| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name
editso Darwin is just his nickname? What is his real name then? if darwin is his real name, is he in anyway realated to charles darwin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- As it explains in the article his "real name" is Michael Federowicz, but that name is not very widely known in cryonics and his "cryonics name" is very widely known. --Ben Best 02:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- sorry, i didn't read properly. His real name should be in the very first paragraph though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I added his real name in the lead.Cablespy (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- "Darwin" is real and legally valid; it is merely not the name on his birth certificate. Taurus (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- I added his real name in the lead.Cablespy (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- sorry, i didn't read properly. His real name should be in the very first paragraph though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.225.172 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
puffing article
editThis article should conform to normal BLP standards. It had been depuffed a while back, but far too much anecdotal material is back in, as well as laudatory material which may not conform to best practice. I just removed the "complete works of" bit as not being usual for any BLP of a scientist at all. Collect (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
References
editI am going through some of the footnotes added recently in a puffy version of the article, to see what's there. I'm looking at this version. I'm going to go through a couple of these with an eye on our BLP policies--basically, if a source doesn't mention our subject, it's of no use, and is typically used to support some statement that by extension has something to say on our subject, and that's synthesis.
- note 30: dead link.
- note 31: link to comments on NYT article; article itself mentions our subject and could possibly support a sentence or two in the article (but not some nonsense about widespread media controversy and coverage--and if so, it doesn't belong in this article by in cryogenics).
- notes 32 through 36: blogs, boards, etc--don't mention our subject.
To be continued. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Note 14 through 18: messageboard stuff with pseudonyms.
- Note 19: not a reliable source (newsletter), and doesn't support anything about our subject. Note, btw, the BLP violation in the paragraph supposedly supported by this 'source'--"with his lover at the time."
- Note 20: a clear case of BLP bullshit. A document by the author on a company website is supposed to verify this statement: "he is a self-taught expert in the field of cerebral ischemia." Right.
To be continued, perhaps--since I'm 1 for 14. The references I have looked at can support the statement that he co-wrote an article, which can be supported by reference to the abovementioned article in the New York Times. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
COI
editBe aware that this article has suffered from COI, both "pro" and anti Darwin. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC).