Talk:Sky burial

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephmasti.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merger
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)

I see someone has fixed the problems created by the merging I commented on in 2006 (there was a lot of information about Zoroastrian practices mixed in--unnecessarily and confusingly, since the two practices are VERY unlikely to be related historically). I wasn't able to figure it out from the history but I'm really, really glad this was taken care of - I have been wanting to come back to it and have never had time. Vcrs (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)

I took it upon myself to add the Zoroastrian connection, based on the research cited (from 2013), but there is probably more current info. Footleg (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Graphic pics
While I believe they have a very important place in the article, the bottom-most pics need to be implemented more effectively. They are extremely shocking, and if they stay in they need appropriate usage. We could probably actually do without one of them, even. 71.145.130.187 (talk) 08:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you consider appropriate usage? --Gimme danger (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

These two photos, showing human remains, without evidence of consent of the departed, have been removed.

With respect for both the ethical and cultural soundness of displaying photos of funerary rituals, human remains should not be displayed. Furthermore, such photos do not add informative value to the articles.

Please feel free to share photos, as appropriate, of the surroundings and scenery of the burial sites, as appropriated by ethical standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AthenaO (talk • contribs)
 * Wikipedia is not censored.--Gimme danger (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Please at least verify with the photographer that the family of the departed has agreed to photographing and to posting these photos here.

As a rule, and as a religious custom, monasteries in Tibet do not allow photographing of burial rituals.

"This mystical tradition arouses curiosity among those who are not Tibetan. However, Tibetans strongly object to visits by the merely curious. Only the funeral party will be present at the ritual. Photography is strictly forbidden. Tibetans believe that photographing the ritual might negatively affect the ascent of the soul."

This falls under religious views, but there should also be a standard for display of human remains, with consent of the family only.

(AthenaO (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC))
 * The photographer is listed at the image pages. You are welcome to contact him/her regarding the details surrounding the photographs. --Gimme danger (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the pictures of the bodies would probably be considered very disrespectful. I witnessed a sky burial in western Sichuan, China in 2001 from start to finish. It was very different than the photographs shown. I was given permission to photograph by the monks praying, and the Tibetan men disassembling the body. My closest picture barely shows the remains of some bones, mostly just vulture close-ups. Because I was the first one there, and nobody else was around, they didn't see a problem at first letting me photograph, mostly just them doing their job of breaking up a body that was shrouded and already disassembled into three or four main parts. I was careful and respectful not to scare birds or step on bones. They cut the body and pulverized it under cloth with powder to absorb blood. Everything was fine, and I was really just interested in getting close 50mm shots of the birds (which were now comfortable with me) and the three Tibetans, but then a group of Chinese tourists came and started flashing away with their cameras. One of the Tibetan men looked upset, and shooed me away personally, and the others. So I think that such graphic unshrouded images such as the two here should be removed unless the monks overseeing truly would approve, but I think they would not. It's not about censorship. It is about subtlety, aesthetics, and respect. Everyone has a different definition of what is acceptable, but I think those photos would be blatantly offensive to those who practice such traditions. I would be willing to post my two images that show a pretty good depiction of a sky burial without being overtly intrusive and disrespectful, but I wouldn't post them along with the other two because I think they taint an otherwise decent article. -Jdogysiku (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add that it's obvious the photo here of the body starting to be cut was taken with a long lens, as evidenced by the compression of the background. Therefore, it is highly unlikely they knew what could be seen, and in what detail. -Jdogysiku (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Untrue- I took those pictures from about 3M away and had full permission from all the locals to do so; in fact they were asking me to see them on my camera's display.. they knew exactly what could be seen and in what detail. I don't want to get in to the argument of whether the pics should be taken down or not, the community should decide, I just want to make sure everyone has the facts. FishOil (talk) 4:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Offensive" is purely subjective and you only have to look at the recent discussions about the images in the autofellatio article to see how views differ. One could argue that the images in John F. Kennedy assassination are disrespectful to his family, but no one is seriously suggesting that they be removed. Feel free to open a request for comment to get wider consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should these pictures and the ones in the other two examples be visible directly? Suppose you are browsing Wikipedia together with your/a child (I hope not the one on autofellatio, but this one or the one on JFK's assassination). These kind of images could be considered inappropriated or not intended for this audience. Perhaps Wikipedia could offer a way that these images are covered completely with a warning like "possible explicit or shocking image". Only when clicked upon and positively confirming a dialogue box that you really would like to see this and no children are present, the image is shown. In this way no censorship has to be enforced and still some people and children are saved from possible disturbing or shocking images in order to prevent some nightmares or unwanted imaginary mental associations. 13:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.130.235 (talk)


