Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

A passionate request for editing.

This page needs editing. (Posted by 144.138.219.77)

So do it! Makaristos 07:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

68.198.135.212 20:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Changed "Irishan" to the correst adjective "Irish"

Aung San's death

Who assasinated Aung San (Suu Kyi's father)? This article says rivals as does the Aung San one but the Ne Win one says the British... --Anonymous

NPOV?

illegally changed by the junta This seems to be a non sequitur.

Can you really assert that the names of the country and capital were "illegally" changed by the junta? Don't the rulers of a country get to name it? And in any event, how is that relevant?

---

Agreed, I edited the article to remove that part. --lt2hieu2004 23:18, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikify?

I added the wikify tag because I feel that this article should be divided into headings and subheadings to make it easier to read, and to organize the information into specific categories. I suppose I could do this but I don't see the harm in having a wikify tag there if it clearly could use some further organization. Please let me know why you deleted it. --Xiu Xiu 14:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't me that removed it, but it doesn't need the wikify tag. The wikify tag (as I understand it) is mostly for identifying articles which are greatly in need of serious work and reformatting, mostly when they have just been pasted verbatim from other sources, with no or very few wiki links present in the text.

This article has plenty wiki links, and is reasonably well formatted. I'm not sure if there's a tag for 'reformat this and add headings', but even if there is one, I personally don't think this article is in enough need of work to require a big notice at the top. By all means put in the effort yourself though, or possibly suggest a reorganisation on the talk page maybe? — pmcm 18:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...and I added some headings. If you don't like them, get rid of, or change them. I'm not sure that the article is currently long enough to really warrant the addition of any more headings, but maybe that's just me. — pmcm 18:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Xiu Xiu, it was I who removed the tag. I didn't mean to upset you; if you do feel this article needs further organisation, then you should use the {{cleanup}} tag. The {{wikify}} tag is used to denote an article that needs wiki links adding. Proto 08:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Burmese script

Currently the Burmese is a graphic. Burmese has recently been added to Unicode and there are Burmese fonts available, as stated in the Yangon article.

Should the Burmese be changed to Unicode and the "Get a Burmese font" text added?

I originally added it as Unicode, which Hintha replaced with the graphic. I think the graphic is better, since we can't expect the average user to get a Burmese font. Also, the Unicode doesn't always display properly, while the graphic does. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Then would it be a good idea to create a Burmese template which has space for both the graphic and the Unicode?

--Jaysbro/_talk 2005-09-02 15:57 (UTC)

I prefer the graphic simply because it's straightforward. It just looks weird without a very specific font. Please keep it simple and user friendly. Wagaung 15:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Our National Democracy Leader

I always recommend Daw Aung San Su Kyi for her trying democracy. Have a nice day!

In the interest of fully understanding the conflict

Of course my instinct is to sympathize with Aung, but I feel I don't have a truly in depth analysis here. While not trying to obscure the issues or exonerate the junta of brutality, in the interest of thoroughness I would like some analysis of the junta's position (however evil they may be), simply because they are in power. To truly oppose the junta one has to fully understand their arguments, their political position, the reasons for their popularity, and particularly the overall political, economic and historical context, such as external alliances, military aid, etc.

Based on what I know, I would surely look into the possibility of a socialist/capitalist type battle for influence and resources waging behind the scenes- at least in name. I would like to see if that exists or is claimed to exist by either side. Possibly the junta is critical of what they perceive to be Aung's policies toward future outside land ownership and development, and is able to use that to maintian popularity (or something similar).

Though it is remotely possible the junta is pure evil and has no leg to stand on (it is unquestioningly brutal), unfortunately, situations are rarely so cut and dried. Consider many governments in the south-east Asia are fighting ongoing and very violent civil wars which have a strong relationship to illicit drug economies, and Burma/Myanmar is the worlds largest producer of heroin (all of it illicit yet Burma is still reliant on it, possibly similar to North Korea's position). The west, and other superpowers, have played a large role in originating and maintaining these black markets. For instance, if opium and heroin were legalized by the west at least for regional trade (as they were before 1947), then whatever the destructive nature of the drugs, there would not also be full scale civil wars (funded by illicit economies which are larger than the legitimate economies). Look at American prohibition to see what even a small illicit economy can do- but imagine it ten times bigger. Witness similar problems and dilemmas in central and south America. Should Burma/Myanmar be more like free-market Columbia, awash in drugs and civil war, or socialist, controlled-market Venezuela? My impression is that the junta has at least attempted to represent the socialist direction, and I want to know how much of each sides claims might be colored by outside propaganda.

Tracing military and covert aid is particularly enlightening. I understand Burma has received aid from Israel and Pakistan (in turn armed by the US), but also from North Korea and China. Everyone seems to be influencing Burma as a hedge against India. How weird- getting military aid from Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. How sick it is that governments let arms flow with no consideration how they are used... The history of Burma after the Chinese revolution is supremely relevant, featuring heavy US covert involvement, and probably the CIA's earliest ties to drug trafficking in south east Asia.

