Talk:Thích Quảng Đức/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Untitled

None of Moyar's work is used. There was an allegation that Thich Quang Duc had communist relatives and that there was communist infiltration in this Buddhis faction. CN -Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.25.253.198 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

un prost care si-a dat foc

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

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.

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. 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)

In an episode of Mad Men episode 30, The Arrangements, the character Don Draper watches Thích Quảng Đức burn to death on television he is stunned. This is important for the show because it is the first time the viewer is given a date for the third season, 11 June 1963. rononin13 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 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)

• None whatsoever. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this the man featured in a scene on a TV in the opening sequence of the movie adaption of Watchmen? It looks familiar but I didn't want to include it in the section lest I was wrong, but there is a very similar scene of news footage which is either genuine or staged to resemble this point in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.41.178 (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Nope, there's not, son. - Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.1.123 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2009 (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)

Then, according to Wikipedia policy, you are supposed to ad that reference to the article. - Paul

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)

On the Wikipedia page on cremation, it clearly states that all internal organs burn/vaporize very readily. Since the hart is made mostly of soft tissue and cartilage, I would conclude that it would burn readily as well. So, either one of the articles could be false but there's clearly incongruency here. In any case, I do not understand why this issue is debated at all; Wikipedia policy is to ad references to factual statements that could be questioned. This is one of those statements, so anybody arguing that no reference is required is in conflict with a very basic and general policy. Let me say this as well: To my knowledge, there's not even one properly recorded instance of any organ remaining intact after being submitted to oxigenation at 1000 degrees celsius for two hours; het likelyhood of this ever occuring are, marginal. - Paul

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)

Thomas Paine asked, "Is it more likely that nature would turn out of her course or that a man would tell a lie?" If following the RS rules causes to you to write something that makes no sense, those rules need be rethought rather than followed mindlessly. Kauffner (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here 103 years old nun Yuanzhao(圆照) told she would leave her heart to the living beings. Then she died. Her heart did not burn. Rangjung_Rigpe_Dorje#Karmapa.27s_deathHi58ltre (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this article: Explanation or Legend? But what I was really wondering is where is the heart now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.163.161 (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

???

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)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional acts

The last section states that two people in the US carried out similar acts, but omits Roger Allen LaPorte, who carried out the same act in front of the UN building in New York. Can someone correct this?82.44.88.178 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Location of Austin

The article states that the car "is part of a tourist attraction in what is now Ho Chi Minh City commemorating the event."

This is incorrect.

The correct information is:

The Austin sedan that carried Thich Quang Duc to Saigon for his self-immolation is enshrined at the Thien Mu Pagoda in Hue. Malcolm Browne's photograph is displayed in its windshield.

This has been the case since at least the 1990s. I spent last year in Vietnam on a Fulbright and can attest it is still the case.

Gramercypark (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Page name

What's going on with all these page moves? Skomorokh 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Again?  Skomorokh  21:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently this was posted at WP:RM as an "uncontroversial move", but without any notice or discussion here. It passed FAC at the other name. I would like to hear why this was moved without discussion. Gimmetrow 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Honorific title

WP:HONOR Honorifics (e.g. "Thich") are generally to be avoided in article titles, although there has been consensus to include them amongst some (e.g. Pope John Paul II and Saint Peter.) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy) makes no mention of a special dispensation for "Thich" and I know of no consensus to include this honorific in article names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not an honorofic. Thich comes from the word "Thich Ca" meaning "Sakya" which was the birth tribe of Buddha, and is used by all clerics, effectively their surname, because they consider themselves to be part of the Buddha's family. Things like "Hoa thuong" (most ven), "Thuong toa" (ven) "Dai Duc" (rev) are honorifics, this is not. Are you going to delete "Singh" from the neam of every Sikh? Because a Sikha leader ages ago gave all his followers that surname. Stop dogmatically doing things without proper reasoning. You also moved a Buddhist temple's name and chopped it's name off under "honorific". YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Differences between the story, the picture and 'the video'(a fake)

The article says that police could not get to the burning monk because they could not get through the throng of Bhuddist monks observing the event.The video of the immolation clearly shows police officers in front of the monks,actually pushing the crowd back,just before the monk ignites himself.I counted 5 police officers clearly positioned between Quang Duc and the crowd of onlookers.Which opens a whole new avenue of discussion,as to why the police did not attempt to stop him.Especially considering the fact that news of an unforgettable event to take place on the 11th of June,had widely circulated through Hanoi,the day before.Airking (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

When watching the photograph and the video there are some differences. The photograph shows the container of the (apparently) 5 gallon gasoline whilst the monk is burning, yet this is not the case in the video. The crowd in the video is standing a couple of yards closer to the burning monk (around the same distance as the car, which is present in the video) than in the picture. Makes me wonder... The video (started at the moment the other monk is walking away with the container, thus not leaving it near Thich Quang Duc as seen in the picture and also the police officers holding back the public (this starts at around 1m05s) (which is closer to Thich Quand Duc than in the photopgrah): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr5S3b2j-lw#t=1m06s . At 2m49s the camera shifts slightly to the right revealing the gasoline container standing in front of the car, rather than close to Thich Quang Duc. At 2m55s Thich Quang Duc 'hit the ground', so the picture would have had to been taken before that moment, yet the container of gasoline isn't where 'it should be' (in the picture). Also the car bumper in the picture seems to differ from the car bumper in the video.

