Talk:Sky burial

message: FYI I'm discussing with Mytildebang if we can undo the merger of Tibetan Sky Burial into this page. Sky Burial should be a disambig with links to the specific practices of different cultures, since the practices are different enough that generalizations are untenable. So reversion of this page and of Tibetan Sky Burial may be forthcoming. 
Vcrs 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I indeed agree that there should be separate pages, but how come the Tibetan practice gets the generic 'Sky Burial' and not Towers of silence? I may be more familiar with the Zoroastrian religious custom, but I am not completely ignorant of this Tibetan funerary practice either. While I have not found any proof that the two share any common source or diffusion from one to the other, they are remarkably similar - if only in the physical, elementary aspects - when compared to the funerary practices of other cultures. I do think that the Zoroastrian practice should at least be added into the "See Also" section. I want to stress that I had nothing to do with previous versions mentioned, but upon arriving here I was somewhat shocked at not one contrast or comparison, since many scholars have remarked on this trans-cultural curiosity whilst noting their completely different spiritual purposes and origins. When I go to the Pyramid page, for example, I get all culture's pyramids. Why does jhator get Sky Burial and not Tibetan Sky Burial? And if it does get Sky Burial, why not be munificent enough to at least throw others a bone? Khirad (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: I would like to see a section in this wiki article about the legality of this practice, particularly in the United States.  I've done some research on the practice but can't find much.  Does anyone have anything to add? jsbarone  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.227.208 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps for the countries where the practice is carried out. The article says nothing about it occurring in the US, where it would almost certainly be illegal under state law relating to disposal of cadavers. – ukexpat (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting.  I've been researching burial law, and it looks like (at least in several states) it's perfectly legal to have a family burial lot on your rural property (source Funeral Regulations).  According to the previous link, a family member may care for their dead family member as long as it's confirmed by the proper authorities.  I don't see why it would be legal to bury a relative on private property away from any water sources/property boundaries but *not* legal to let them be devoured by birds.  They're essentially means to the same end.  Perhaps this would be protected by the Freedom of Religion act?  Jsbarone (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

text:  These two pictures on the bottom are extremely inappropriate, especially for Wikipedia. I was extremely shocked to see them. I really appreciate Wikipedia, but such pictures are not suitable. I mean what if little kids see them? I highly recommend you that you dispaly at least a warning note on the top of the article that this site contain shocking pictures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piccobello (talk • contribs) 11:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. --Danger (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality 

message: Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly. Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy... or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. However, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content. Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available—however, when a cited quotation contains words that may be offensive, it should not be censored.
So may I ask, does the article really need these pictures to be informative, relevant and accurate in regards of the topic at hand? 217.85.176.218 (talk) 04:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures give information about the nature of the ritual that cannot be conveyed through words alone. It seems that photographs of human remains are not illegal in the United States: witness photographs present in any news magazine covering wars or archaeology. If you have specific legal questions however, these should be addressed by contacting the Wikimedia foundation directly. The necessary information can be found here. --Danger (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are wrong. You don't even need a distinctively vivid imagination to conceive what is happening as the article describes it in a very detailed manner. Oh, and why are you actually signing with "Danger" instead of "Gimme Danger" who posted at the top of the page if you are apparantly the same person?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.196.74 (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed to a custom signature both to avoid confusion with the user Gimmetrow and because I don't like having my name shortened to "Gimme". --Danger (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: The above is a believe unsupported by evidence. The reference doesn't say anything about legality at all. To further undermine the above claims, there's a clear error in it: Sky Burials are usually not performed in monasteries. I could post a picture to support my statement. Micronor (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Sorry, we don't do that - I have reverted your removal of the images. – ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: OK first of all if you are talking about WP:BLP, it doesn't apply to the dead, if you are referring to some other policy or guideline, please specifically refer to it. Second, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the images are legal under Florida law (that's where the Wikipedia servers are located). Legality under the law of the country where they are taken is irrelevant. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Famous image of Tank Man was also probably obtained "illegally", as I seriously doubt that Chinese government in 1989 would have approved of photographing the event and/or publishing such pictures. So are you saying that one of the most iconic photographs of recent history shouldn't be displayed publicly? Or that Wikipedia should remove images depicting My Lai Massacre as they were taken on private property (of My Lai village residents), without consent of subjects (as they were deceased) and without consent of the U.S. government (as they obviously declined to publish these images in army newspapers) or of the Việt Nam Cộng Hòa. JJohannes (talk) 14:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I have a general question.  Yes or no: if an otherwise legal, uncontroversial photo taken in Pyongyang is in violation of DPRK law, can it be shown on WP?  Vedek Wren (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. Micronor (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality of used pictures