There was some Japanese newspaper's board that had a poster who was pro-government and against her. What I recall his reasons were mostly nationalist. He deemed her to be a servant of foreigners who studied in Oxford and out of touch with Myanmar. Also that she's too stubborn and encouraging sanctions on Myanmar that hurts their people. This seems consistent with his government, see article. I think they also feel that strong action is needed to keep the nation from dissolving on ethnic lines and that they are on the correct road of democracy. I think they're full of it and their reasonings seem largely like the reasons of many other vicious dictatorships, but those are their reasons as far as I know. That site I linked to can help give you a better sense of their thinking.--T. Anthony 13:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend anyone seeking to understand the full complexity of Burmese politics Martin Smith's "Burma - Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity"" 1991, Zed Books, London and New Jersey ISBN 0-86232-868-3/ISBN 0-86232-869-1 pbk. Since the founding of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League at the end of World War II, all the main players have been purported to be leftist, none of them conservative right wing at least in theory. The reality was rather different as it still broke down along the socialist (with the small s) vs capitalist divide. What they called themselves, as in the rest of the world, was generally a self-proclaimed image, or worse merely a facade as in the case of the Burmese military which established a particularly inept bureaucratic state-capitalist economy; it would have been very funny if it weren't really tragic for the peoples of Burma. It has only consistently enriched the military, particularly the top brass, and its cronies, and in more recent times exponentially so, thanks to its jumping on the globalisation bandwagon, truly a godsend to the military just when they needed to change tack after socialism became a four-letter word in polite society.

Using ethnic minority troops in the repression of Burman heartlands, which only became high profile with the 8888 Uprising, and vice versa i.e. Burman troops in ethnic areas have been going on for as long as the duration of the civil war that has either flared up or smouldered since independence in 1948. This is how they promote the ties among the numerous and diverse ethnic groups of Burma. The military at the same time claims and truly believes that they are the only group in the Union that has held it together so far and that the country is indebted to them forever and ever, ever since the fight for independence, a belief cultivated to become ingrained from the new recruits upwards.

Unfortunately in 1988 Suu Kyi sent the wrong signal when she vehemently denied she was trying to split the Army,"the Army that my father founded" - true enough but transformed beyond all recognition. Next she rejected out of hand U Nu's offer to join an interim government in a bid to overthrow the military. The outcome was splitting the opposition i.e. no unified rallying point for army dissenters, and failure to split the Army i.e. it closed ranks by her own endorsement. Granted U Nu remained power-mad even in his sunset years, just like Ne Win, but he would have been an easier obstacle to overcome afterwards, and in the event he didn't live more than a few more years. There seems to be no effective strategy for mass action or preparedness for the worst case scenario i.e. another popular uprising against a modern standing army which has grown bigger than ever and hence arguably better for winning over a significant number to the side of the people. The fear of civil war, chaos and anarchy, which was voiced during 1988, was and is sadly to remain in a state of denial; Burma has been there for generations already, living and dying in fear and in hope. Her own personal sacrifice, and that of ordinary people in their hundreds and thousands who had paid with their lives in the uprising, had come to nothing but an unrecognised election victory itself now ancient history to a new generation that has grown up since 8888. Too great a price to pay to underestimate the military's lust for power; the old adage holds true - Kyauk lwè, yè min hpyit (Too much caution loses your opportunity, decisiveness wins your throne).

Of course this needs to be considered in the context of regional as well as wider international players and their own geo-political interests and strategies - Mee za ta hpet, yei hmouk ta hpet (A flaming torch in one hand and a fire bucket in the other) is an expression that describes Bush and Blair, and not least in the context of the overarching interests of globalisation as we know it, driven relentlessly, as if it were an immutable law of nature or gospel truth, by international capital, with most of us lesser mortals falling for it. Wagaung 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Name