 * No, these pictures shouldn't be censored, nor should any others - as has been said numerous times, in numerous articles, Wikipedia is not censored. Saving your children from nightmares isn't our job - it's yours. Responsible adults oversee their children. Viciouspiggy (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These images are far from explicit or shocking. It does show a human form being prepared for the birds, but remove the human element out of this... and you simply have a portion of "meat" being carved. If we see this as shocking, then of course our children will learn from their parents that it is shocking. But if we approach the subject with respect, this image is no more shocking, than the multitude of crucifixion images in every christian church. These images should stay, because they are respectful to the human remains as the religion carrying the burial sees it, and they hide "horrific" details such as the human face, so we who may see this form of burial "barbaric", can still understand the process.--Davyboy79 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Viciouspiggy wrote "No, these pictures shouldn't be censored, nor should any others - as has been said numerous times, in numerous articles, Wikipedia is not censored. Saving your children from nightmares isn't our job - it's yours. Responsible adults oversee their children." That's a patently idiotic claim, and not one supported by WP. One could use the same argument to justify the inclusion of a photograph of a person engaging in necrophilia, pedophilia, or cannibalism at those articles. Furthermore, suggesting that "Responsible adults oversee their children" sounds like the sort of claim made by someone who neither has children of their own, nor knows any children. It is literally impossible for parents to supervise their children 24/7, and no web-safety software would filter out WP. Also, appeal-to-custom fallacies are just that: while the practice depicted may be acceptable in some cultures, so is the genital mutilation of pubescent girls in parts of North Africa, so let's include a photo of a girl having her clitoris cut away, shall we? Finally, many adults find photographs like these deeply distressing. And as a bonus -- cute claim that anyone is expecting you to do a job protecting children; what people are suggesting is preventing editors from contributing to unnecessarily adding graphic images that cause distress among probably the majority of people who might view them. The world of WP readers isn't required to adopt your particular mindset or constitution. Bricology (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey I dont know how to edit wikipedias or whatever but I use this site a lot when i hear about something and want to figure out what it is. These images are very disrespectful, and prolly especially are to the Tibetans. I can't believe these are on a FREE encyclopedia for EVERYONE. Yes, there shouldn't be censorship but why show it in the first place. It should have never made it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erei33 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are suggesting censorship albeit for a different reason, but for whatever reason censorship is still censorship. – ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Especially the second picture is very disturbing. I don't care if it's disrespectful to Tibetans because the article itself claims they don't act with gravity or ceremony during this "practice". So please take out the pictures, and to the censorship opposed freedom fighters: if you are so opposed to censorship, why don't you add some good old child porn - for great justice - to the Arts Portal? Yes, that'll be fun! This is not about censorship, but about graphically explicit material which would not be suitable in a printed encyclopedia like the Brittanica as well. Wikipedia is not Encyclopedia Dramatica, Something Awful or Ogrish. In addition I can see that Tibetans don't want the world to see how they spend their leisure time. A lot of people might reconsider their political stance about them being "victims" of the "evil" Chinese when they come across the barbaric (from an outsiders perspective of course) details of this ritual, especially if pictures are involved. So if some of you are against censorship but pro-tibetan, do them a favor and remove the pictures. The pictures can be hosted outside Wikipedia being linked to with an appropriate disclaimer. This has been done before with pictures of executions and similar things. Oh, and in case you don't know: if you want to wank over them, just right-click and choose "save as...", no need to keep them here. 217.85.176.218 (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a pity that you are offended by funerary rituals; it would be a good idea for you to not browse Wikipedia articles dealing with this aspect of human life. I would also recommend that you avoid articles dealing with the science of the breakdown of human remains. It is not, however, the job of Wikipedia -- or the world at large -- to protect you from being offended, nor does it do us any good as an encyclopedia to limit our scope in order to avoid offense. As a side note, funerals are generally not considered leisure activities, anthropologically speaking. And if you'd like to restrict images that anyone could conceivably find sexually stimulating, well, I think having images is a asset to our encyclopedia and the article shoe should have a few pictures of shoes. --Danger (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not offended, but disgusted and repulsed. However, my personal neurological reaction to it is irrelevant. The actual question is if these pitures are 1) appropriate and 2) necessary for the article. It is not essential for the general public to know what a sky burial looks like in the most drastic details, so the necessity of including the pictures is refuted as well the allegation of censorship. According to your logic the articles about cannibalism, murder, rape, torture and snuff videos should contain "a few pictures" of cannibalism, murder, rape, torture and snuff videos respectively. Perhaps even a video in the case of snuff videos? I will refrain from mentioning child pornography once again, but I'm sure you'll get my point anyway. There is a line of common sense and these pictures have crossed this line without a doubt, as they don't add any value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.196.74 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We are at an impasse. I believe the photographs add value to the article and illustrate important aspects of the subject that cannot be otherwise conveyed, in addition to being simple depictions of a cultural practice that it is neither my nor Wikipedia's place to judge as barbaric. You believe that they are offensive and inappropriate, perhaps even illegal. There are several choices from here. We could consult related Wikiprojects and ask for the opinions of interested editors who might not be watching this page. We could also get a third opinion or issue a request for comment. How would you like to proceed? --Danger (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not the photos are 'shocking' or should be censored. The issue is the legality of these photos. The Tibetan and Chinese government does not permit photography of sky burials. There are regulations governing presence of witnesses at the burial, and photography is not permitted. It is also against Tibetan Buddhist rites, that the dead body is not to be photographed, out of respect for the deceased and the passage of their soul.