message: # These two photographs would appear to greatly inform the readers of the article.
# The individuals concerned, the place, etc. are not immediately apparent.
# The images are legal under the requisite law for their display (ie USA)
# The size of the images in the article and, indeed, their content is no more explicit that may be seen on a television news programme or in a film.
# WP, like television, has an 'off' button for those who do not wish to view such information; the image is not forced upon anyone. WP does not use spoilers / warnings.
# There remains the issue of whether the images were taken legally at their point (country) of origin. The above makes statements as regards these particular images, yet others have quoted 'normal rules'. There is therefore no absolute quality to their actual status.
For these reasons I see no reason why the two photographs should be suppressed / removed. I accept that there may still be questions over their sourcing but, like everything on all the Wikimedia projects, that is an issue for the originator / creator and not for the project itself. --AlisonW (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I have a general question.  Yes or no: if an otherwise legal, uncontroversial photo taken in Pyongyang is in violation of DPRK law, can it be shown on WP?  Vedek Wren (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree. Micronor (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: An external review

message: From Wikipedia:Image Use Policy
"
===Legal issues===
There are a variety of non-copyright laws which may affect the photographer, the uploader and/or the Wikimedia Foundation, including defamation, personality rights and privacy rights. In consequence, the commercial use of these pictures may still be unacceptable unless the depicted person agrees.
===Privacy rights===
Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy. If you upload a self-portrait, your consent is presumed.
What are 'public' and 'private' places?
For the purposes of this policy, a private place can be considered a place where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy; and a public place is a place where the subject has no such expectation.
Examples of private places
Inside any private residence (including hotel rooms, tents, etc.)
Inside any restroom or dressing room
At any medical facility
Inside a private room in an otherwise public establishment such as a restaurant or hotel room
In the parts of a building where the general public is not allowed (for example, a private office)
===Moral issues===
Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:
Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
Those that are unfairly obtained
Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life"
The photographs were also not approved to be taken and were taken illegally, as no consent was obtained from the government or grounds owners.  There was no consent obtained from the owners of the private burial grounds, nor the subject or their family.  This is in violation of the legality, privacy and consent requirements.
--AthenaO (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply quoting a policy without explaining how it applies doesn't really help much. Privacy rights are not relevant if the person is not identifiable. If the observing family gives consent, the moral issue should also be resolved. Micronor (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Image Use Policy 

message: Not all legally obtained photographs of individuals are acceptable. The following types of image are normally considered unacceptable:
Those that unfairly demean or ridicule the subject
Those that are unfairly obtained
Those that unreasonably intrude into the subject's private or family life"
The photographs were also not approved to be taken and were taken illegally, as no consent was obtained from the government or grounds owners.  There was no consent obtained from the owners of the private burial grounds, nor the subject or their family.  This is in violation of the legality, privacy and consent requirements.
--AthenaO (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply quoting a policy without explaining how it applies doesn't really help much. Privacy rights are not relevant if the person is not identifiable. If the observing family gives consent, the moral issue should also be resolved. Micronor (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Moral issues

message: The stewpig.com link under further readings to the site with pictures of a sky burial is dead (92.74.25.47 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just linked to a new site with probably similar (if not the same) pictures on it (92.74.25.47 (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link at bottom is dead 