As a Burmese, Aung San Suu Kyi has only one name, not a first name and surname [[1]] [[2]]. Could we please be sure in future edits to refer to her as Aung San Suu Kyi, and not Suu Kyi? the iBook of the Revolution 10:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it. Her own website [[3]] repeatedly refers to her as "Suu Kyi" (and even once or twice as "Kyi"), as does her bio on the Nobel Prize website [[4]], as does the BBC [[5]], etc. etc. Whether it's correct or not (and I appreciate what you're saying about Burmese names; one of my teachers in high school was Burmese), the rest of the world seems to refer to her this way, especially in mainstream outlets. Why not follow that, for the sake of clarity and readability? Makaristos 17:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Suu Kyi" is perfectly acceptable. "Suu" was her paternal grandmother's name - most Burmese would spell it "Su" as it is a creaky short sound - and "Kyi" part of her mother's.The Burmese would address her as "Su Su", "Ma Su" or "Daw Su", even "Auntie Su" in terms of age/seniority. The formal way is still the full name "Daw Aung San Suu Kyi" with the honorific. Among the Burmese it is considered rude to call someone by their name without the honorific unless you've known them from their youth or childhood or you are older and the other person is an underling. This of course does not apply to those who are strangers to Burmese custom. Naming his children "Aung San so and so" was in itself a curious eccentricity on the part of her father as it certainly isn't Burmese custom. But having said that there has been a remarkable precedent in the names of the first kings of Bagan, 9th to 10th century A.D., and it goes like this - Pyu Saw Htee was succeeded by Htee Min Yin, then Yin Min Paik, Paik Thei Lè, Thei Lè Kyaung and Kyaung Du Yit. It obviously didn't catch on. Wagaung 13:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The sensibility of using Suu Kyi comes from the regime trying to avoid using her father's name Aung San as part of her name (they call her Ms Suu Kyi, Mrs Aris). She disagrees with the military over the views Aung San had on role of the army (which he founded) in politics and so the regime prefers to dissociate her from her father. So, while someone on intimate terms might well refer to her as Suu Kyi, one has to be a little careful not to do this in an encyclopedia, and so unintentionally replicating the regime's propaganda —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systematic2007 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal life and child hood

This article needs to have info about her childhood and personal life to make it more balanced --Vyzasatya 06:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Burma or Myanmar?

For information on the Aung San Suu Kyi article after 1989, is "Burma" or "Myanmar" to be used? Section 3, "Detention in Myanmar" is not uniform, using both "Burma" and "Myanmar". Hintha 02:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The legitimate leader of the country still calls it Burma. The re-naming was a stunt by the kleptocrats, similar to Mobutu deciding to call the Congo "Zaire". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo?

I think there should be one on this page, does anyone know of one that can be used? Horses In The Sky ^{talk contributions}

Twice in other language versions: [6], [7]. Unfortunately I cannot read those licenses but one has a public domain sign. Añoranza 03:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hysterectomy?

I'm interested in learning whether her hysterectomy was medically necessary or forced by the government. Anyone have any info?

Agent Foxtrot 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

seconded. Does anyone know? --Anoma lee 09:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Most sources I find just mention her having a hysterectomy, but don't explain why. One implied that it was related to wounds she had sustained months earlier from the Depayin massacre, but this was speculative. I kind of don't see why even this government would force a hysterectomy on a 58 year old woman.--T. Anthony 12:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note that hysterectomy is the ultimate contraception,a problem in developing nations. The question arises is this a complete hysterectomy with removal of ovaries or simply the uterus.Complete hysterectomy must be becuase of some medical condition and will require hormone suppliements to prevent early menopause.

I doubt she would be fertile at 58, or even capable of bearing children if still fertile. Childbirth beyond 40 something is rare, let alone conception. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

While you're wrong on that (childbirth is often possible until the late 40s, sometimes even longer), given her age it's likely that it was necessary for medical reasons, and not meant as torture. I don't have any source to back me up, though. —Nightstallion (?) 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not saying it's not possible, just that after conception, the fetus/zygote (whatever level it may be it) still has a low chance of survival before it can even get to the childbirth part due to even higher natural miscarriage rates at that age. Either way, a source confirming the hysterectomy would be good — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 13:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

shrugs I've heard other things; if it's as difficult as you put it, I'm a wonder of science. Yes, a source would be good. —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotation

Should the quotation be in the lead like that? It seems to be bad style to me. FDR's page doesn't have his famous fear quotation in the lead, for example. How about incorporating it in the main text of the article instead? — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 01:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ghandi citation?

Would it be possible to source the statement that she was extremely influenced by ghandi in the article? thanks.

Daw

So is Daw some kind of title, like Dame? --Menchi 23:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• In Burmese, "Daw" means "madame" or "ms.", actually it means "aunt" but is translated as a respectful way to refer to an older woman or woman of high status. --Xiu Xiu 13:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Daw really necessary? Daw is only used by people younger than Aung San Suu Kyi to refer to her. Hintha 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Her formal title should be Daw Aung San (Madame Aung San). The male equivalent is U, for example U Thant (former United Nations Secretary General). The use of her given names, Suu Kyi, is incorrect as, in normal circumstances, they would only be used by close family members and in the family home. However, it is widely used in the press because of its similar sound to the western name 'susan/sue'. Married women do not adopt the surname of the husband.Miletus (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd refer to "Name" below. Daw is formal use honorific regardless of the age of the person addressing her or referring to her in the third person by name. It's rude without the honorific Daw unless you know her well enough and you are of the same age or older, but foreigners may be forgiven for their ignorance of Burmese custom and may just say Aung San Suu Kyi, perhaps Suu Kyi from common usage, but never just Aung San with or without an honorific because that's her father, not her. So her formal title is definitely not Daw Aung San because women are not addressed by their father's name either even if it's part of their name as in this case; it would sound like you've just changed her father's sex! She wouldn't realise at least for a second or two it's her you are addressing or referring to until the penny drops. If you find it unmanageable, you may simply call her Daw Suu face to face or among the Burmese, and carry on using ASSK in print or broadcast. Wagaung (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

absolutely correct. Daw Suu is the correct form of address. Apologies for my inaccuracy.Miletus (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Prison or house arrest?

Everything I have seen or read has treated of her being under house arrest: the text seems to concur with this, but the infobox not only states that she is in prison but which prison that she is in. Could somebody more confident of their sources redress this contradiction? Ta. Kevin McE 11:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point. As the events of the recent protests unfolded she started under house arrest. But there is a report from Reuters that she may be back at Insein. Understandably given the foggy situation in Burma currently there is some doubt as to her real whereabouts. If the Reuters report does not get additional corroboration I'll remove it and fix the infobox as well. Dr.K. 14:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the Reuters report mentioning Insein? The article linked to in the text is from 2003, and I've seen no other reports even questioning her whereabouts. (CherriSpryte 15:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC))

I think you clicked on BBC citation #35. If you click on #34 (Reuters) you will see it. Dr.K. 16:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting down to the very basics, I wonder how she sustains herself and the servants who she must have. Someone must go out and buy the bread and pay the waterbill? Who pays for that, assuming that the money from the Nobel Peace Prize must have been used up after nearly 20 years. How can this all be discussed without knowing who funds her or if she is wealthy enough to fund herself. Maybe she gets a British pension through her late husband, but just calling her democracy leader and never say where the crust comes from, is somewhat bizarre. (This question is meant non-judgemental.) 121.209.48.225 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is still very unclear about this. It never even mentions house arrests, and it reads very jumpy. From one sentence to the next she goes from prisoner to living at a lakeside bungalow and then back to prisoner. The article makes her sound like Schroedinger's Cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.95.233.239 (talk) 09:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It is nearly two years after my question how she sustains her day to day expenditure. I must conclude that her sources are supposed to remain in the dark, which is always sus. Why can they not say if she is independently wealthy, receives a pension from Britain or what? She is not really an exemplary democracy leader when there is no transparency. We are entitled to know in whose pay a leader is, before we elevate him/her. Surprises are for birthday parties, not political ones! 121.209.51.28 (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Prime Minister?

As leader of the National Leader for Democracy, which won a general election, meaning she is democratically the Prime Minister of Myanmar, shouldn't this be mentioned in the introduction as well as the Myanmar sidebar? "Prime Minister elect" or the like. And in the introduction something along the lines of "According to the 1990 general election, Ang San Suu Kyi is Prime Minister elect of Myanmar, as leader of the winning National League for Democracy party, but she remains in detention by the military junta and has been prevented from assuming her elected role." -Kez 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Please go ahead. Dr.K. 20:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to change a template, but I'll add the sentence to the introduction. -Kez 04:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dr.K. 14:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But if the 1990 election was to appoint a government for a fixed term, or a maximum term of less than 17 years, then she is surely no longer PM elect. Kevin McE 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that the junta froze the whole Democratic process arbitrarily she is still the democratically elected Prime minister of Burma in the absence of a duly elected replacement. Who elected the junta? Dr.K. 01:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

But the 1990 election was to appoint a parliament and a prime minister from 1990 until (at a guess) 1995: she was legitimately described as Prime minister elect until the date on which that parliament would have been dissolved. But if she had remained in office beyond that date without a plebiscite then her role would be without popular mandate, and we should be asking the same question of her as you are now asking of the military government. However much sympathy we may feel for her cause, it is not the place of an encyclopaedia to confer a title upon a politician, or to speculate on what would have happened in elections subsequent to 1990 that have not taken place. Is any major news source referring to her as currently being Prime minister elect? Kevin McE 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What plebiscite are we talking about? When the junta refused her appointment in 1990, the junta hijacked the political process at that time. The legality of the political process after 1990 has been completely undermined by the coup. In a democratic process the Prime Minister is replaced by another in a legal election. In the case a coup intervenes and there is no legal replacement who is the new prime minister? The junta appointee? There is no legally elected Prime Minister at this time. Therefore Suu Kyi is still the Prime Minister-elect until a legal replacement is found by a legal election. Sympathy has nothing to do with this. Nice try though. I would prefer however if we settled this debate by logic and not by inference to emotionalism. It is a matter of principle and Democracy. If you don't believe in legalities or you think they are just trivialities then please be my guest and change her status. You see like in the case of the holocaust, memory is our only defence at the brutal exercise of power by a state. Memory and Law. If we don't utilise these two precious resources the jungle and the right of the might takes over. Is this the direction we want civilisation to take? Finally to address the hypothetical plebiscite question; Is this the fault of Suu Kyi that it didn't take place? Do you think she wouldn't love to partake in a legal and democratic process if given a chance? Did the junta dare call a plebiscite to oust Suu Kyi? And if they dared not why would Wikipedia do it for them? Dr.K. 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And just for the record: Prime Minister Gordon Brown's words:

Speaking at a Labour Party conference on Wednesday, Brown called for a United Nations envoy to be sent to the troubled country to monitor the situation there. He also underscored any trampling of human rights would not be accepted.