The photographer says he got permission form the 'locals', but does not say from the deceased, his family, the Tibetan monks on whose property this ritual was performed, or the government.

Out of respect for the departed, and legality, these photos should be removed.

AthenaO (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The photographer states that they were given permission to photograph the event; it's unlikely though that there will be any sort of document proving that this happened. Perhaps we should assume good faith here. It's unclear whether the legality of media coverage of sky burial in China has any impact on the legality of showing these photos on Wikipedia. The are many laws against photography, for example against photographing bridges and other transportation infrastructure, or military personnel/facilities, yet Wikipedia still hosts these images. If the images were illegal in Florida, where the servers are hosted, that would be another matter entirely.


 * It's also unclear what larger taboos against photography have to do with these photos; if the people present gave consent, as FishOil has stated, then it doesn't seem to matter. Photography of human remains is taboo a lot of places; Wikipedia still has many photographs of human remains on display. While many Tibetans would probably not appreciate photographers, it seems that some do allow or even request outside presence. Accounts and media of sky burial is becoming much easier to find than it was in the past because more people are allowed or invited to witness the event.--Danger (talk) 11:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

These photographs are illegal by the grounds of the country, government, and without permission of the Buddhist order on whose grounds the photos were taken. Asking some passersby or 'locals' for permission does not bypass these laws. There was also no permission from the family or the deceased individual themselves.

It seems that the content of these photos is becoming a red herring, for the fact is that the photos are illegal and taken without consent of the subject. This is not censorship, but issues of legality and consent. These are values and also rules of Wikipedia that stand apart from the contents of the photograph.

--AthenaO (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As I've said before, as far as we know consent was given for the pictures to be taken: FishOil was invited to watch and photograph the proceedings, presumably by the rokpas and monks performing the burial (these would be the only people present). You fail to present any evidence that it matters whether photography is banned by the government of the location. Photography is also banned other places; we still host photographs from those places. (For examples, see North Korea or Wikimedia Commons' photographs of the interior of the Salt Lake Temple.)--Danger (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The photographer said he obtained permission from the 'locals', not from the monks or the owners of the property. The photographs were taken on private grounds, without consent of the owners or the subject. --AthenaO (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal or not, ethical or not, moral or not, permission or not, scary or not the placement of the pictures themselves are bad. They are like flecks of dirt on a wall. They are badly utilized, their contents strewn onto the page itself with disregard for relevancy, informational content, layout or even simple respect. I daresay more important dead people have their pictures handled with more thought than this. Dead non-humans (Triceratops), dead fictional people (Captain America), dead fictional non-humans (can't think of anything), dead concepts (Stalinism). Keep the pictures, or discard them, but please, can someone improve the article so that the pictures serve some purpose? At least all this debate would make some kind of sense rather than a futile flailing of wits? --116.15.180.45 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? The images accurately depict the content of the sections in the article where they are located and serve to illustrate those sections. – ukexpat (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see a number of issues with these photographs, and though I recognise that Wikipedia should not be censored, the photos themselves do not add anything to the knowledge a reader can glean from the article. The concept of 'appropriateness' has two distinct meanings: the one that seems to be under discussion here is whether it is appropriate for a reader (specifically a child) to see such images, and of course this is an argument that holds little weight (parents have responsibility for the content their children access); the second is whether these pictures are appropriate tools for communicating knowledge to the reader, and I would suggest that the angle and perspective of these photos invalidates the possibility that they will fulfil that role. In essence, all the top picture shows is a man cutting the foot of a corpse, and since the process this cutting is part of has already been adequately, competently, and more fully described in the accompanying text there is no need for the photo - it does not show any particular pattern of ritualistic cuts (which might have been hard to describe in the article), nor is there any suggestion that the man's clothes are some kind of traditional uniform - in fact, because it shows so little detail that it contributes virtually nothing to a reader's understanding of the process.

If the photo showed something which was difficult to imagine based only upon textual description, then it would have a place in the article (like a type of clothing or a special pattern of cuts). As it is, however, the image adds nothing to the article, and in fact distracts from it; it seems like its inclusion is gratuitous and unnecessary.

But, as has been suggested (though apparently not yet taken up), I will make a Request for Comment. Aquamonkey (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * RfC can be found at bottom of Talk Page Aquamonkey (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Legality
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. --Danger (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Legality of used pictures
''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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

These photos are taken illegally, according to the Chinese and Tibetan government, and the property on which they were taken. There are laws against foreigners visiting sky burial sites, as well as photography there are both Chinese and local Tibetan laws, as well as religious laws of the property on which these burials are held. The monasteries of the Buddhist order, where these sky burials are performed, do not permit photography of burials.
 * 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)

Further, the family and the departed individual did not consent to this photography or display. There are Wikipedia rules on posting photographs of common people without consent. External references: Further information on governmental and regional law can be found in this book Multiculturalism in Asia, and these articles Tibetan sky burial and Sky burials.

These photos are in violation of privacy, legality, decency, and consent.

and of national, regional, cultural, and religious laws, and monastic laws on the property of where these were taken.

A special section for display of the remains of deceased persons should also be implemented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AthenaO (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


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

Don't do what? Remove images that are taken illegally or without consent of the subject? Both of these are covered under the Wikipedia Guidelines. --AthenaO (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

This is covered under Image Use Policy. They were obtained illegally, on private grounds, and without consent of the government, owners of the property, or the subject or subject's family. They are in violation of legality, privacy, and consent requirements for images posted here. --AthenaO (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

An external review

 * 1) These two photographs would appear to greatly inform the readers of the article.
 * 2) The individuals concerned, the place, etc. are not immediately apparent.
 * 3) The images are legal under the requisite law for their display (ie USA)
 * 4) 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.
 * 1) 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)
 * I agree. -- |  Uncle Milty  |  talk  |  16:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Yes. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Micronor (talk) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Image Use Policy
From 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)
 * 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)

Warning
Hey, while you guys don't decide wheter to keep or remove those pics, could anyone place at last one small spoiler style warning before them? It'd help a lot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.5.137.24 (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry we don't do such warnings, spoiler, graphic content or otherwise. – ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not though? Isn't it at least a good idea to give it a thought? Spoiler-type warning seem to make a lot of sense in cases like these. Imagine a child or a sensitive person stumbling on to this article, how is he supposed to know in advance that he is about to see this...? Spoilers should definitely be used on Wikipedia.


 * Maybe by reading the article? It doesn't take much imagination to realise an informative Wikipedia article may have photos depicting the descriptions given in the text.

Shocking images
I, too, was quite shocked and disturbed by the 2 images at the bottom of this page. One of the primary reasons why I was shocked was because the images seemed so out of place on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy states that: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article." Looking around, very few of the articles that I could find related to funerary practices or body decomposition featured images and, of those that did, practically none featured images of partially decomposed or partially eaten human bodies. Consider the page on cannibalism. Cannibalism is, arguably, a far more common occurrence in human history than sky burials. It certainly has occupied a much more prominent place in cultural works. Yet that page is illustrated solely by paintings, sculptures, woodblocks and other forms of artistic depiction but not by an actual image of a human body being cooked or consumed. In short, this page appears to be an aberration. User Gimme Danger states: "The pictures give information about the nature of the ritual that cannot be conveyed through words alone." I'm not sure I understand. What information about the ritual is being conveyed via the images that is not conveyed in the text description? The description in the text seems to describe what's going on in the images quite accurately, in my judgment. The Wikipedia page on shock sites/images lacks any images, even though the page is entirely concerned with a series of online images and the strong reaction they tend to provoke, yet it appears that page is considered adequate by most editors. As I've stated, most of the other pages on funerary practices or death-related topics do not feature such graphic pictures of human bodies being consumed or in a state of accelerated decomposition. It seems to me that either this page is out of line with the rest of Wikipedia or there are a whole lot of Wiki pages on death-related topics that are woefully lacking due to the absence of pictures. Yet, I'm fairly certain that if I started adding graphic images of cannibalism or mutilated human bodies or excarnation by butchery to the appropriate articles I would almost certainly be banned or reprimanded for perceived vandalism. If anyone disagrees I certainly encourage them to prove me wrong. Those are my two cents. -MidnightDesert (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An image being "shocking" is generally irrelevant since what is "shocking" varies from person to person. I may just be desensitized, but I'm not particularly shocked by either image.  There are far worse on many other Wikipedia articles about war and the like, considering how the wounded still feel.  I also don't see why depictions of rites via "paintings, sculptures, [or] woodblocks" is better than a photograph.  If I take the images and run them through a Photoshop filter so they look like a pencil sketch, would that be better?  Cannibalism is a complete strawman since there probably aren't any useful photographs of cannibalistic acts to even be put into online encyclopedias.


 * The moral/legal argument above seems more powerful, but the photographer says he had permission. This leaves us with a he-said-she-said.  I'm personally against censorship; to be crude, if Wikipedia can have pictures of cockrings in place, ejaculation, a guy blowing himself, naked wounded Phan Thị Kim Phúc, the Holy of Holies of the LDS, depictions of Muhammad, etc. etc. etc. we can have a picture of an unidentifiable corpse being cut in the foot and a pile of bloody bones.  After all,




 * --The Centipede (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The images of the dead bodies is not really disgusting or barbaric - sky burials are not anymore barbaric than cremation or even burial - but the images should probably be removed due to the fact that the photographer probably didn't get permission to do it from the monks or locals - Buddhists generally don't like photographs being taken of such things - and there is no evidence - written or otherwise - that he got permission to take pictures.

If he proves that he got permission, then the images should stay.The Mummy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * He doesn't need to prove he had permission to take the images. As far as US law is concerned, the images were taken legally. In any event, see the comment in one of the sections above by User:FishOil - the photographer, and the other ad nauseam discussions above. – ukexpat (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * From the above "Wikipedia is not censored" page: "Any rules that forbid members of a given organization, fraternity, or religion from showing a name or image do not apply to Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations." Therefore, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the permission of the monks and locals is completely irrelevant.--The Centipede (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I think those images are completely out of place. In Western Culture (and from what I know, in any other culture in the world) human remains deserve respect. Posting them online doesn't really show it in my opinion. Furthermore, we should consider the influence of such images on minors who can enter this page without any problem. To sum up, be their posting even legal, the images should be removed due to moral and cultural reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.187.244.28 (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Link at bottom is dead
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)).


 * 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)).

Sky Burial - Photos of Corpses (Necessary or Not?)
There has been considerable debate about the inclusion of two photos of a human corpse on the Sky Burial page. In one, a (live) man is cutting the foot of a corpse in preparation for the burial, and the second shows a partially devoured human body (midway through the burial).

Some objections have been made on the grounds of 'appropriateness,' but there is also some discussion about whether they convey any additional information, or are simply gratuitous. For myself, I find particularly difficult to see the need or usefulness of the first image (the second is more justifiable, IMHO).

It would be useful to have more opinions on both of these issues so that a consensus can be formed. Aquamonkey (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's my opinion in more detail (I didn't want to clutter the description):


 * The question of whether they are too shocking to be on Wikipedia is irrelevant - as others have pointed out, Wikipedia is not censored. However, there is also no place on Wikipedia for gratuitous photos when they actually provide little (or no) additional information on the subject of the article. As I said above, I see no reason for including the first photo (of the man cutting the body's foot). If there was a photo of the body which displayed what it looked like after preparation was complete, then that might be relevant and useful, as might a series of photos which showed the process in stages. As it is, however, that photo does not inform readers of anything that isn't already in the article, nor is it a useful illustration of that information. Aquamonkey (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep both: I don't think they are gratuitous at all. On the contrary, they are two "factual" images that depict aspects of the process - the first the preparation of the corpse, the second the vultures doing what they do. They don't glorify it, disparage it, promote it or otherwise comment on it. My position is that they are both appropriate and should remain in the article. – ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Delete both. It's an interesting and fraught question, and I arrived at my recommendation after some consideration.