message: I am definitely pro deleting them. My two arguments:
1. I've never seen so shocking pictures on Wikipedia. Can you see such shocking pictures on the following wiki articles: capital punishment, decaptivation, rape, torture, war? No? How come?
2. Fine, wikipedia is not censored. However, pictures have an informational value. They are supposed to let us understand and imagine the subject even better. Sky burial is a deeply spiritual act, not some kind of cruelty. Showing pictures like this is very disrespectful.
Naturally we could show disgusting pictures taken a few month after the funeral in a cascet and put it to funeral. (And also these pictures.) And I leave it to your imagination what kind of pictures we could put out on death, murder, sexual fetishism, child sexual abuse.
So if the majority here agrees to delete them, please do so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misaerius (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sky burial is a deeply spiritual practice involving the dismemberment of human corpses and the consumption of them by vultures. The people involved in this practice believe that the body is a mere husk and that disposing of it like this is not cruel. Who are you to judge differently? As to your first argument, see Crucifixion and Muhammad for other shocking and offensive images on Wikipedia. --Danger (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: User Danger wrote "Sky burial is a deeply spiritual practice...The people involved in this practice believe that the body is a mere husk and that disposing of it like this is not cruel. Who are you to judge differently?" According to millions in North Africa, Female genital mutilation is "a deeply spiritual practice". According to thousands in New Guinea, forcing prepubescent boys in the Sambia people to perform fellatio on the men in the tribe, and ingest their semen, is "a deeply spiritual practice". Who are you to judge differently, right? So let's include some photos of a 12 year-old girl being held down and her clitoris carved away, or of an 8 year-old boy with an elder's penis in his mouth because otherwise people won't be capable of grasping what's being described, right? Bricology (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Please let sanity prevail here and keep the images. This is a funeral practice and is not remotely comparable to depicting snuff films or child sexual abuse. Making those comparisons is frankly offensive. There is the thinly-veiled implication (or in some places directly stated argument) that the process is barbaric and even that Tibet would lose international sympathy if this was public knowledge. That line of thinking beggars belief. Wikipedia has a lot of photos of death - from war to disease to natural causes, from journalistic to forensic, and from subtle to graphic. These photos are a sobering and unadorned depiction of the content of the article and I can't think of any other articles where the photos so vividly contribute to the article in a way that words cannot. I think that's why the images are so confronting and divisive but I have yet to hear a legitimate argument that they are inappropriate for wikipedia or for the article. 203.217.150.69 (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who votes for deleting the two pictures at the bottom? 

message: It's not ritual dissection (see the first sentence of the article). Dissection means "methodically cut up (a body, part, or plant) in order to study its internal parts. They do not do this to study the internal parts, so I've changed it. Joechip123 (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ritual dissection"? 

message: As the Merger discussion from 2008/09 below states, this article focuses solely on Tibetan sky burials, but the article itself is generically titled "sky burial". Tibet is/was not the only culture which practiced "burial" where the dead were ritually left for birds or other animals to consume. I came to this article specifically looking for pre-Columbus sky burial practices of North American Natives(which tribes, how it was performed, how common was it) and was a bit disappointed to find an article titled "sky burial" focusing only on one culture.
I propose retitling this article to "Tibetan Sky Burial" or similar.
166.176.185.8 (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Article's title should reflect focus on Tibet

message: There are links to photos and video footages of Tibetan sky burial in the bottom of the article. Anyone who wish to see it can follow the links, so why depict gruesome scenes in this article? This is disrespectful towards Tibetan culture. Other people's cultural practices are not lab specimens or artifacts waiting to be examined. There are local regulations that forbid photographing or filming the sky burial process. Putting aside the legality of these photos, at least show some respect for the dead. They did not consent to being photographed this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenwitherington (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The way this article is written appears to conflict with that point of view.  It says that the dead are regarded as "empty vessels" that can be treated in various ways.  For that matter, it also mentions that the rite is seen as a final act of generosity to the vultures; perhaps we might rank among them.  The suggestion for Wikipedia to defer to Chinese censorship laws strikes me as unusual.  On the whole, the inclusion seems most reasonable -- we are here to serve the public accessibility of knowledge, not what the locals nor interlopers think is the best way to "spin" their customs.  That said, it is always most welcome for another editor to travel there and take photos which he or she feels are more respectful and representative of the experience of onlookers. Wnt (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Claims like this above: "There are local regulations that forbid photographing or filming the sky burial process." should be backed up by evidence, I haven't seen any on this entire Talk page. Micronor (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not do like on the French wikipedia, and keep the pictures in a sliding subpage, along with a warning ? --Marteil2003 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gore images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sky burial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061108091054/http://www.smcm.edu/rivergazette/articles/05-5-2-9.pdf to http://www.smcm.edu/rivergazette/articles/05-5-2-9.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following revision was added by user 2A02:ED0:5F3A:CE00:79DC:E515:2DDF:27A8 on 8 August 2023. Moving here for discussion.
The sentence about vulture defecation is nonsense, complete nonsense. "Carrying to the mountain" means carrying the corpse bundled on the back of a human pallbearer up to a high place in the mountain designated for that purpose. This term has been in use at least since the 11th century, in Tibetan རིར་སྐྱེལ་ or simply རི་སྐྱེལ་.
Please do remove this sentence as it is culturally insensitive, or rather I would say offensive. 
U2892 (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Carrying to the mountain" etymology