"The whole world is now watching Burma, and this illegal and oppressive regime should know that the whole world will hold it to account," he said. (CNN on Gordon Brown's statement). You see Gordon Brown's memory is ok. Dr.K. 23:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I concede the point on Prime-minister elect, not because of any part of your argument, in which I cannot see a rationale, but on the grounds that links have now been provided showing that authoritative figures are applying that title to her. How can you at the same time say "there is no legally elected prime minister at this time" (with which I agree) and assert that ASSK is legally elected prime minister? As to your edit notes on the job description, some people genuinely have no occupation other than being imprisoned: the fact of being imprisoned prevents them from pursuing any other means of making a living. This does not amount to being employed by the gaolers or judges. Kevin McE 23:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Quote: there is no legally elected prime minister at this time Mea culpa. I should have rephrased it as: there is no legally elected acting prime minister at this time, in the (illegal) junta government as opposed to the legally elected but not currently acting Prime Minister-elect. Anyway not to make this too fine a point I wish to end the debate here and I would also like to acknowledge that your contribution to this discussion has been significant because it helped clarify an important, sensitive and difficult point and led to the relevant citations. Best regards. Dr.K. 23:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the important point is that this article should not imply that the kleptocrats in charge of Burma today have any kind of legitimacy whether under Burmese or international law. They hold power by force of arms alone, and are both criminals and traitors to their country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In parliamentary systems, prime ministers are elected by the parliament, not the people; there's no such thing as a prime minister-elect. PiCo 14:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Prime minister-elect is not an official position. It designates someone who is expected by the vast majority of the people to become, after some process, Prime Minister. See relevant citations provided. Dr.K. 19:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The term prime minister elect certainly is not an official position. Is it also a nonsensical one? Aung San Suu Kyi was not elected and no one knows how a prime minister was to secure that position after the elections. Your citations assert she was the rightful pm, but they are far from authoritative. Why include references to her being prime minister in this article? Most sources state the facts that Aung San Suu Kyi was and is the leader of the NLD and that NLD won 392 of the 450 seats on the 1990 election and leave it at that.

Aung San Suu Kyi was under detention during the election and was not allowed on the ballot, thus she was not one of the 392 NLD'ers elected. As for the prime ministership, who says she would have been prime minister? What rules, qualifications, traditions, etc. decided who was to be the prime minister of Burma? I don't believe there were any such rules in 1990. Under British rules which seem be be that one must be a member of parliament and leader of the majority, she would not have been qualified for PM because she was not elected to parliament.

Why make such questionable statements in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcasbur (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, it is misleading to refer to her as "Prime Minister-elect" when she did not stand for election in 1990. She was ruled out on several grounds under the Election Law, including marriage to a foreigner and the fact that she put Oxford, UK as her permanent home address on the registration form. Whether the Election Law was fair or not is irrelevant: if the NLD's landslide election victory had been recognized by the regime, she still would not have been eligible for Prime Minister post under the law of the land. It does nothing to diminish her status as the driving force behind the NLD and the leader of the opposition movement to recognize the fact that she was NEVER elected to the Prime Minister post, nor would have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.103.46.189 (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You may think it is misleading to call her "Prime Minister-elect" but the fact is supported by five (5) citations from reliable sources. We do not insert what "we think is the truth" in the article because that would be original research. Please read the applicable policies of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V for more information. Also please note that removing citations from reliable sources is considered vandalism. Dr.K. logos 20:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to quibble, Dr. K, but this is a question of fact. The references cited are not reliable sources, they are simply examples of sloppy writing from media sources or others. One example, one of the references says: "The Hon. PENNY SHARPE Speech: In 1990 Daw Aung San Suu Kyi stood as the National League for Democracy's candidate for Prime Minister in the Burmese general election." This is simply wrong. There was no such thing as "candidate for PM", and Aung San Suu Kyi did not stand for election in the 1990 elections. And correcting factual mistakes and removing misleading references is not vandalism.

63.173.78.131 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Richard.

But there are seven references that attest to that not only from Penny Sharpe and they are from reliable sources such as Deutsche Welle and many others. The threshold here at Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Please see WP:V. Dr.K. logos 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Aung San Oo page

I've created an article for Aung San Oo, ASSK's brother. PLease visit and improve it. PiCo 05:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Listening to a Burmese pronouncing her name, the final part sounds like IPA:[tkʰì] rather than IPA:[tʃì].--EvenT 22:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Let me make clear from the outset that I am a passionate believer in Justice and greatly admire this woman's courage. I would not for a minute argue against the awards that have been made to her. But this encyclopaedic page is in danger of becoming hagiographical: a list of awards made is fine, but extensive quotes and frankly irrelevant listings of other recipients of the award do not make a page encyclopaedic. Distasteful as it might be to the vast majority of us, this page ought to be able to be read and agreed with Than Shwe: that is the meaning of the NPOV policy.

