Not impractical or currently not possible or speculative. Nanotechnology is mentioned exactly once, ought to be expanded on. Is it hard to believe how many times the same things were said about AI-anything, with just as much certainty, only to move the goalposts? Much like the definitions of life/death, except faster. Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. This article is based on reliable sources. Ones about cryonics. Bon courage (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Replacing the plain language of the article with the industry's preferred marketing euphemisms is not making the article more neutral, it is moving in the opposite direction. MrOllie (talk) 14:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

What are the marketing euphemisms? Bodies? Actual euphemisms exist, such as references to "patients", already in quotes. Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and you removed them in favor of non-quoted euphemistic terms like 'subjects', 'bodies', 'clients' etc. That's not neutrality, that is embracing industry marketing jargon. MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with calling corpses "corpses". Other articles about the disposal of human remains use that wording. (And, of course, "human remains") It's not the preferred euphemism of the cryo companies, but that's because they are biased and have a very obvious axe to grind. Following their lead would take the article away from neutral. ApLundell (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

And it's not as if this very point hasn't been discussed here ad nauseam. Bon courage (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Multiple independent editors have taken issue with the wording, and for good reasons, and brought up reliable sources that use the word "body" exclusively. Some are currently used as references, including academic ones. A problem is that they're not here all at the same time or watch the changes vigilantly or even partake in what has been described as edit wars. I don't remember even doing two reverts in a row, let alone that fast. Skullers (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Every fringe article will have 'multiple independent editors' who take issue with it if you run through the talk page. That does not necessarily mean their concerns warrant a change. MrOllie (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a tendency to get carried away and go the extra mile. The same language would be used against religion and anything related to it, if it was permitted. The application and interpretation of undue, contentious, not teaching the controversy etc suggests one no longer has to maintain encyclopedic tone or write in good taste or adhere to norms as in other subjects. Even articles on terrorists aren't written that way. Another thing is that neutrality is essentially made to be impossible, you are either with or against, with nothing in-between, as with political subjects. Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

encyclopedic tone does not mean WP:FALSEBALANCE. When mainstream sources are critical of a topic so to should be the Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I can see the ad nauseam. Ought to be avoided as a time sink. One could attempt to summarize it with one robot or another. (beans) Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not an issue of WP:OWN, but one against many. And as someone with over a decade of experience in the medical field, "corpse" is a neutral term for a dead body. You don't have to like it, but there it is. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know, medicine is practiced on living subjects while cryonics is considered to be in the realm of funeral services. Skullers (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

But the vendors typically describe[4] it as "preserving life" or "pausing death". Hence the quackery. Bon courage (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Suppose it would be weird to say "we'll have your corpse frozen for $280k!" Generally, they don't claim to diagnose or treat any illness or condition but to prevent decomposition, minimize the damage to the cells, the formation of ice crystals etc. Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Medicine has to deal with the dead quite a bit, unfortunately. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

So I've looked around a bit, the language varies in different ways, with some patterns:

• Body bag
• Medical examiner
• Autopsy, ugh.
• Ancient Egyptian funerary practices#Mummification
• This very subject (cryonics), sources use both words, sometimes interchangeably
• Interment. Generally people tend to use more respectful language.

Macabre. Who would want to spend that much time examining the details? It would be appropriate to add a footnote on etymology and uses. From Latin corpus (meaning body) and before that, from Old English all the way to PIE. Not like it needs a separate etymology section or anything. - Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Some recent and peer-reviewed sources are found, will take some time to read and examine references and to present things with integrity. Does take a lot more patience than many other things. Skullers (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)