Talk:List of political self-immolations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Algeria[edit]

This list could be expanded considerably from 2011 Algerian protests. - EmeutesAlgerie (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not strive to become a comprehensive database of all successful and attempted self-immolations. It just highlights some more prominent cases. Renata (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas James Ball[edit]

Why isn't he here? I came to wiki looking for more information about him. He doesn't yet have a regular entry, but I thought he'd at least be listed here by now. I'm going to add him unless someone else wants to do it. Mark Yaima (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball first. A consensus has formed that this individual is not notable at this time, but the issue can be re-visited in the future. Blogs and forums are not considered reliable enough sources to support this person's notability. This article is for notable self-immolators only. Therefore,it would be inappropriate to have this person includes on this list for now. Singularity42 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability says that notability is a test "used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". So, if Ball is not notable, then does that mean that every other self-immolation on the list of a person who does not have their own article can be deleted? Many of the other non-notable entries are similarly sourced to blogs and other sub-par sources: for example, the self-immolation of Sebastián Acevedo is sourced to guanaco17.blogspot.com. Quigley (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article begins "list of notable self-immolations... The act of self-immolating is not inherently notable, even if for political purposes. There must be some meaning to the word notable. Otherwise, every person who kills themselves with fire for a self-stated political reason should be added to this list, and that isn't what Wikipedia is for. This person killed himself less than a week ago, and so far there has been no significant coverage outside of some blogs and forums. There is no deadline in Wikipedia - it is not news. Let's see if the person becomes notable, and if so, then we can add him to the list, etc. Singularity42 (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These kind of lists have a much lower threshold for inclusion than full-fledged articles. Yes, they are not supposed to become a database of all suicides by fire. But they are also supposed to include cases that might not warrant a separate article. I would compare this list to List of rampage killers. If an entry can be reliably sourced, it should stay. Renata (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And all I am saying when it comes to Ball is to just give it longer than a week to see what the coverage will be like. Singularity42 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying, then, that the criteria for inclusion is not notability but inclusion in a reliable source? There's no reason to apply a standard to Ball that we aren't applying to Sebastián Acevedo, Sándor Bauer, and others on this page with questionable sourcing. Quigley (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Renata to some extent (List of rampage killers seems to be trying to be an non-limiting list, whereas this list is defined by notability). However, I didn't check all, but most of the entries you deleted I was able to find reliable sources using a quick Google check. The problem with Ball is that right now there aren't. That can (and may) change. Singularity42 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not referring to Ball in particular. I don't know his situation, nor do I care to find out. I was referring to the axing of all entries that did not have Wikipedia articles. This list needs to find some kind of balance between full inclusion (which is impossible) and restrictive standards of notability applied to separate WP articles. Most of these people would be delete because of the WP:BLP1E criteria. One such standard, which I think is adopted by other lists as well, is reliable sources. If an entry can be sourced, it should stay. If you are not satisfied with some sourcing, please improve it and not start mass-deleting... Renata (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to start an RfC to get a broader community consensus, as I think the three of us have three different views. (As an aside, an SPA has re-added Ball.) Singularity42 (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, all this discussion in so short a time -- I thought I wouldn't see a response at all! If he doesn't have his own page (I'm not an expert in what qualifies on that front), I suppose here is as good a place as any to include him and a link to a story about him. For the record, I first learned about him at the blog of the very well-known writer James Howard Kunstler (http://www.kunstler.com/). I imagine that one of the news sites, particularly