Talk:Natural burial

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Waltersaraceni, MattMcA21, Bheggs001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Russovidal, Noorjadoon, Nbf14, Ke161, Tamra Williams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

Proper Names and Generic Terms

The term “eco-cemetery” is NOT generally used to describe this type cemetery development. “Natural Burial” is the recognised term used in Canada and in the United Kingdom (where the concept began) while “Green Burial or Memorial Nature Preserve” is the term used in the USA

Eulogy4Afriend (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support moving to 'Natural burial' or 'Green burial' - I don't mind which, but both are clearly more widely used than 'eco-cemetery'. Terraxos (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Natural burial, per the above comments. There was a non-trivial history at Natural burial, which I swapped over to Eco-cemetery. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirected

I redirected natural burial and green burial here, but not woodland cemetery since that word also has another meaning. To me it looked like the articles were identical - what difference there was, I did not check. I just changed those pages into redirects here. Merging the texts in their latest version would be kind of a waste, since they are POV-y pro-natural/ecological burial. Rewrite is needed. // habj 08:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Article name

Google hits for eco-cemetary, natural burial and green burial gives 600, 24,000 and 43,000 respectively. I guess green burials are carried out in an eco-cemetary. The article name should follow the most common convention and have the other terms redirect to it. Green burial does hint at a purposefully ecologically benign burial whereas natural burial can happen without conscious action for all animals over all of history. Alan Liefting 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eco-cemetery" will give more hits than "eco-cemetary." The term is less common than the others, but a bit less rare than you first search implied. Ecocemetery 142,000; Natural-burial 963,000; green-burial 1,100,00. Phytism (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another term now used is Conservation Burial. SilentBob 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

There are several mentions of various natural burial organizations that read as authoritative endorsement under the Canadian and United States sections (ie, Green Burial Counsel). Suggest moving mentions to a new section entitled Green Burial Organizations to maintain neutrality of various cemetery mentions, which still read as advertisements for the various organizations.Gaze13 (talk) 10:36, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

POV

Attempted to restore netural POV

First paragraph

This discussion was moved here from talk:natural burial

The 2nd sentence in the first paragraph needs editing for grammar/readability. it currently reads "This growing modern burial practice is an environmentally responsible option that spiritually fulfilling alternative to the conventional funeral."

An acceptable reading would be "This growing modern burial practice is an environmentally responsible option that provides a spiritually fulfilling alternative to conventional burial." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alethias (talk • contribs) 18:15, 7 June 2006

I did not make the suggestion, but it would be a good idea since from the second paragraph on they are virtually identical (woodland cemetary). THe article also seems to have some POV issues such as describing the practice as "spirtually fulfilling." I have made a few changes, will still need more work.Sosobra 22:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to mention it here, but recently I changed the paragraph to "is an environmentally sustainable alternative to existing funeral practices." I'd say that's true, factual and a neutral POV. Also removed some other blatant advertising/promoting. Rien Post (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Linklessness template

Can not a certain linklessness be expected, in articles on more narrow subjects? Adding links to it in all burial-related articles just because this article should have more links to it does not seem fair to me. // habj 08:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Billy Campbell (doctor)

Please merge any relevant content from Billy Campbell (doctor) per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Campbell (doctor). Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 05:20Z

Excessive bio material

The bio material here comprises nearly 1/2 the article, that is excessive. There should be perhaps a sentence or two for each 'founder.' I will wait a day or two for those actively developing this article to prune it or I can do it if you'd rather. Also, please leave the cleanup tag in place until this article is written in a more encyclopedic style. If you have any questions, ask here or on my talk page. Thanks!--killing sparrows 03:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I changed the tag from cleanup to tone, although I suppose either would do. The writing is just off for an encyclopedia, more like a promotional article. I'm not saying it's spam, just that it needs rewriting. Again, any questions please let me know. Thanks! --killing sparrows 03:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited bio material removing material that did not appear to advance the topic of green burial and removed double reference to the Green Burial Council Eulogy4Afriend (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Image request

I notice that a few editors have done much work on this article and appear to have a great interest in the topic, is it possible that one of you could upload an image of an Eco-cemetery for use in the article? I realize that the point is that it doesn't look like or use land like a traditional cemetery, but still an image could illustrate some of the points mentioned such as a central memorial notice or the small markers mentioned. Visuals would add alot to this article.--killing sparrows 03:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Folks,