Just to clear up one thing, WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't really apply here. It's a short policy, and disregarding extraneous material, the entire text of the policy is this:


 * Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is appropriate to include in a given article. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal of content.

Which is fine - I think that most people would agree that "Remove this material, it is objectionable" just by itself would not usually be a strong argument. You need specific reasons. And they have been given, and so we have moved past any more invocations of WP:NOTCENSORED.

OK, moving on. I don't much care if (adult) people are "shocked", don't much care for deferring to religious sensibilities (for instance - I think that we should not only refuse requests to redact pictures of Muhammed or Morman temple garments, but refuse them with contempt), have little use for medieval theocratic regimes or superstitious rituals, doubt that the pictures are illegal, am not overly concerned about the feelings of the families of the individuals concerned, and approve of the portrayal of corpses in some other instances (for instance, the Bhopal tragedy).

However. When we are talking about the handling of corpses, we are not really talking about something that is fraught from a religious stasndpoint. We are talking about something that is fraught from a human standpoint. All human societies, across all history, regardless of their religion or even lack of religion (revolutionary France or Russia, say) treat human corpses as something special.

I suppose this has something to do with our problematic relationship to the consciousness of our morality. Or something; doesn't matter. The point is, nobody - nobody - just throws their dead into the mass converter. And if you can find a society that does, it'll be a society dysfunctioning under some external pressure. Of course the relationship to mortal remains can be and usually is framed in the context of whatever religion the locals profess, but this is not the core of the matter.

So since it's a universal taboo to not treat dead humans like we treat all other useless garbage - including, maybe, not showing photos of them in this type of way - we are not deferring to religion when we elect not to.

Even so, I would say, well, we are on a scholarly mission, to some extent, and if showing the images assists that, show 'em away.

But then I ran across this comment in a thread above, from a colleague with the perhaps apt handle of User:Viciouspiggy:


 * ''No, these pictures shouldn't be censored, nor should any others - as has been said numerous times, in numerous articles, Wikipedia is not censored. Saving your children from nightmares isn't our job - it's yours. Responsible adults oversee their children.

Well, this brings to mind a couple of points. The first is: hmmm, nightmares, as Mr Viciouspiggy mentions. You know, we do have fairly young people perusing this encyclopedia. While the Wikipedia is not intended for (and is probably of little interest to) very young children, it is true that bright children in the upper elementary grades - age ten and up, say - do use the Wikipedia for research. And this is something that we should expect, as is true of Britannica and other encyclopedias, and is an inherent effect of making an encyclopedia. And if we don't consider the needs of our young users, we are deliberately operating an attractive nuisance.

So, what would be the effect on our bright fifth grader viewing this images? For a lot of kids this age, it would be "Ewww! Gross! Coooool!", I suppose But not for all of them; and even for those others - well, the mind of a human child is complicated, and things are received at different levels. So who knows? And while a nightmare may pass, the seed of a precious morbid unconscious worry may not. And we want to be very conservative with young minds, here. Dealing with mortality is hard enough for us grown-ups (if you are ever suffering from a surfeit of good cheer, I recommend Philip Larkin's "Aubade" for a take on this), and having morbid imagery thrust so at him... this is potentially harmful, I think.

So there's that. It's not so much a question of whether the images are gratuitous, but whether we are following the principle of least harm.

But then, there's another thing I noticed when reading Mr Viciouspiggy's comment. Perhaps you noticed it too. It's not so much the arrogance or the jejune crassness (of course we look out for each other's kids) as the moral vacuum on display. I think it fair to say that most people of character and discernment would not be pleased to find themselves on the same side of an issue as this sort of person. I know I wouldn't.

On one level that's just visceral response, but on another level it's good sense, and we make judgments like this all the time, and properly so; it saves a lot of time. (If you go to a political rally and see that half the crowd is giving the Roman salute, how much more information do you need? This is a candidate that you probably don't want to support; and so forth.)

