Talk:Self-immolation of Wynn Bruce

Prefer to leave glorification out

Glorifying suicide seems like a bad idea. He was not superman. He felt pain while being burnt alive. Saying he didn't make a noise is lionizing. I'm not sure what you're looking to discuss about this. The photographer looked to be about 30 yards away, also could have an agenda. Any reasonable person would assume that he made noise, sounds of anguish as he was burning. I don't want to edit war, but there is no video footage to prove that he in fact did not make a sound during the self-immolation. No matter how noble you may think his action was (it appears you do), still glorifying suicide injects opinion, thus editorializing, which is against NPOV.76.181.201.214 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

IP 76, I'm honestly not sure how to proceed here, because I understand and somewhat agree with what you're saying but I also think there's a strong argument for inclusion. A reliable source says he made no noise, which for Wikipedia's purposes overrides any assumptions (reasonable or not) that a person might make. Our job is to create an article that reflects what reliable sources say about the subject. I don't think including descriptive details about this event is glorifying suicide. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I saw you added some context ("according to an on-scene photographer" or something of that nature) which helps with the reliability although it still seems farfetched at best that he was silent while being burned alive. As for the second point (glorifying suicide): I'd argue a large portion of this specific wiki page does just that but there's some plausible deniability in the write-up. I would write this differently - leave out any possible glorification/lionizing, just stick to the indisputable facts, but it's OK.76.181.201.214 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The article now says he was silent for the 60 seconds he was on fire, but he made pain noises later. That's quite believable. Darkonc (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if he took a fuckton of xanax beforehand...maybe then it would be believable. Regardless, it's no hill worth dying on. I'm fine with the wording as it is. 76.181.201.214 (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Ironic "cremation" connection

As Ezlev mentioned in his edit summary, the argumentative burden lies on the editor persistently adding the contentious material. The IP editor should demonstrate the relevance of the "cited fact" to the article. Just because something can be sourced and is an accepted fact doesn't mean that it belongs in any article.

I can find a source backing up the fact that Clarence Thomas is a US Supreme Court Justice. Cited fact. The event took place in Washington, D.C. That's where the US Supreme Court is. Does that mean mentioning Clarence Thomas pertains to the article in anyway, despite the factuality of the claim and a far-fetched relevance?

As I mentioned in my edit summary, the cremation tidbit is quite irrelevant. It's quite misleading too. Bruce setting himself on fire didn't release 600lbs of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. That's because self-immolation isn't the same as using an industrial furnace fueled by oil/gas to disintegrate a body. Different energy inputs, different emissions. It also falls under WP:SYNTH, as Ezlev mentioned, and using terms like "ironically" is quite unencyclopedic.

I am assuming good faith and hoping you'll be able to argue your case if you believe the phrase belongs in the article. Mooonswimmer 22:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The relevance (pretty clearly) is that *yes, ironically* in protesting the damage humans cause through a variety of means, Mr. Bruce's last act as a living human emitted gaseous pollutants to the atmosphere. It is a statement of fact that him burning himself alive-unnecessarily adding (even just a tiny bit) to air pollution which effects climate change was/is *ironic* considering his motive was supposedly to show his love for Planet Earth. The phrase "don't cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.

-

In my 30 years of existence I have never heard or read someone use the word "unencyclopedic" - seems awfully fugazi to me, but whatever. 76.181.201.214 (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Once again, please read WP:SYNTH; the content you attempted to add is a textbook example of it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

How? 76.181.201.214 (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Birth date

He was born on the 25th of august 1971. 2A02:A212:19C1:7200:A83D:A3F6:7BC3:1D85 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Addition to “Response” section

Another notable response not mentioned is that the entire premises of many federal buildings became off limits to the general population. The steps of the Supreme Court, for example, were fenced off following this event. I don’t have a source on hand for this, but I know it happened so it shouldn’t be hard to find evidence of. 2600:1700:6CB0:C170:A91B:CABE:BE2E:70 (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The steps of the Supreme Court and other government buildings are regularly temporarily fenced off in anticipation of a demonstration or after. Not generally put in articles as it isn't notable. Fettlemap (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)