Talk:Space burial

older entries

(Copy from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates)

• Stumbled across this one, and I think it's pretty well put together. Thoughts? -Litefantastic 22:08, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
• Object. The article rather messily conflates three things: the rather silly "lipstick-sized container of ashes" affair, which hardly qualifies for the word burial; dead people in space generally; and science-fiction space burial. Someone needs to decide exactly what this article is meant to be about. Also, the lipstick business is taken too much at face value: it's not true that "about 150 people have been buried in space"; they were buried somewhere on the ground and had a small part of their ashes sent into space. Markalexander100 10:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
• I would tent to support. (Disclaimer: I wrote most of the article) Burial does not need a complete body to be buried. 1g or 7g is not much, i agree, but the people involved consider it a burial. Full body space burial is currently not practical. The science fiction mentioning fits well, I think. Burial at sea also mentions some fictious characters buried at sea (Note: the article burial at sea also originated from me). The section about space accidents can be removed, but that is only a "see also" section, and not really part of the article. I think the above objections can be overcome. -- Chris 73 | Talk 07:47, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
  • the people involved consider it a burial What, the dead ones? Anyway, astrologers probably consider astrology to be the height of rationality. We need to be a bit more objective. Markalexander100 05:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, the dead ones. After all they probably arranged for the procedure before death. I also assume that many of their friends and relatives consider it a burial. Remains of deceased may also be buried in different locations on earth. There are also some cases of empty coffin burials, where no body was recovered. I also know one case where a worker fell in a steel furnace and got completely burned up, and they ended up burying a sample of the steel. I think the quantity of the remains does not decide if it is a burial or not. Using a strict definition of burial, burial in space is probably not a burial, because the remains are not covered with earth (i.e. buried). Same holds for burial at sea. Yet, it is usually called a "burial in space/at sea", so I think the title here is appropriate and objective. I cannot change the burial procedure described by the article, but I am willing to adjust the article if you have specific complaints about the article itself. -- Chris 73 | Talk 06:07, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

(Adjourning to talk page.)Markalexander100 07:13, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

(end of copy)

I have two main issues with the article as it stands.

1. Space burial is not burial, even in the broader sense used in burial at sea. If I am cremated and a small part of my ashes is scatted in the sea, I have not been buried at sea. The same applies to "space burial". The fact that the people who sell this call it burial doesn't mean that we have to accept their terminology at face value.
2. It's not clear what this article is meant to be about. Is it about space burial (as the title says) or is it about the lipstick and ashes business (as the lead says)? If the latter, the sci-fi stuff does not belong in the article. Markalexander100 07:19, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Judging from what the article says actually happens, maybe it should be "partial mesospheric cremation"? Just kidding. Securiger 07:27, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

If, then it should be "partial mesospheric re-cremation", as they are already cremated ;-) -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I agree that shooting 5g of ashes into space is pretty weird. About your points, I think that thematically the topic belongs together with the Sci-Fi burials. The Sci-Fi section is also only minor compared to the rest of the article. I would also still consider the lipstick and ashes business a burial in a broader sense. The procedure is also referred to as "space burial" by the news, and people looking for information for this topic would probably use similar keywords. The quantity of the remains is not essential for a burial, and people's remains have been buried in more than one grave before, as for example often done in Japan. BTW I have changed the article to emphasize that only a small sample of the ashes is shot into space.

How would you call the procedure? -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

One more question: Do you think the article merely fails the well-written requirement for featured articles, or do you object the article in generally and feel the need to change the article? If its only not "feature" material in your opinion, then we just wait until the article gets accepted or rejected, and the problem disappears. However, if you think the article has to be changed (i.e. not a burial), then we have a dispute that needs to be solved. Lets hope for the first case ;-) -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that all our articles should be well-written and NPOV. However, there are one or two others that also aren't. This one wouldn't be top of my list for worrying about if it weren't a featured article candidate. Markalexander100 02:08, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

I would be thrilled if this article becomes a featured one, but if not ... oh well ... doesn't matter. I'll just wait and see. Happy editing -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:22, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

The idea that THIS article should be featured is quite wicked. It is not well written, it does not contain background etcetc. It is just an add for Celestis. I am sorry for the bytes wasted.--80.133.98.142 01:56, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't it Phillip J. Fry's brother who was burried in space? Alvis 02:15, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh uh, apparently Phillip J. Fry's brother had named his son after Phillip J. Fry. That is, Phillip J. Fry's nephew is named after him. But since his brother and nephew looked alike, he didn't realise that until the very end of the episode. Sorry if I spoiled the episode. >_>; 70.106.96.40 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Not that I support one side or the other of what this article is supposed to be, but, How do we feel about counting Battlestar Galactica's "Airlocking" as Space Burial? Adm. Cain's funeral was also reminiscent of some of the "space burial" scenes from Star Trek.24.252.61.160 18:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Futurama's Fry in "The Sting"

In the episode "The Sting", Fry's death and burial is part of a dream sequence. Is it not then a stretch to include that without comment in a list of space burials? Yes, the episode includes a depiction of a space burial, but I don't think the final disposition of Fry's body is part of the canon. -- Ventura 22:47, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Full Body Burial section