This leaves us with the question: which sources are valid? I'm led to believe the video is a fake. Edit: seems the video is fake: http://www.ladyclip.com/videos/play/98214231/ (starts 6m06s) --Shought (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The video that's going around on the net is apparently a re-enactment from the film Mondo Cane 2 according to this page: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_there_a_Th%C3%ADch_Qu%E1%BA%A3ng_%C4%90%E1%BB%A9c_video - which explains why the video differs from the photograph. 124.171.48.155 (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Mark

No pain? How?!

According to David Halberstam, "... As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him." In other words, he sat there serenly as his flesh burned, apparently not in pain. How is this possible?! I feel that some sort of explanation is needed as to how Thich Quang Duc managed to burn without feeling pain, or to completely block out whatever pain he may have felt. Was he drugged? Were his nerve endings destroyed? Did he go into shock very quickly? Or is it really possible to have such a mind-over-matter mastery of your body that you can ignore pain or even turn it off? Is there an explanation anywhere?Cromulant (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Deep burns are painless, because pain nerves in the skin are destroyed. --Diamonddavej (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can explain him not showing the outside effects of pain by his nerves being destroyed, this would surely take a while. I believe it is possible to not react to pain (he does feel the pain, for sure, his outer appearance just doesn't show), it is a matter of mind over matter, I guess.--Shought (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we can only go into an explanation if someone has explored this topic elsewhere. We'd need to find other people talking about it first. Even suggesting what the explanation might be without someone else having done it first is WP:OR. - BalthCat (talk) 23:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this so hard to believe? There is photographic evidence of him sitting there with no emotion while he's engulfed in flames. There were hundreds of people around including a pulitzer prize winning photographer and author. 14:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.152.22 (talk)

Or he could be on Drugs -- 11:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1398:5:FE00:4824:89B7:5A6C:F0A (talk)

Buddhist monks are really good at mind over matter. It is expected that he felt no pain. He simply phased the physical world out. Pretty badass if you ask me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.170.22 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Location

In the "Self-immolation" section of the article is states that the intersection where the incident took place was at Phan Đình Phùng and Lê Văn Duyệt. I am in Ho Chi Minh and wanted to visit this intersection, but was very frustrated when nobody could tell me where Le Van Duyet street is. I realise now that is because the name of the street has changed and further I can see that it states this in the notes section at the very bottom of the article. I recommend that the "Self-immolation" section be updated (perhaps show the current street names in parentheses next to the former names) to let any other travelers who wish to visit be clear about where it is. I can confirm that the current names of the streets are correct as I went there yesterday. There is also a memorial built at that intersection and I have pictures of it. I am happy to post them if someone feels that it would add value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncrompto (talk • contribs) 10:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Footage of the Burning

Okay, according to the article, there was a large circle of monks surrounding Thích Quảng Đức to prevent the police from getting to him. And yet I've seen coverage of the event that shows just a monk alone on a street corner, footage that is claimed to be that of Thích Quảng Đức's own suicide. The one video I have seen that appears to be footage of his immolation in particular is in color (you can find it on Youtube). Now I know that other monks copied Thích Quảng Đức's example, and that self-immolition had been a common practice for centuries, but should it be mentioned that footage of monks burning themselves that do not have a large group of monks surrounding them are therefore not footage of Thích Quảng Đức's suicide? I ask because certain other articles (such as that of the 1966 film Persona) make reference to footage of what is claimed to be Thích Quảng Đức's death but probably isn't.76.186.170.240 (talk) 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The colour one with a solitary person isn't him, the photos by halberstam and browne clearly show a lot of people in the background YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The video you're talking about isn't real. It's a scene from a movie made in the 60's called Mondo Cane 2 by an Italian director. The genre is something of a 'shockumentary' so they made it look as realistic as possible. 76.10.152.22 (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

I've put this article forward for considering for the Main Page. See [1] Autonova (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Tunisia

