Talk:Thích Quảng Đức

Active discussions
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 so.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 18, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 20, 2007.

Religious Background section not about TQDEdit

The Religious Background section seems out of place since it appears to be not the religious background of TQD (which is already covered in the Biography section), but rather the background of TQD's self-immolation. I moved it to be a subsection of the Self-Immolation section itself. However, for consistency that demanded I moved almost everything else to be similar subsections. What this exposes is the fact that this article is not actually about TQD but rather about his self-immolation. I wonder if it's worth splitting off the self-immolation commentary into a second article, and providing only the briefest of summaries in this one, thereby focusing this one on the man himself?

I'm not happy with how I've left it (i.e. moving most of it into subsections) but I can't see another better way. So feel free to revert/modify as you see fit. Thomask0 (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

What school/vehicle/canon did he follow?Edit

Reiterating a question raised several years ago: what school of Buddhism did TQD follow? It's still the case that the article lede mentions Mahayan but in the Biography section it mentions he studied some Theravada. Can anyone shed more light on this? For example, within Mahayan, what form of Buddhism did he pursue: Zen, as with Thích_Nhất_Hạnh, or what? Thomask0 (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Digging around for information on this, I'm thinking Pure Land may be the answer. Any comments? Thomask0 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The article says: "Đức rotated a string of wooden prayer beads and recited the words Nam mô A di đà Phật ("homage to Amitābha Buddha") before striking a match and dropping it on himself." See also: [1]. JimRenge (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
@JimRenge:, yep that was the clue that made me mention Pure Land. But is it enough to allow us to make an explicit statement about TQD and Pure Land? I think not. It would be verging on OR; i.e. we'd be asserting without RS that Nianfo necessarily implies that the person is a Pure Land follower. I think we probably need to leave things as they are unless and util someone can come up with an RS that makes clear what TQD's "affiliation" was. Agreed? Thomask0 (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, that link you provded was very informative. It refers to Vietnamese Buddhism as being "eclectic", so maybe there's no need to try to shove TQD into any one of the various more-or-less distinct groups. Thomask0 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you. There seems to be no need to identify him with a specific school and we do not have a source to do it (I did not read all the sources). The sentence about his last words/Nianfo speaks for itself.
See also [2] for the possible inspiration by the story in the twenty-third chapter of the Lotus Sutra (Kubo, Tsugunari; Yuyama, Akira, trans. (2007). The Lotus Sutra (PDF). Berkeley, Calif.: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. pp. 280–281. ISBN 978-1-886439-39-9.. JimRenge (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Who lit the fire?Edit

The article, sourced, states that he lit a match and dropped it on himself - but film footage of the event clearly shows that this is not the case. As visible in this HD version of the footage, he remains quiet and still as the fire is lit by the monk behind him. Is the footage a proper source to override what is stated in article?

Lilduff90 (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I've read elsewhere that this video is a re-enactment, not actual footage of the real event. That is something that should be confirmed or disconfirmed before taking it as factual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:C0B9:EC40:68E3:ABF9:7D64:71A1 (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Pulitzer PrizeEdit

The lead currently states that "Malcolm Browne won a Pulitzer Prize for his photograph of the monk's death." However, all the sources that I've seen say that he won World Press Photo of the Year for the photograph and later won a Pulitzer Prize with David Halberstam for "reporting of the Viet Nam war and the overthrow of the Diem regime." Seems like this might need to be corrected. Kaldari (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Đức Had A Suicide Pact With A North Vietnamese Colleague?Edit

Geoffrey Shaw, in his book "The Lost Mandate of Heaven", states that Thích Quảng Đức had formed a suicide pact with a colleague in North Vietnam who subsequently burned himself to death over the persecution of Buddhists in North Vietnam. Once the South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis started, not only did several new monks urge Đức to carry out his pledge, but also, "When leaders of the Buddhist uprising in South Vietnam learned that Quang Duc wanted to redeem his pledge, they encouraged him to do so. The monk's desire for suicide had little to do with Diem's government until they made it so." Sadly, I cannot find an online link to the page in question in Shaw's book. Google Books won't cooperate. The full text of Shaw's assertion can be found on page 216 of "Lost Mandate." Shaw's assertion, which is based on a primary source, Frederick Nolting's memoir "From Trust To Tragedy", is intriguing. How can we go about constructively working this argument into this article? Could it be a simple bit of text, properly sourced to Shaw's book, that states:

"Frederick Nolting, ambassador to South Vietnam at the time, claimed in his memoirs that Đức had formed a suicide pact with a colleague in North Vietnam who subsequently carried out his pledge, and that once the South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis began, Đức was urged by several fellow monks and the leaders of the Buddhist protests to fulfill his part of the pact."