one that published his document detailing the abuse he took at the hands of the courts, would probably be a better source than Kunstler's blog. Mark Yaima (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually the debate we are having (which I have turned into a broader debate below). There really is no news site that has published the documents - it's mostly been just blogs and forums. What we are trying to do is figure out how that plays into the policy of WP:LISTPEOPLE. I'm actually of the opinon that Ball should not be included yet, but that may not be the consensus - we'll have to see what people say on the thread below. Singularity42 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a user draft to try and see if it is even possible to come up with an entry for Thomas James Ball that is worthy of inclusion in the wiki under his own name and I'm finding it extremely difficult to find any citable sources other than blogs. So far, I've only come up with two local newspapers. My draft links to those sources but honestly there's not much that is newsworthy to work with. Wikipedia admins? Please let me apologize for the behaviour of the MRM on the internet as a whole; It seems a lot of people don't really have an idea how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I just got through trying to talk on the talk page for the deleted article and Orange Mike locked it down. I'm open to discussions of a positive nature on how to get the content included here as a part of the list or as a direct heading in his own name if anyone wants to try that instead. TJB was an activist for men's rights at the New Hampshire state level so it should be possible to validate his efforts and prove his importance. I'm not sure why vetting him should be so difficult? Numbertwopencil (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually at the wrong discussion page for that. This discussion is related to how to make this list article better, and while there may be a debate about whether Ball should be included on this list, we can't turn this list into a "mini" article about the person. In any event, because Ball's article was deleted pursuant to a discussion, you will probably have to go through the process at WP:DRV to have the decision reviewed. Singularity42 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that there is now coverage in a fairly large media source, the Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/10/divorced_dad_leaves_clues_to_his_desperation/ 184.59.26.110 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a source that should satisfy skeptics here. I've added it to the listing. Alialiac (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in the New Hampshire Sentinel. http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/group-gathers-for-memorial/article_a9b29ce4-947a-59ec-ad5c-6dc122062ba1.html Why don't you guys just leave it up there? Such a shame. Kire1975 (talk) 04:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Thomas James Ball back to the list. This page is not an entry for Ball, it's merely a simple listing. Notability is irrelevant here. There is no reason why a simple listing of this person should be barred. Ball's case fits the criteria of political self-immolations: he lit himself on fire in a protest against family courts (mis)treatment of non-custodial parents, especially fathers. This is not the only reference that cites a blog here; therefore, I see no reason why it should be singled out. Alialiac (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had readded James Ball back to the list, as his former readdition by Alialiac was removed due to "no such article", while the articles in the references provided very much exist. This was undone by Singularity42 because "general consensus that these two references are not enough for this person to be listed; if you think consensus is wrong, discuss on talk page". I don't see any discussion on here at all regarding whether or not the Boston Globe is an appropriate or sufficient source (only a mention of it existing, someone noting that they've added it as a result, and a note of "no such article" on an edit to remove it despite the article very much existing). Other names on the list are unquestioned despite lesser sources provided, or a lack of any cites at all. Presumably all of those should be removed as well (at least until a sufficient source is provided)? The seemingly inconsistent application of the rules seems to suggest an issue with this specific entry for reasons unrelated to it's sourcing. Schadrach (talk) 17:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely, most certainly and most self-evident by the amount of discussion and debate occurring on this page Tom Ball is HIGHLY notable and should have his own wiki page. His self-immolation was very serious. How on earth could anyone say that a self-immolation is not notable? Self-immolation is extremely rare and ANY instance of it - especially and particularly, a successful one - IS notable. Yes.