I agree this article now sounds more like a promotional spot than an encyclopedia entry. That said, it has been a work in progress, like the concept itself. On a related note though, I've posted Trust for Natural Legacies information here three times, and twice someone has deleted it. Many of us have worked together in the past. We're all in this together. If someone has a beef with me, then contact me directly. TNL is doing the same work as any other organization listed here, and thus has just as much right to be listed here. So do not play games with Wikipedia entries or everyone's info is suspect and this entire entry will get deleted. Markdahlby 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Mark Dahlby Markdahlby 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Killingsparrows' requrest, I have gone through and uploaded two images with the permission of Billy and Kimberley Campbell of Memorial Ecosystems. Please notify me if any adjustments need to be made in order to bring this into complaince (licensing, content, etc). Silentbobsc 21:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

As people have said above, seems way too much like a promotional piece than an unbiased article. --209.222.210.85 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be several comments like this - only one seems horribly reading like a classified ad, the RoI one (removed) - the rest at least are in a consistent format. What should the requirements for being listed there be? DannoNZ (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The neutrality question aside, there is a larger problem here, in that important issues are not discussed. The concept is fine, but the environmental information only discloses the dis-benefits of conventional burial (without any context I would add) and doesn't list any information regarding other obvious questions about the Natural Burial practice--like how much land it uses per burial, and the contents of bodies in the context of groundwater--where concentrations of metals and other chemicals are built up in the body. I'm not saying I know these to be problematic, I'm saying that there must be some information out there on this, no?69.86.235.38 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

this article is terribly written

This article is really poorly written. It's an advertisement for a very small group of US and Canadian people with a very narrow agenda that supports their consulting businesses. I'm still not sure how to fix it without wholesale burning a lot of it down. I hope an editor comes through here soon...

It would be a lot better if all the individuals' names and the names of their companies and their cemeteries were taken out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabeal (talk • contribs) 05:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be beneficial for us to include information on specific natural burial cemeteries in Canada? That way people have information on specifics offered for each country. The vague information offered under the Canadian section is lacking in any substance. I would like to edit it to include specific practices and locations, as well as Canadian law and organizations that oversee these eco-friendly practices. Here is a link to a sandbox I'm working on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kzoup/sandbox - Kzoup (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

hidden comments moved here

I removed these comments from the article space, where they were hidden in the "United Kingdom" section. I'm placing them here because they're more appropriate for the discussion page. Comments were originally placed just after the sentence "Since that date over 200 natural burial sites have been created in the UK making it one of the fastest growing environmental movements."

This needs rewording and sourced. Although the growth of trees is of primary importance it is essential that the trees are native and not alien to the area. In addition the management of the site ought to be conducive to good environmental practice. For instance, excess mowing would preclude the growth of wildflowers and deny the groundcover necessary for small mammals and other creatures.

I disagree that the fact that the trees are native is an essential component to natural burial. Native trees have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a body is decomposing naturally in the ground. The management of the site is a separate issue from natural burial - the management of the site is related to land management and should be covered separately, under sustainable landscape management, for example. Natural burials have taken place for thousands of years and are completely unrelated to what is done to the land on top of them.

Joyous! | Talk 13:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New stub/section needed?

It looks like we could use a new stub, or a new section, on the "where to go" concept.

People confuse the act of natural burial with the places a burial can happen, and the land management practices associated with it.

Eco-cemeteries is a made-up term by Mike Salisbury and team

Green burial grounds uses the word "green" and that is not a good descriptive term.

Woodland cemeteries" was the original term in the UK but that had to change when meadow lands began to be used - they switched to natural burial ground

"Preserves" have a particular definition in the US and many natural burial opportunities are not preserves - preserves are inaccessible to citizens in urban areas and are not typically considered cemeteries.

cemetery legislation is completely different from preserve legislation.

If there were either a new section or a stub we could separate out the burial grounds piece from the burial part but I don't know how to make a new section.

cabeal (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Snipped from burial and not sure where to place

The following was cut from the "burial" wiki page (where I left enough to redirect to natural burial) but I didn't want to put it back in without some discussion. some of it is redundant and some is wrong and some belongs elsewhere.