So, given all that, my recommendation is: no. Herostratus (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your comment gets to the heart of why an image of some sort on this article is so critical. You say that all cultures treat human corpses as special. Well, jhator is pretty much the antithesis of that special treatment. It's a practical and relatively unceremonious way of disposing of human remains. I think that, without some sort of image, we can't get to the heart of the matter: jhator is the practice of hacking apart dead humans into bite sized chunks and feeding them to vultures. Naked corpse, sweaty men with mallets and knives, blood and birds. Concepts like this, a funeral without reverance for the corpse, are outside the experience of the vast majority of our readers and thus images are even more necessary. For an example, coming from an American point of view, I assumed that the corpse would be dress up like we do; to me that's an innate part of a funerary rite. We could say, "the nude corpse" in the text, and indeed, it did in the accounts I'd read, but I couldn't understand until I saw a picture.
 * Also, we are no more obligated to cater to those with an obsession with and fear of mortality than those with an obsession with and fear of sexuality, these aren't universal either. I doubt that a society that uses flayed corpses as a popular artistic motif would object to photographs of dead humans under the presumption that they would harm children. Wikipedia has pictures of naked humans and dead humans. If you have these problems, you are under no obligation to look at those pictures; they're pretty well segregated into article where they would be expected. --Danger (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Dunno about that. According to the article, a monk chants stuff and so forth. So there's some ritual and stuff. Except for the poor, I guess.