I suspect that many well informed supporters of ASSK are aware that this is a quick and easy way for the general public to find out about her when they read news reports etc, and so want to present the best of her achievements and commendations: that is understandable, but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, activists and interested parties do not make the best editors in such circumstances. As far as I am aware, none of the comments in the article are untrue, but the quotations to not reflect neutrality. It is akin to, taking a trivial comparison, an article on a rock band only listing their successful albums, and only citing favourable reviews: not untrue, but not a neutral viewpoint. Kevin McE (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Quote: this page ought to be able to be read and agreed with Than Shwe: that is the meaning of the NPOV policy. I couldn't disagree more. on two grounds:

1. Than Swe agrees only with one thing: Keep Suu Kyi in jail.
2. Do you possibly believe that if Than Swe were an administrator on English Wikipedia he would have allowed the Aung Sun Suu Kyi article to even exist? Dr.K. (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, but that this is your instinctive reply suggests that you do not have the neutrality to actively be editing this article. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that instead of addressing this absurd definition of NPOV you delve into psychology to reach an even more absurd conclusion about my editing privileges. I will not defend the point as it is not worth the bandwidth it is written on. Dr.K. (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So am I to take it that in your opinion the article is written neutrally and with balance, or do you consider the moral imperative to be so strong that neutrality is not demanded? Kevin McE (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Rhetorical questions have their place, but this discussion doesn't really need them. To answer you question: almost nothing is written from a neutral point of view, not even in Britannica. This article is no exception. But to push the NPOV definition to the point of making Than Swe or his hypothetical reaction to the article contents a criterion of neutrality, is in itself POV. Anyway I see no harm in documenting the honours and tributes this leader has gathered from around the globe. If she were freed they wouldn't be accumulating at such a high rate. She is a political prisoner and in a vulnerable position. The article simply reflects her present unusual circumstances. Hiding her honours or not explaining them fully so that we can meet the hypothetical NPOV expectations of Than Swe is not an option I would entertain seriously. Dr.K. (talk) 01:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my question as to whether you consider neutrality in this article a goal to work towards, even if an absolute neutrality (that which would be equally acceptable to you as to Than Swe) is unattainable. I hope you are not suggesting that I am sharing the junta's POV: I am using rhetoric to state how high a standard of NPOV we should at least aim for. I have not suggested that the awards should not be listed: read my comments. What I have suggested is that they should be included as a factual list: extensive quotations about the way they were given gives the page the air of a campaign site. There should be campaign sites to promote ASSK's freedom: I wish I had something to contribute to such, but this site should not be one of them, and at present it resembles such. Unfortunately, disinterested parties are usually those best positioned to write neutral, encyclopaedic articles on many of the most important issues. Kevin McE (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

These are not POV. They are quotes that happened. When the British foreign minister made his comments, these comments were for her. Why do they have to be suppressed? The awards given such as the Congressional medal etc. carry minimum explanatory details to put them in context. I really don't see the POV here either. We have to understand that she is a prisoner. A prisoner's biography is different from a free leader's. If she were free we would write about the notable things she did for Burma. Now that she is a prisoner we write about the great things people say or do about her. It's the things that happen concerning her person that matter. Things that happen concerning an imprisoned leader are passive because the prisoner status is a passive one. Things that happen concerning an active leader are active because s/he can act freely. These things are by necessity different in their quality because they depend on two diametrically opposite states: The state of Freedom and the state of Capture. But by and of themselves are not more or less noteworthy compared to each other. Their inclusion in the article is not POV in either case. Being disinterested in the article is irrelevant here. Just the facts. Either you include them or you don't. As far as comparing my level of acceptability of facts to that of Than Swe; This is a loaded question. Because it presupposes that Than Swe is a logical man who can distinguish, by using logic and common sense, betweeen different states of a fact as an impartial judge. His actions throughout his career point to a complete lack of such qualities. So let's do us both a great favour and eliminate him from this discussion. If by Than Swe you mean you are playing Than Swe's advocate then there is an established biblical figure that fits the advocate expression better. Maybe we can substitute this figure instead just so we can avoid confusion and maybe get better results in the process. Dr.K. (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's drop any specifics about Than Swe: you read rather more into that than I had intended. I have already stated that I have no interest in defending the Burmese regime, and I would ask you to withdraw your suggestion that I am acting as an advocate of that: I am simply trying to defend encyclopaedic integrity. All I meant was that people of any point of view could consider that the article is equally acceptable. cf articles on Racism or Adolf Hitler: they state that they are widely reviled, but the article is not written as condemnatory. Equally, the Nelson Mandela article bears parallels: comments both positive and negative are made about the man. The related List of awards and honours bestowed on Nelson Mandela shows that awards can be listed factually, allowing the links to information about the awards to serve as the source for additional information about how prestigious the award is. Presenting that, without commentary or quoting the citations at the time, is the essence of presenting, as you say, Just the facts.