RfC: What are the criteria to be included in this type of list?[edit]

How does WP:LISTPEOPLE apply to lists of people who have done Act X? In this case, the article starts of by stating that this is a a list of notable self-immolations for political reasons. There is a debate about what the criteria are for inclusion. Is the act of killing yourself by fire, making a prior statement that it is for political purposes, and then having a local paper report that it happened with no follow-up enough? Or is the other end of the spectrum the way to go - that is, compliance with WP:BIO1E? Or is there a middle ground that can be reasonably articulated?

A specific example is Thomas James Ball. His death was reported by two local papers, and then covered extensively by certain blogs and forums associated with certain political views. Ultimately, pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas James Ball, this person was found not to be notable and his article was deleted. IPs and SPAs have been pushing to have this person included in this list. The reliable source is a local paper that reported his death. Is this enough for inclusion? Singularity42 (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The threshold for including a person in a List is lower than the threshold for a dedicated article. The WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline says, in part: "[To be included in a list, the person must meet] the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is especially important in the list's group; for example, if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability.". So, even though Thomas James Ball is not sufficiently notable for his own article, he may still be eligible for inclusion in the list, provided that (1) there are sources that discuss him, and (2) his inclusion would be encyclopedic and informative. If he is included, a footnote must be provided in the List article identifying the sources that describe the details. --Noleander (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had started cleaning up the entry for Thomas James Ball, but removed it for now after reviewing this talk page, pending consensus in this discussion.
As to WP:LISTPEOPLE, keep in mind that it is a guideline, not a policy - and that talk page consensus on inclusion criteria would carry more weight than that guideline. Also, the second bullet states The person's membership in the list's group is significant in some way - to me, that one is open for interpretation.
Personally, I have no strong opinion on this entry either way - but I would like to see consensus develop here on what should be the inclusion criteria before he is re-added, as the entry is clearly in dispute. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self immolation in protest over a wide ranging political issue is unusual and notable. Using mainstream media as a measure of notability is not always sound, The mainstream media will not report otherwise notable events that might spawn copycat events, effect the financial markets, endanger a persons security or cause large scale panic etc, etc. In essence the media does not want be the maker of the news and has a responsibility to maintain public order.

Sometimes these events might be covered locally but are frequently described in generic terms, eg facial acid attacks and penile mutilations are reported as aggravated assault and fine details of murders are not described. Suicides are almost never reported.

The Ball case was reported in the regional media and extensively in the Blogoshpere, ie by people who did not feel as constrained as the mainstream media. This is a testament to it's notability.

The question is does Wikipedia have the same responsibility as the mainstream media? To some extent I believe it does but this matter needs debate. Even if it does I do not believe the addition of the Ball immolation violates these principles.

This Ball case is as notable as many others in this listed on the page, and does not cause an issue by its addition.

I realize this is a general discussion but in part used the Ball case to make my points.CSDarrow (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so unusual. From self-immolation (added by myself): there were at least 533 self-immolations reported in western media from the 1960s to 2002, but this is dwarfed by India where 1,451 and 1,584 self-immolations have been reported in 2000 and 2001 alone. Renata (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To decide if Ball should be in this list, the threshold is lower than a dedicated article, but there does still have to be some significance, some import, some noteworthiness. It appears that his death was very recent (a couple of weeks ago) so there wont be any books that mention him. I would say if some national press mentioned the episode (CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, etc) that may be sufficient to establish import. But local New England newspapers, alone, are not sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Weekly Blitz in Bangladesh (which has it's own wikipedia entry) has published an article about the Thomas Ball self immolation. It is currently the second most viewed topic listed. AndrewV69 (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to point out the Catch-22 being suggested. Mr. Ball does not live in a major metropolitan area. Thus his death by any means in unlikely to be noticed in a major publication. His issue, the calculated denigration of men by our government, is rarely covered by those same major media publications. To the contrary, major media reporting and editorials suggest that men be placed at an even greater legal disadvantage. How can he attain national recognition in a media environment that disparages his point of view? Roll time back a good 50-60 years and make the issue homosexuality or women's rights for similar conditions. In contrast, consider the listing of Malachi Ritsher. Would his death have been noted if he had lived in down state Illinois instead of Chicago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.181.108 (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a discussion about how to demonstrate Ball is notable. This is especially not a discussion about the role of mainstream media in covering these type of issues. This is a disccusion about the proper application of WP:LISTPEOPLE. Singularity42 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For those of you who desire for Ball to be included in this list: it is entirely possible that, in few months or a year, he will become more widely discussed, and more sources, especially more significant sources, will remark on him. So, perhaps today there is not sufficient notability, but notability may well grow in the future, and the case for inclusion in the List will become more obvious. --Noleander (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Noleander giving this some thought I agree with you. I think self immolations should prove their note worthiness over a matter of a few months, unless they have proved dramatically news worthy. I still caution that lack of coverage by mainsteam media does not necessarily preclude note wothiness as I outlined above.CSDarrow (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is most definitely a conversation about Ball as Ball, and only Ball, was the subject of the deletion controversy. As he was mentioned in a major news source, as I came here looking for a list of persons that may have done the same, I can see no reason for his exclusion. The deletatistas have gone nuts by invading list pages. Also, the entire, "if its a blog it doesn't count," on _Wikipedia_ of all places is silly. It isn't the fact that it is mentioned on a blog. It is the quality of the blog that it is mentioned on. For example Huffington Post and National Review Online, rank higher than some random family blog that happens to mention the story. To that extent it rates as notable. Worse, this revisionism smacks of political hackery that is opposed by Wikipedia's standards of behavior. Tom Ball is an interesting character for several reasons on the political right especially those worried about rule of law and personal rights issues (interesting but not popular). This is why he appeared on so many blogs. Frequency of reference across a spectrum of affiliates even if the affiliates are not themselves of critical importance __should__ be evaluated for importance. Not to mention it did make it into critical papers ("The Boston Globe"). He has been mentioned in a major news outlet. He has been commonly discussed. He is a key (if outlying member) of a movement. He's worthy of mention. Nickjost (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. Add Ball. I don't think that anybodies self-immolation needs to be notable. Its only a one liner. This list should be as comprehensive as possible. Including every political self-immolations anybody can find and provide a link/source to. Thoughtbox (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Ball did it for Men's Rights Activism is significant. How many other cases ever in the history of self-immolators have ever done it for that reason? Sounds notable to me. Leave Ball on this Page. Also, he has been discussed in the Boston Herald as well as the New Hampshire Sentinel (see links above). Boston Herald is national. New Hampshire Sentinel is a statewide paper. It has regional significance. Plus it's online, and can be viewed by almost anyone in the world. Kire1975 (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tibet is not a country[edit]

Several of these entries are listed under "Tibet" as the country, but Tibet is not a sovereign nation and these should be listed under China. However, that it occurred in Chinese Tibet seems significant, so I am wondering if the country should be rendered as simply "China", or "China (Tibet)", or something similar. T.c.w7468 (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Tibet is a separate country is a matter of dispute right now; but most of the protestors involved certainly are persons who took the position that it is. Shoving it under the carpet of "China" seems to me to be an NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objectively though, Tibet is currently not a sovereign nation however, whether or not it should be a separate country is the matter of dispute, but at the moment, China definitely has sovereignty over the area, so it would seem to me that stating Tibet as a country would be more of a violation of NPOV in favour of the Tibetan independence movement. T.c.w7468 (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with TCW7468. Boneyard90 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)T[reply]
Somewhat disagree. The answer to the question I just asked below may resolve this issue. It isn't clear to me whether country refers to the nationality. Usually they are the same, but I don't know if they all are. So, if "Country" refers to location then just change the heading to location. If it refers to the nationality of the individual, I suppose it raises the same NPOV.`Either way, if one of these labels are used, there may be no reason to have the entries in the list revised each time borders change. Ileanadu (talk)

Thomas James Ball (redux)[edit]

An IP recently re-added an entry for Ball. I reverted it for now so that a consensus can be determined one way or another, due to the discussions that took place on this page previously.

I think we can all probably agree on the following:

  • Based on earlier discussions and recent additions to the article, the threshold for inclusion seems to be a reliable source that indicates the self-immolation took place and was for political purposes.
  • There are reliable sources that indicate that James Ball's self-immolation may have been to protest what he percieved as an injustice against himself by the family court system.

These leads to following questions that I think need to be answered before the entry is ultimately re-added:

  1. If a person self-immolates for a percieved injustice against him or herself (rather than, say, an injustice against a group), is that self-immolation for a political purpose that falls under the context of this article?
  2. Is that person's earlier stated claim of why they self-immolated enough to determine the purpose behind the self-immolation?

Personally, I am mixed on Question 1. Ultimately, though, I think the stated purpose has to be for a percieved injustice against a group rathe than the individual. Otherwise, there is very little difference between the self-immolation has a political protest rather than just a person committing suicide because they are upset with how they are being treated.

I believe he answer to Question 2 is that a person's earlier stated claim of why they self-immolate has to be enough for inclusion on this list.

Since Ball's stated purpose was to protest an injustice against himself personally, I don't believe he should be included in this article. Singularity42 (talk) 14:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has come back around again, huh? The Ball just keeps on rolling... =p
I feel it's worth noting that (like the previous complaints against Ball's inclusion) that it isn't a standard that is being consistently applied. A perusal of the list can find examples where the given source(s) do not meet the standard set for Ball, or where the reason could be taken to be in violeation of the new standard you are setting (in fact, I would suggest that some of the other entries that are on the list don't meet the same standards that get set to justify not including Ball is evidence that the problem isn't anything about the facts of Ball's immolation lacking some important objective quality, but a desire specifically to not include Ball, who seems to be the only contentious one).
Likewise, regarding your question of whether it is a perceived injustice against a group or an individual, I would ask a counter question: Did every existing member on the list describe their motivations solely in terms of the impact that their issue had on others, and not in terms of (or even in reference to) the impact on themselves? Thomas Ball's "Last Statement" (a document he sent to a local paper shortly before the self-immolation) starts off talking about his own case, but then goes into family courts and domestic violence law in the US, then back to his own case as an example of the problems described.
If you self-immolate in protest of your debts, claiming them to be a result of the welfare laws where you live or of unfair taxes (or something else that is the result of government policy), would that count for this list? Because that's essentially what Ball did (aside from his particular issue being especially contentious with a lot of people) -- he made claims about the system, and how his issues at the time were a result of that system. As he put it "You are using the old First Set of Books- the Constitution, the general laws or statutes and the court ruling sometime call Common Law. They are using the newer Second Set of Books. That is the collection of the policy, procedures and protocols. Once you know what set of books everyone is using, then everything they do looks logical and upright...Once you read it the material, then you will know what the police, prosecutors and judges will do. They are completely predictable once you know what set of books they are using."
Schadrach (talk) 13:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons used to exclude James Ball from the list are not being equally applied. For example, 23 names on the list as it stands do not include any citations. Some of those have WP articles about them or their cause that might contain sources, but several of those still do not (Communist_Romania makes no mention of Marton Moyses, he has no article himself, and no citation is given; Antanas Kalinauskas is a similar case, as is Musa Mamut; Per-Axel Arosenius is justified by a trivia entry on imDB, which is clearly more notable than three newspapers (four if you count a brief reference in an article on child support by NBC).
The previous discussion regarding James Ball argued he wasn't notable enough, claiming the first two resources regarding him essentially didn't count. A third resource (a national newspaper) came along, he was readded and summarily deleted because "consensus" was the first two resources didn't count, ignoring that there was a new resource involved. Resources I can name offhand include http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/local/last-statement-sent-to-sentinel-from-self-immolation-victim/article_cd181c8e-983b-11e0-a559-001cc4c03286.html , http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2011/07/10/divorced_dad_leaves_clues_to_his_desperation/?camp=pm , http://www.ibtimes.com/american-father-self-immolates-protest-against-family-courts-291497 , http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44376665/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/unable-pay-child-support-poor-parents-land-behind-bars/# , http://freekeene.com/2011/06/16/thomas-james-ball-self-immolated-in-protest-of-the-justice-system/ , http://thomasjamesball.com/. That constitutes three newspaper articles about the case, one referencing it, as well as a blog post (probably the weakest source out of the set, included primarily to be thorough since it was cited in a previous attempt to add James Ball to the list) and a website specifically for describing the case. That is more sources (and more notable sources in many cases) than are provided for most of the other names on the list.
The claim in this thread appears to be that assuming he's "notable" enough, that his cause has to be sufficiently political, and it isn't because he was effected personally by it? As I had stated above a few months ago, if one reads his "Last Statement" it's clear that he talks about his own case as an example of a wider problem. I would ask the reverse question though -- if we considered being personally effected by the problem at hand to be a reason to exclude a name, who would be left (generally, a dispassionate outside perspective on an issue doesn't drive one to demonstration by suicide)? There is a part of me that strongly suspects that his inclusion is so controversial because of his particular cause, which would seem to be an NPOV issue.Schadrach (talk) 15:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Constantino[edit]

John Constantino should not be included in this list as it is clear based on the article cited in the Notes and Reference column that "His death was not a political act or statement, but the result of his long battle with mental illness".[1] Tncowdaddy (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ John Constantino identified as man who set himself on fire at National Mall, police say, CBS News, 08 October 2013.

Siripur/Subram Yadaiah Potentially Same Person[edit]

There were two entries in the 2010's, listing Siripur Yadaiah and Subram Yadaiah. However, both sources referred to only one self-immolation. The source for "Subram" actually listed the student's name as S. Yadaiah, and the details (date, location, series of events, suicide note) given in each source are almost all exactly the same. In light of this, I merged the two listings in the table. Though I believe from the sources given and from some quick searches that the two incidents are actually the same, I am reverting this change and asking for input from other editors. So, what do you think? Thanks. -Xxiggy (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thu Hoang[edit]

While he is not notable he did set himself alit over Chinese Vietnamese relations. Specifically China moving an oil rig into disputed territory. [1]

References

  1. ^ http://www.bradenton.com/2014/06/24/5222419/man-who-set-himself-on-fire-in.html

Historical Cases?[edit]

What are the rules regarding historical cases for self-immolation? When I saw this article it made me think of the Old Believers in Russia, which were a schismatic sect of Russian Orthodoxy dating back to the 1600s. In response to government persecution many of them burned themselves in protest. It definitely seems like it fits the topic and is useful as a means of pointing out that this sort of dissent did not start in the 1960s. But what form would be best for inclusion? Should we find the name of some specific Old Believer who did this? Is it enough to simply cite historical incidents where hundreds of them did it? Lyrric (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Thi Kim Lieng[edit]

died responding to crackdown ... and/or the trial of her daughter? --Helium4 (talk) 07:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Dominique Venner?[edit]

He is not included on the list! He immolated himself protesting against foreign invasion of Europe.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of political self-immolations. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Country - Nationality or location of the act?[edit]

That's pretty much my question. I could not tell from the table whether the entry for country represents the location where the immolation took place or the nationality of the people ending their own lives in this grisly way. Ileanadu (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 16 2020 - Poland[edit]

source:
https://www.se.pl/krakow/stracil-ziemie-walczy-o-zycie-w-szpitalu-aa-KHFD-pEJN-3y9P.html
translation:
Mieczysław P. felt aggrieved by the system, because - as we have managed to establish - he was trying to enfranchise the road that runs through the center of his field. - According to the information in the possession of the municipality, the plot which is the subject of the dispute has been an access road from at least since 1874, constituting the rural property of the Sołectwo Sieraków - tells us Małgorzata Góralik-Piętka, secretary of the municipality of Dobczyce. In 2017, P.'s family filed an application to the court. Two years later, however, the court issued a decision unfavorable to Mr. Mieczysław. The man wanted everyone to know about the harm he had suffered. That is why he came to the Sejm on an old bicycle with a briefcase of documents in his hand.