As probably the most famous incident of self-immolation, it's tempting to draw parallels between the death of Mr Duc and that of Mohamed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire and sparked off the uprising in Tunisia. (e.g. you could write "Many years later, on 17 December 2010, Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi immolated himself in protest at his treatment by the local police.(ref) His act led to widespread protests and the eventual downfall of the Tunisian government(ref)", there you go). Beyond the similar method, is there any evidence that Bouazizi was inspired by Duc, or was it just coincidence? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on June 15, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 15, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 20:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hòa thượng Thích Quảng Đức (1897–1963) was a Vietnamese Mahayana Buddhist monk who burned himself to death on 11 June 1963. Thích Quảng Đức was protesting against the persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam's Ngô Đình Diệm administration. Photos of his self-immolation were circulated widely across the world and brought attention to the policies of the Diệm regime. After his death, his body was re-cremated, but his heart remained intact. This was interpreted as a symbol of compassion and led Buddhists to revere him as a bodhisattva, heightening the impact of his death on the public psyche. Thích Quảng Đức's act increased international pressure on Diệm and led him to announce reforms. However, the promised reforms were implemented either slowly or not at all, leading to a deterioration in the dispute. With protests continuing, the Special Forces launched nationwide raids on Buddhist pagodas, seizing the holy heart and causing deaths and widespread damage. Several Buddhist monks followed Thích Quảng Đức's example and burned themselves to death. Eventually, an Army coup toppled and killed Diệm in November. The self-immolation is widely seen as the turning point of the Vietnamese Buddhist crisis, which led to the change in regime. (more...)

Language

Since this is an English language encyclopedia, and the vast majority of English-speaking people are not familiar with Vietnamese text and punctuation, nor does everyone know phonetics, can we please have an approximation of the name written in ordinary English. Basically, if I were to search for this article, I wouldn't have a clue what to write for that D-ish thing. It might as well be Greek1 Amandajm (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Thich Quang Duc" brings it up. Amazing subject for a featured article.--Chimino (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Pultizer prize

According to the page on David Halberstam he received the George Polk Award for his eyewitness report on Duc's self-immolation and other articles. He received the Pulitzer prize for his war reporting over a period of several years. It's not accurate to say he received the Pulitzer Prize for writing the eyewitness report and that claim should probably be removed from this article in my opinion.AMacR (talk) 06:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Fell forward or backward?

The article says his body fell forward, yet footage of the immolation shows his body falling backwards. (A comment farther up this page suggests that the footage of the incident circulating on YouTube and elsewhere is fake. If this is the case, this is something that needs to be discussed in the article.) 68.146.71.145 (talk) 14:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed (see 'Differences between the story, the picture and 'the video'(a fake)' and 'Footage of the Burning'). I don't see the reason why the fact that this video is not authentic footage from the event should be noted in the article. Would information about pictures of other monks burning themselves not being Thich Quang Duc also have to be added? I don't think so. Shought (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Whitewashing Catholicism, USA, and Kennedy

Thich Quang Duc burned himself to protest the persecution of Buddhists by Catholic leader Ngô Đình Diệm -the dictator- was raised as a Catholic in the United States. The leader ruling the country was backed by U.S.A. At that time the president of the U.S.A is John F. Kennedy.

Why there is no significant reference to persecution of Buddhists by Catholics and support of USA for the persecutions? --76.31.238.174 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Vietnamese diacritics

RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thích Quảng Đức vs Đức

In the case of a Buddhist monk, normal Vietnamese naming rules do not apply. Because he was a Buddhist monk, his full Buddhist title/name Thích Quảng Đức must be used. If not, then Quảng Đức must be used, not merely Đức. That way, when people look at his name, they know he was a Buddhist monk. This rule is similar to the way a Catholic Pope is refered to. Nobody refers to Pope John Paul as simply John or Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.121.188 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The short of this name is "Quang Duc", see here. As for "Pope John Paul II", it normally shortens to "John Paul". At any rate, you certainly don't use "pope" on every mention. Kauffner (talk) 09:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture on the lede

FYI, an IP replaced a free image with a fair use image and he or she stated that the lede should contain a portrait (even if it is not free?). I disagree with and revert this user's edits because fair use should only be use in a suitable section as picture in lede section would be used in other pages such as portals or mainpage which will violate WP:NONFREE. Therefore, I would like to have other editors' inputs on that matters.--AM ^(talk) 06:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Theraveda or Mahayana?

The opening paragraph identified Thich Quang Duc as a Mahayana Buddhist but lower down he is identified as studying under the Theraveda tradition. I couldn't quickly see any reconciliation of these contrasting thoughts. I think it would be helpful to make this clearer.--70.68.144.89 (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thích Quảng Đức

Un prost care si-a dat foc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.220.15 (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

wing wan wong

wing was a retarded down sydrome as he set himself on fire.he was a monkey and a monk. Logic. he killed himself for no reason. maybe he wants to see god. LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.43.71.71 (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)