If you insist on allowing positive quotes about ASSK from David Milliband, or anyone else (and I know of no evidence that Milliband has ever met her, or has anything other than public forum information on which to base his comments), you must be equally open to the article carrying accusations against her from the junta.

That you assume that she would do notable things for Burma reveals your personal bias in this matter: I don't doubt that she would, but our personal opinions must not limit what we allow to appear in an encyclopaedia. Thus I find it flawed that you say we write about the great things people say or do about her: that is selective; if you are not willing to present a cross-section of all the things people say ... about her, then we should simply list the awards, and let the bare facts speak for themselves. That will be a testimony to the worldwide acclaim that ASSK has received, without the danger of POV accusations. Kevin McE (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well after we dropped Than Swe, almost as I expected we agree on some of these things. But first let me make a few things clear: To be the devil's advocate is an expression not a fact. It does not mean that one is or has ever been hired by the devil as an advocate. It simply means that one advocates a not very popular but possibly worthy point. Ditto for Than Swe's advocate. In this case the expression Than Swe's advocate is a placeholder for devil's advocate and it does not imply anything other than someone adopting an unpopular point for argument's sake, which is a worthy and necessary process. We are having a discussion here not an accusatory forum. It especially is not meant to imply you are or have ever been a literal advocate of Than Swe inasmuch as someone being an advocate of the devil does not imply that they actually are. I hope this clears the matter. Further let me quote: That you assume that she would do notable things for Burma reveals your personal bias in this matter This shows your continuous bias that I am biased. That was a hypothetical argument but with some certainty to it. For instance we can almost be 99.999% certain she would free the monks of the recent disturbances as well as thousands of other political prisoners. That would be notable, wouldn't it? So a reasonable case can be made that the probability of at least one notable thing happening during her hypothetical time in power is almost 100%. Does that still look like bias on my part to you now? Let's leave the semantics for the moment to address the rest of the points. Quote: I know of no evidence that Milliband has ever met her, or has anything other than public forum information on which to base his comments This is simply original research. In Wikipedia we present the facts. We do not analyse them. Either he made the comments or he did not. If he did we present them. Period. We do not research his motives so that we can discredit them. Finally your comments about the awards are reasonable. Even though the comments about the awards are not extensive and they only cover just a few background details about them, fine. You can make an argument that this can be gleaned from reading their respective articles. I have no objection to that. Including the junta accusations against her in my opinion falls under the conflict of interest guidelines because the junta is involved in a dispute with her; having said that I would not object if you included the junta accusations as you may well have a different but valid opinion on this. If we can also find a third party other than the junta that accused her or criticised her in some way then that would be fine too; we can include their criticism in the article. I hope this covers the main points and even if it does not I just give up because this is turning into a full time occupation not a hobby. Anyway your points cover areas that are legitimate and it was fun addressing them. Bye for now. Dr.K. (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "bias" of mine to state that you are biased: it is a conclusion based on the pattern of your edits, and your bias is one that you do not, and should not deny: I admire your resolve. Talk pages are not subject to rules of verifiability, and so OR accusations against my comments are irrelevant. I would have to challenge your comment Either he made the comments or he did not. If he did we present them. Period. Thousands of comments are made everyday: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts: we select, we do not present anything and everything on the basis that it was said: that selection must be neutral. My comments about the awards were the starting point of my concerns about neutrality in this article, initiated by your reverting my simplification of the comments on the Congressional medal, made because it was in the language of a press release, not an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First let me thank you about your comment regarding my resolve. I am not clear as to where this is coming from but it is a nice thing to say. However I will reciprocate it because I think you are also a very astute observer of facts and a diligent editor. We disagree on a few things such as the alleged bias that is allegedly revealed by the pattern of my edits but this is just one minor point of disagreement. As far as Millibrand's comments I think they are notable while respecting your opinion not to find them so. If you think they don't belong here I wouldn't object if you took them out. I also agree with your well taken point that an article should not be a mere depository of facts. If you think that the prize comments are framed similar to a press release I would not object if you removed them. I am reasonably certain however that I took these comments out. If I am not mistaken they were made by Crowley and I definitely did not restore them back because I agreed with you. I only restored the background info as to who received the prizes in the past. Anyway I think we have reached some degree of consensus on a few points and not wanting to take up any more of your time, (not to mention mine), I wish you the best of the season and thank you for your well taken points and this discussion. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Chronology

A separate list is probably acceptable, but the section in this article should be converted to prose. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Her daily life under house arrest