source:
https://www.cenyrolnicze.pl/wiadomosci/wiesci-rolnicze/pozostale-wiesci-rolnicze/19703-rolnik-podpalil-sie-pod-sejmem-krzyczal-ze-w-tym-kraju-nie-ma-sprawiedliwosci
translation:
The son broke down when the municipality appropriated our road that led through the center of the field, and additionally widened it, taking a piece of land - says Mrs. Genowefa, mother of the 48-year-old. She adds that they then decided to appeal to the court. - Unfortunately, the court agreed with the officials and found the testimonies of our witnesses invalid - says the woman in an interview with a Super Express journalist. According to the journal, it was then that the 48-year-old broke down. - He did not recognize the verdict, plowed the road and blocked it. However, the feeling of injustice in him had to grow to such an extent that he decided to burn himself in front of the Sejm to manifest a sense of injustice - writes Super Express.
Super Express article refered to:
https://www.se.pl/krakow/syn-stracil-ziemie-podpalil-sie-pod-sejmem-aa-zmNa-2PpP-8RaZ.html

History[edit]

I believe that self-immolation might have took place in previous centuries, not just after 1960s. The list is kind of poor. LeticiaLL (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Newroz "self-immolations"[edit]

Newroz is the celebration of spring. People celebrate it by lighting fires. Accidents with fire making is very common in these celebrations. Stop adding newroz accidents as "self-immolation". LeticiaLL (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Öcalan is a terrorist leader, refer him as one. LeticiaLL (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" that say those accidents were self-immolations are just propaganda pages. A recent accident with fire during Newroz happened, people get hurt during lighting the fire and some others use it for their propaganda. LeticiaLL (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. It doesn't matter if was sent to prison for terrorism or jaywalking. If someone commits self-immolation to demand somebody's release from prison, it's an act of political self-immolation. 2. You have not provided ANY sources claiming that the Norwuz self-immolations were accidents. References to those self-immolations is present in academic literature, not solely deprecated sources. Your speculation that they were accidents later used for propaganda is Wikipedia:Original research.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta woman 12/1/23[edit]

https://apnews.com/article/israeli-consulate-self-immolation-atlanta-protester-8f17dd72592f86797a45cda9b60605a5 2603:7080:5107:2BE7:41DA:EE9B:BE87:2BBC (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Brivic92, please do not remove clear, specific terms that are cited and thoroughly-substantiated without good reason. Your use of a euphemism like "actions" when referring to the bombardment of civilians belies the notion that you are cleaning up "bias". Getabucket (talk) 03:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is biased and incorrect to apply the term “genocide” after the Israeli military has provided numerous warnings and taken necessary steps to minimize civilian casualties, while conducting a military operation against a designated terrorist organization (Hamas). Brivic92 (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Genocide/genocidal incitement have been the terms applied to the situation by several experts at the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner[1], including the director of the New York OHCHR office, who -in his own words- has resigned from his position over the Office's failure "to meet the imperatives of prevention of mass atrocites" [2][3]. This is categorically not a case of Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources, whereas your personal beliefs about whether or not the IDF has done enough to warn Gazans before dropping bombs on them are irrelevant and fail to measure up to even the most lenient interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Getabucket (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing a source that, contemporarily, has developed a highly questionable reputation of impartiality, only hurts your argument further. But I’m glad that Wikipedia has such unbiased moderators, like yourself, to promote knowledge rather than perpetuate propaganda. Brivic92 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to verify @Getabucket's sources than what a war cabinet, such as Israel, says. Currently there's plenty of consensus this classifies as a genocide. If we want to avoid controversy we should add the word allegations or mention the support of the US, which has it's own Wikipedia site. Hope this helps ZeanIkLaurie (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add onto this. From what I've read, the self-immolations of the Atlanta woman and Aaron Bushnell weren't to protect the US military's support of the alleged genocide, but instead to protest Israel for their actions in the alleged genocide. Are y'all ok with me editing this detail or is there support that shows it was actually about the US military?
Therealteal (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we should add a new column called "aftermath" or consequences[edit]

some of these self-immolations caused government uprisings e.g. arab spring NotQualified (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

each one of these names needs a reference[edit]

very little of the entries have a reference to back them up NotQualified (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_political_self-immolations&oldid=1213368851"