Talk:Thích Quảng Đức

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Thích Quảng Đức is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on August 20, 2007.
November 18, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Date of death

It's said that his dead on june 11 at the top of the article... And on june 10 in the "self immolation" section... What's true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.234.135.41 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it says that on June 10, the journalists were told that something big would happen the next day. So June 11 was the self-immolation, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pop-culture section (DO NOT ARCHIVE)

This material was deleted from the page. It needs to be given an introduction and integrated back into the page. Please see the discussion "two choices" below.

[edit] In popular culture

In episode 822 of the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 tv series, Michael J. Nelson makes a reference to Thích and the other self-immolating monks while watching the futuristic space drama Space Mutiny.[1] At one point in the movie, the protagonist fires a laser bazooka at the villain, but hits one of his henchmen, setting him on fire. When the villain kicks the man out of his way, Michael screams, "Stupid Buddhist monk! The Vietnam War has been over with for hundreds of years years."

In Southpark episode 408, "Chef Goes Nanners", Chef protests the Southpark flag which consists of four white stickmen raising their arms in joy as a black stickman hangs from the gallows. He holds a picture of Thích in front of him and says in a loud booming voice, "In the 1960’s, there was a monk who set himself on fire to protest. You have left me no choice. To protest your lack of humanity, I will now do the same thing." He then raises a gas can and lighter above his head as if to consummate the act, but the camera pans out and shows a Buddhist monk sitting next to him. He then douses the monk in gasoline and sets him on fire.

The cover of Rage Against the Machine's self-titled debut album features the photograph of Thích's immolation.

(Ghostexorcist 20:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Is the Southpark episode really that memorable or interesting that it needs to be included here? yes --Totorotroll (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Any truth to the oft-heard proclamation that Elvis Presley's song "Burning Love" is either based upon or dedicated to, this event?72.47.13.75 (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

There's a photo of this happening that had some pretty serious polical consequences. Aside from the copyrights, as it depicts a person burning to death it might be considered offensive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tinus (talk • contribs) 00:22, July 22, 2004 (UTC)

I believe the image as used in the article falls under fair use. As far as the potential offensiveness of the image, remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Jeff Silvers 22:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
This image showing the incident in greater detail has recently been uploaded, but lacks a fair use rationale. If someone knows the copyright status of this image and can provide a fair use rationale for its inclusion in this article, it would make a great addition. Skomorokh incite 16:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Other names

Are these other names of Thích Quảng Đức:
Quang Duc Bodhisattva
Chữ Nôm: 釋廣德 -- Esemono 14:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are you serious?

"After his death, his body was re-cremated, but his heart remained intact." - Are you serious? This is supposed to be an article? So, he burned himself. Then they cremated him - meaning that they burned him like you do it to dead people in some cultures. Ok. "but his heart remained intact" seriously, are you DRUNK? How am I supposed to read that information? What do you mean? This needs to be worked over. And "Thich Quang Duc is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." is definitely disproven, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.86.160 (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a picture, son. 76.197.197.59 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I think what 91.56.86.160 is trying to say (but failing miserably) is that there ought to be an disclaimer in the quoted sentence. That I will grant him/her/it. Its easy enough to add "(so the belief)" or some such, to avoid the implication as "fact." -- Fullstop (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Karnow and Jacobg did state the heart thing as a fact "his heart remained intact" and "they put his heart on display". Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
yes, I know. But a disclaimer wouldn't hurt. -- Fullstop (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)I'm in chann btw.
I've heard that the heart is one of the hardest things to burn. I'm sure there is plenty of supporting evidence out there on the net. Perhaps a supporting source would quell the disbelief. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
That would be OR unless such a source refers to this case. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
My suggestion was merely to quell the disbelief of the anonymous user from above. A supporting source from a respected scholarly journal or book would be far from original research. It would be OR only if the material came from a self-publishing author. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing OR with RS. "Original research", as the name suggests, is saying something that hasn't been said before, to include the misuse of any source to project/substantiate something that is not explicitly evident in the source being cited. OR is not about the reliability of the source a statement is being attributed to, but about the precision with which a statement reflects the source.
  • If source A only says something about the general (in)flammability of the heart, then you may not use source A to explain why Thích Quảng Đức's heart did not burn. Period. End of story.
  • If source B says something to the effect of "the survival of a heart after immolation or cremation can be attributed to the general (in)flammability of the heart," can you perhaps use that in this article. It is still leading the reader, and is still OR. And since this a GA article, too iffy.
  • Absolutely legitimate is only a source C that begins with "Thích Quảng Đức's heart did not burn because...," and it does not matter one iota if that source is reliable or not.
Unless you have a source C in hand, the correct approach would be the insertion of a disclaimer. i.e. "After his death, his body was re-cremated, but his heart (so Karnow[ref] and Jacobs[ref]) remained intact." With that, the article avoids taking any position on the authenticity of the unburnt heart (or on the story of it). It is not sufficient to use a ref at the end of the sentence when recalling a miracle. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I did a quick search on google books and found passages in these books here, here, and here. Tell me what you think. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Those sources (#1 & #3. #2 is just a "about this book") just reiterate that the heart didn't burn. But we already know that. The issue that 91.56.86.160 (poorly) expressed was that the article is stating that something miraculous happened, but not phrasing it as would be appropriate for such an extraordinary incident. It would be as if the article on Jesus stated "After being dead for two days, he woke up, rolled away the 10 ton stone over his tomb and walked away."[1][2] I'm exaggerating a bit, but only a bit. The point is that we shouldn't treat it like an everyday ho-hum statement, cited like one would cite any old ho-hum statement. Whats wrong with a disclaimer anyway? -- Fullstop (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correction needed

The banner up at the top of the discussion page says that a fact from this page was featured in the Did You Know? section on August 20, 2008. August 20, 2008 isn't for another 71 days.... Canationalist (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. There was a date formatting error in the banner. --Scottmsg (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

Does anyone else think that the guy in the pic doesnt look 66? apparently he is :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.156.204 (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)