This text would avoid any bias towards Shaw's argument that Đức's act had nothing to do with Diem (I concede it still very well could have), but the fact Đức had formed a pact with a colleague in North Vietnam would be presented to the reader in a neutral tone. I welcome constructive feedback on this proposal.TH1980 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Or what about this simpler version of what I proposed above:
"Đức had formed a suicide pact with a colleague in North Vietnam who subsequently carried out his pledge, and that once the South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis began, Đức was urged by several fellow monks and the leaders of the Buddhist protests to fulfill his part of the pact."
This would still be neutral. Comments?TH1980 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I am thinking about going with the second proposed edit. I will be placing it at the start of the section about Đức's suicide. Anyone have any objections?TH1980 (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
After making one further revision, I added the following to the article today:
"Thích Quảng Đức had formed a suicide pact with a colleague in North Vietnam who subsequently carried out his pledge in protest of North Vietnamese mistreatment of Buddhists. Once the South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis began, Đức was urged by several fellow monks and the leaders of the Buddhist protests to fulfill his part of the pact."
I made sure this inclusion was properly credited to the above source, Geoffrey Shaw's book. Comments, anyone?TH1980 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I removed this fringe information. The book is published by a Catholic printing press. The catalogue page of this book on its website has a priest saying how Diem is a great Catholic and needs to be canonised. The book is nothing but a fringe sectarian source.

This is not a "fringe" source but a reputable book by a scholar who did his due diligence in his research. Shaw's source is Frederick Nolting's memoir "From Trust To Tragedy", a primary source, too.TH1980 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Here is a compromise edit I suggest:
"Once the South Vietnamese Buddhist crisis began, the leaders of the Buddhist protests arranged Đức's self-immolation. (Đức had formed a suicide pact with a colleague in North Vietnam who subsequently carried out his pledge in protest of North Vietnamese mistreatment of Buddhists.)"
This would explain why Đức was chosen. Comments?TH1980 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
The assertion re the suicide pact would need to be supported. I took a quick look at Shaw, Geoffrey (18 October 2015), The Lost Mandate of Heaven: The American Betrayal of Ngo Dinh Diem, President of Vietnam, Ignatius Press, ISBN 978-1-68149-686-3 and did not see support for this in that source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the snippet about Nolting's claim re the suicide pact is on a book page not previewable in Google Books. I did find the info at Nolting, Frederick (1988), From trust to tragedy: the political memoirs of Frederick Nolting, Kennedy's ambassador to Diem's Vietnam, Praeger, pp. 115–116, ISBN 978-0-275-93080-6, though (see [3] and [4]) Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Then what if we switch the source to Nolting's book?TH1980 (talk) 02:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
OK by me. I didn't do that because I had only seen the snippets I linked. I don't think that there is a problem in this case, but I would have liked to read a bit more of the text surrounding those snippets. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thích Quảng Đức. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 11:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

What happened to the heart of Thich Quang Duc?Edit

Is the heart still at the Xa Loi Pagoda? Has it been returned after being confiscated, or is it lost somewhere? 106.37.222.107 (talk) 06:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This piqued my curiosity, and I googled a bit. I was surprised by what I did and did not find.
The assertion about the confiscation of the heart was added on August 20, 2007 in


This edit, citing (Jones, pp.307–308) in support but not identifying the source beyond that. The work cited then is identified in the current article version, but the cited pages are not available for preview in Google Books ([5]). In the current article, the source cited in support of this assertion is an unattributed TIME magazine article which requires a subscription to be viewed.

In my googling, I found several sources which contradict the assertion or do not mention the confiscation.
  • this 1963 source omits mention.
  • this page of a 2017 book describes a visit (I'm not sure of the visit date) to a temple where the heart was on display. This page asserts that today (2017ish?) the heart is in a bank vault in HCM city.
  • this page of a 2015 book describes the immolation but does not mention the confiscation.
  • this page of a 2014 book says that the heart is still (2014sh??) on display at the Xa Loi Pagoda.
I don't know what the actual facts about this might be. Some interested editor who knows more about this that I do and/or who has better access than I to relevant sources ought to take a look at this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Seven PsychopathsEdit

There is nothing I found in the sources on that film that suggests that the 'Vietnamese priest' is a representation of Thich Quang Duc. So firstly, it's a made up thing by an editor, and secondly it isn't important enough if this character is about the 20th thing credited and isn't even mentioned in the plot of any summaries of sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Return to "Thích Quảng Đức" page.