This brief section currently seems like original research. Making predictions (not back by sources) about what may happen "if humans colonize space" runs counter to the idea that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -Phoenixrod 04:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiction section

Seems a reasonable section to me. The Heinlein story is definately worth mentioning. Artw 06:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks very much like the Heinlein story might be the first mention of the concept - I've not been able to find any references that establish that in as many words, but if someone does and can add it it will help beef up the section considerably. Artw 07:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. That's precisely the kind of information such a section should contain. --Eyrian 08:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia removal

The problem with the fictional characters section is that it is an immensely common trope in fiction, and the burial is generally only a peripheral part of the work. As the burials are generally not important to the work in question, and not important to the subject of the article beyond "Space burial is seen in science fiction", they need to stay out. --Eyrian 06:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't share your reasoning, on this or on the articles where you've applied similar rationals for removing material. See above. I've reverted your change until you get some kind of consensus for it or can show that it is unambiguously backed by some kind of policy. Artw 06:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. Entries that are neither important to the work, and cannot be shown to be generally relevant, are unquestionably trivial. --Eyrian 06:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Eyrian does not seem to realize that Wikipedia is a unique encyclopedia that greatly differs from other online encyclopedias in that anyone can contribute to Wikipedia and everyone is a volunteer. The only reason other encyclopedias aren't as large as Wikipedia is because they don't have enough resources to make it as large, and they only want hired professionals writing their articles.--ElminsterAumar 06:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian is correct in that Wikipeida has content guidelines and policiesthat are there for a reason, and they should be stuck to. Claiming otherwise is not particularly helpfull, and in this case not really the issue since the policies do not support his position. Artw 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind him; just another one of my ever-growing retinue of admirers. --Eyrian 07:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy you linked to is pretty clear on Trivia lists: "Large sections of indirectly-related details should be avoided as they diminish articles' overall readability and utility." - I do noty believe the fiction section represents such a thing, no that if it did represent such a thing removing the entire section would be an appropriate response. Artw 07:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The bold text stands alone as well as with the rest. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. This excessive list did distract from the main article topic. Again, the significance of these things needs to be verified, otherwise they're not significant. Why would we include insignificant details? --Eyrian 07:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth your last edit, which removes some items that clearly didn't belong there while leaving the rest of section intact, is much better. I'd have no problem with your edits to fiction and popular culture sections if they were all of that nature. Artw 07:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly not. However, please address my last comment. --Eyrian 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

In reference to you last point I'd say that when you slow down and take the time and energy to do a good job of it you are capable of making some good judgement calls on what is and isn't significant, but that most of the time you rush it. Also that on judgement calls of that kind it is better to take a collaborative approach and build consensus than to rush in half cokced, point at a few policies that kind-of-sort-of support you and expect everyone to go along with it Artw 07:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I feel we've slowed down. Let's talk about this. Seriously, that list is pretty long, and the entries there aren't really significant to the understanding of space burial. It's nice to note that it's a fictional concept, as well, but they're all pretty straightforward instances of someone's remains to the black deep rather than the blue. Listing them all is just... silly. If there are any that have verifiable cultural impact, include them. Otherwise, they just get in the way. --Eyrian 07:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Graham Chapman rumor

For many years, I had read that his boyfriend, lauched his ashes into space at the turn of the millenuim, but they were acutally spread on Earth.--Hailey 18:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Space disasters

Why is the "Space disasters" section part of the "Space burial" article and not a separate one? The place of a person's burial is NOT usually the same as the place of death. ViennaUK (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How?

The article doesn't completely describe the method of delivery. A rocket with cremated remains is delivered to orbit, circles the earth, and re-enters. At what point are the remains "buried in space", and how? Readers can come up with some plausible explanations on their own, but they shouldn't have to. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Symbolic burial

'It may thus be described as a symbolic act rather than actual burial.' I find this an odd sentence. Aren't all burials (as opposed to a simple disposing of a body) symbolic acts? In my opinion, this sentence needs fleshing out. 84.192.118.77 (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Orbit Burial Is Not Space Burial

Actually hoisting ashes into space would not be a burial at all, but the opposite. Bury means put under ground. Actually it appears that all or most of what this article refers to is putting ashes in an orbit over the earth from which orbit eventually the ashes fall back to earth -- not space burial at all. Methinks all the references to orbit burial should be removed or put in a subcategory. If there have been successful launching of ashes into outer space (beyond the earth & the sun's gravity grasp), that should be treated specifically, or it should be noted that this has never happened. Also, the taking of a small sample of ashes is quite a different concept from launching an entire physical remains of a man into outer space. And really there is nothing all that special about orbiting ashes that fall back, as this is really much like tossing them in the air. (EnochBethany (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Sunjammer

The article lists several people whose remains are scheduled to be aboard the Sunjammer, but the article says "Citing a lack of confidence in its contractor’s ability to deliver, the mission was cancelled in October 2014." I'll try to revise this article when I have time, but feel free to beat me to it.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)