 * Don't quite get your reference re "I doubt that a society that uses flayed corpses as a popular artistic motif would object to photographs of dead humans under the presumption that they would harm children." Are you saying this applies to our culture (e.g. Iron Maiden album covers or whatever)? Herostratus (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The ritual deals with what we would call the soul... I'm blanking on the Tibetan word. I was referring to a common motif in Tibetan artwork. One temple (Nechung I think) I visited had all the walls covered with paintings of flayed human bodies and demons stomping around on them. Painted skin and intestines made a garland around the ceiling. I wish the photos had turned out as I would have uploaded them, but butter lamps are pretty poor light sources. But, as you point out, death imagery is also part of the Western tradition. Memento mori. --Danger (talk) 18:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep but replace skeletal photo I think this article will get significantly fewer complaints if we replace File:Skeletonskyburial.jpg with File:Vulture.jpg. In this, the vultures are actually feeding and only the pelvic girdle and ribcage are visible. It's still an identifiably human skeleton, but not as shocking. Unfortunately, the birds must have been moving because they're somewhat out of focus. I wish we had more informative images, but given the subject matter we should be thankful to have any images at all, both to the photographer and the family of the deceased. I do like the first image, for one because of the nonchalant way the body is posed and the dress of the rogyapa, which conveys emotional information about the gravity of the situation that's not possible to get through text. (Compare with a hypothetical photograph of a coroner in a white coat performing an autopsy and the non-verbal information that conveys.) Also that it does illustrate the preparation of the body, but not particularly well at thumbnail resolution. (The rogyapa appears to have finished with the right side of the torso, upon inspection under higher resolution.) It's informative, but not disgusting, as it probably would be were the subject rolled over, and readers who want to know more can zoom in if they like. --Danger (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Folks we are wandering way off track here. The basic question, philosophy of death and soul and the treatment of corpses aside, is whether the images add to the reader's understanding of the article. It's a pretty simple yes or no IMHO and I hope I have made it clear where I stand. – ukexpat (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep both photos; I think they help illustrate the article. Wikipedia is not censored; and if anybody is offended by images of a corpse being cut, or being eaten by birds, perhaps they brought it on themselves by reading an article about sky burial. Images of sky burial have a valuable illustrative role; they are wholly appropriate in an article about sky burial. I don't think the photos are particularly gratuitous and they don't try to sneak in a certain POV. bobrayner (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep both Memento mori. And they are far more graphic pictures on wikipedia than those. walk victor falktalk 04:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep the second, delete the first. I just want to point out, as Ukexpat has, that the issue at hand is not how 'shocking' or 'inappropriate' the images are. It's about whether they both contribute any additional information to the article. I would contend that the second does: in illustrating the simple way in which vultures strip the body; but the first does not. We can all imagine what it looks like for somebody to cut the foot of a corpse, so there is no need for a photo of it. As I say, I'm not looking to censor the first image because it is overly graphic; I just don't think it's necessary (and, thus, is gratuitous).Aquamonkey (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete both - Usually I would have cited or 'interpreted' some wiki rules to validate my point, however IMHO the images in question are of such 'gruesome and shocking' nature that I decided to argue by rhetoric. If we do agree to keep the images under the reasons mentioned above (by people in favour of retention) then the same arguments can be used for inclusion of graphic live action images (meaning photos of people and not some work of art like painting etc.) of sexual torture for article on rape, incest, child abuse etc. (no censoring on wikipedia, children should be supervised, if you click on an articles on rape you are supposed to assume that there can be graphic illustration, they contribute to the article to illustrate the probable injuries during/after sexual assault) While I agree with most wikipedians that illustration is most important to understand an article but images accompanying articles of sensitive nature should be treated with respect and not to be peddled for crass sensationalism and shock value. However if my above arguments did not persuade you let us examine both the images and try to find out if they contribute to the article. The first image shows a man 'hacking' the body in preparation of the 'burial', the adjoining text Sky_burial is quite self explanatory as it gives an all round explanation of the process, the image does not add anything 'extra' to the text. As for the second image I could not fathom the necessity of the image, it adjoins a text under a subheading of vultures, it does not remotely add anything of value to the article. I would also like to point out that similar to sky burial the Parsi community has 'open air burial' custom at Towers of Silence, the article on Towers of Silence has images in form of pencil illustrations and images of defunct 'burial' site which amply explain the concept of 'burial' in open and does not trade in for shock value of hacked corpse or skeletons being nibbled by vultures. Thus I would argue for removal of both the images. LegalEagle (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep both Both pictures give an accurate representation of what takes place. Before I saw a sky burial with my own eyes (possibly at the same site the pictures were taken) I could not imagine what it look like and the spirit of it. The pictures help convey the matter-of-fact spirit of the burial. The locals I spoke to were most concerned about the Chinese governments condemnation of the Sky Burial practice as backwards and happy that visitors from abroad were not being judging as the government was. So from this point of view, by documenting the practice in a matter of fact manner, Wikipedia is standing up against Chinese government bullies who are trying to eradicate the practice altogether. Micronor (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep the second, delete the first per WP:GRATUITOUS. We don't need multiple images of dead bodies in the article. The concept seems pretty clear from the text. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Strong Delete both. Neither photograph is essential to understanding the process, any more than a photograph of a 12 year-old girl being held down and having her clitoris cut away by adults, in certain cultures in North Africa is. The article on Female genital mutilation manages to convey what happens without that depiction, and tens of millions of girls are forced to undergo it every year (as opposed to the relatively few "sky burials"). Likewise, hundreds of prepubescent boys among the Sambia people of New Guinea are made sex slaves of their village elders every year, and are forced to perform fellatio on men, because it's believed that ingesting semen is necessary for their growth. Does that article need a photo of the practice? Invoking "censorship" is absurd. Do the articles on cannibalism, necrophilia or pedophilia contain photographs of those practices? It's patently absurd to claim that information cannot be conveyed without illustration. A few millennia of literature easily disprove that. Bricology (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete both – There's no need for those pictures. The text is explicit enough, and photographs of human corpses are not just any photographs, they are shocking. 91.163.112.205 (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Keep both - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. This thread is pointless because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and so photographs are not going to be removed based on people finding them offensive or shocking. Such reasons are not of more import than WP:NOTCENSORED, as evidenced by the fact that this discussion has been in process for ten years now without any consensus, so the photos stay. Skyerise (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Who votes for deleting the two pictures at the bottom?
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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Misaerius, I refer you to the talk section above. Several people have made clear their opinions on keeping/deleting (as it stands, the majority supports the keeping of both photos). Feel free to cast your lot on way or another there.Aquamonkey (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep both: I googled this page out of curiosity and the pictures did so much more than any words can ever do in informing me. To remove them is censorship and just because a few people feel offended does not mean they have the right to enforce their cultural values on others. There is nothing wrong with these photos, just be cause you do not like what you see doesn't mean it does not happen. I do not find these graphic because they are meant to me informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.59.202 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep both See my arguments above at Micronor (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete both See my arguments above. People invoking "censorship" are attempting to mislead. If censorship were the issue, the article would be removed as offensive to some. It's not. The information is useful, and the relevant facts are presented in text form, and appropriate images. Two photographs of human corpses are unnecessary, just as they are in many other articles, such as the one on Female genital mutilation, which lacks photos of either the procedure being performed, or of the results. Bricology (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep both per the arguments above, and nine years ago. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

"ritual dissection"?
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)

Article's title should reflect focus on Tibet
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)

Gore images
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
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)

"Carrying to the mountain" etymology
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)


 * I have removed that for now, and I think it should only be re-added if there is a very reliable source for it. I do not have access to the book that was listed as a source and it is unclear to me whether it was reliably researched. If someone has access it would be good to quote the relevant passage here for consideration. For speculation on my part, a figure of speech like that can sometimes be given an ironic/humorous meaning as a joke by those who are culturally familiar with it, I hope that is where any inaccuracy came from. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)