Here's the snipped stuff... please delete if you re-insert anywhere.

With a natural burial, the body is returned to nature in a biodegradable coffin or shroud. Alternative forms of memorialisation are common

vegetation (often a memorial tree) can planted over or near the grave in place of a conventional cemetery monument. The resulting green space establishes a living memorial and forms a protected wildlife preserve.

Muslims also practice natural burial, with the deceased's body covered in shroud and with the face facing Mecca. Likewise in Orthodox Judaism, embalming is not permitted, and the coffins are constructed so that the body will be returned to the Earth as soon as possible. Such coffins are made of wood, and have no metal parts at all. Wooden pegs are used in the place of nails. Israeli custom goes further, doing without a coffin.

Natural burial grounds are also known as woodland cemeteries, eco-cemeteries, memorial nature preserves, or green burial grounds.

cabeal (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

References

Horribly written

This article needs some major cleanup. The list of people under the "history" section are not notable and spammish, there are many advert additions. tedder (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

re-directing

I was re-directed here from the German 'Friedhofszwang', and the two things have nothing to do with each other. Pamour (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit, May 2012

I'm doing a copy edit here as part of the Guild of Copy Editors May 2012 drive, and have noted all the concerns about POV and promotion expressed above. I doubt I can remove all POV, so I'll leave the tags in place on the page for somone else to remove if they think appropriate, but I'll do what I can. In particular, the History subsections are far too much like collections of mini-BLPs, all uncited and in a very promotional tone. It's a bad idea to make this article into such a Hall of Fame, since everyone can see what it is and it's as likely to put people off as anything else. I'm trying to refocus the histories on national aspects rather than individual for-he's-a-jolly-good-fellow statements as much as possible. Hence the rather extensive deletion of uncited biographical and promotional stuff. I hope that's all right. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It proved difficult for the US section, which was heavy with peacock language, and even now I think it's too promotional. I recommend deleting the Fernwood, Foxfield and Circle paragraphs and concentrating more on the Green Burial Council, the TSL and any other umbrella organizations there night be. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be good, too, to use this. --Stfg (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

"Additional information by Simon Ferrar - Jan 2015" Edit 09 Jan 2015

A natural burial ground should have a purpose to exist over and above just providing space as a cemetery. This ensures that the burial ground has a reason to be sustainably managed and maintained during its operation but also after it reaches capacity. Productive landscapes such as hay meadows and orchards are obvious examples but the creation of a nature reserve offers an ecological resolution both for sustainable management and the proliferation of flora and fauna. A mixed landscape such as grass and wildflower meadow, managed broadleaf woodland and aquatic areas offer traditional hay and coppiced wood production with the lake and wetland providing an even greater capacity for diverse wildlife eco-systems. The crops can offset the cost of harvesting and simultaneous management of the woodland canopy ensures the coppice cycle can continue. Traditional management techniques using working horses and grazing sheep all contribute to a functional, sustainable and low-impact management programme. <ref:http://www.clandonwood.com/index.php/the-site>

	+	

Further, a secure and substantial endowment should also be funded from the burial ground's income to ensure the site's financial security for its long-term future. <http://www.clandonwood.com/index.php/q-a-

+++++++++++

I've removed the above edit from the article. Simon, I'm sure you have the best of intentions, but no personal attributions please - format and re-enter per WP:MOS. Thanks, --Seduisant (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Natural burial. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110522020057/http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-altdeath06feb06,0,2549383.story?page=2&coll=la-home-magazine to http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-altdeath06feb06,0,2549383.story?page=2&coll=la-home-magazine

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification for "Green Cemeteries"

Hello. I added some information to clarify the first "Green Cemetery" in the USA. If you have any suggestions to make it sound better or for corrections, let me know!--Doddsrac (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Rachel

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Natural 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/20150610210746/http://www.carlisle.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/parks_and_open_spaces/carlisle_cemetery/carlisle_cemetery.aspx to http://www.carlisle.gov.uk/leisure_and_culture/parks_and_open_spaces/parks_and_open_spaces/carlisle_cemetery/carlisle_cemetery.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Waltersaraceni, MattMcA21, Bheggs001 (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 October 2023 and 1 November 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lyn9 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jazaam02 (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2023 (UTC)