I'm curious to know: are there any details, or sourced speculation on what she does from day to day, being unable to leave her property? Writing, reading...? Does she live with anyone or receive visitors? --64.111.89.13 (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

She lives with two maids. Her doctor is the only person authorized to visit. Her only source of info is a radio. F (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation clip

I'd love to have a .ogg clip or something in addition to the IPA telling us how to pronounce her name. —vivacissamamente (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Please do not add general maintenance tags without specifying the problem on talk. Otherwise, use a more specific tag. Tags exist to highlight problems that need to be fixed. Without knowing the exact problem addressed by the editor adding the tag, the issue cannot be resolved. Since an editor seems to think the article needs to be cleaned up, it is reasonable to ask for a description of this maintenance request. Viriditas (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Half of the article consists of bulleted lists: Periods under detention, International support, Nobel Peace Prize, Criticism, Books, Awards, Popular media, etc. This is sloppy and needs to be cleaned up. Kingturtle (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. {{Prose}} is a specific cleanup tag used for that purpose. I have tagged the entire "International support" section as {{Prose}}. This includes the relevant subsections. "Popular media" requires a different tag, namely {{trivia}}. I don't think "Books" or "Awards" needs to be tagged at this time. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

latest development...

For those of you working on this article, here is a very important development. I hope you can use it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sad, but not surprising. Par for the course for the junta. I put it in as an unconfirmed report. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

She is frequently called Daw Aung San Suu Kyi; Daw is not part of her name, but an honorific similar to madam for older, revered women, literally meaning "aunt".[6] Strictly speaking, her given name is equivalent to her full name, but it is acceptable to refer to her as "Ms. Suu Kyi" or Dr. Suu Kyi, since those syllables serve to distinguish her from her father, General Aung San, who is considered to be the father of modern-day Burma.

Fascinating, but does the lead section need an entire paragraph on her name? Shouldn't we be summarizing the most important points in the article? Viriditas (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

good source

here's a good source: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/5000-days-in-captivity-the-worlds-most-famous-political-prisoner-and-a-dismal-landmark-1731998.html . Lots of good tidbits. Kingturtle (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Transcription of name

The MLCTS transcription of her name is given as aung hcan: cu. krany. The last element, krany, looks most implausible – how on earth can that represent IPA [tʃì] ? I'm putting a {{fact}} tag on it, in the hope that someone who knows Burmese (and/or MLCTS) can either fix or verify it. Vilĉjo (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks weird, but the Burmese writing system is weird, so it is correct. The transcription is intended to reconstruct from Latin the original Burmese-script spelling in an unambiguous way, not to give a hint at the English pronunciation. The MLCTS wiki page gives the transliteration of each symbol in Burmese, and this does indeed give "krany". The reason (for those who are interested) is: in modern Burmese Kr = Ky = [tʃ] (or a very similar sound - let's not get into arcane phonetics); and in modern Burmese a final Ny is pronounced [i]; and in Burmese all consonants have an inherent [a] vowel, hence kr-a-ny = [tʃì]! (So maybe the {fact} tag should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.173.78.131 (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating! Thank you very much for clarifying that. Vilĉjo (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

One follow-up question: would it be more accurate to transcribe MLCTS "kr" into IPA as [c] rather than [tʃ]? Vilĉjo (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, [c] would indeed be more accurate. 41.190.40.124 (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)Richard.

Repeated inaccuracies introduced

I have tried on several occasions to repair factual errors in this article. For example, in the top section it is stated that ASSK's detention after the 1990 election prevented her from taking up a political post. This is factually incorrect, as is stated later in the article. She was alrady under detention at the time of the 1990 elections. In attempting to repair this error, and others, I have been threatened with blockage <!redacted per WP:NPA> and he has removed the corrected text, complete with references showing the correct situation. I don't have the time to get into this particular battle, but I hope others will take it up, in the interests of accuracy.

41.190.40.124 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Richard.

Inconsistency on percantages.

At the top of the page, it says the NLD gained 59% for the 1990 general election vote, later on in the page it says the NLD gained 80% of the vote. What is going on there? 109.76.159.190 (talk) 16:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected the misleading phrasing. NLD won 59% of the votes and 80% of the seats in Parliament.--Hintha(t) 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bommersvik Declarations

I'm not sure what the purpose of this section is. There is no useful explanation of who made the declarations; the wikilinks are of little help. Neither is there any context to explain why the declarations are important. They seem like quite standard political declarations, and have little relevance in a biographical article such as this. If the content is free, it should perhaps be transwikied to Wikisource. I will remove the section for now, but please explain it here if there is a reason why it should be included. Lampman (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Burma v. Myanmar in intro and infobox

Between the infobox and the intro, her country is mentioned by name seven times, but inconsistently: "Burma" or forms thereof appear five times (excluding "British Burma", which was the unquestioned name of the country at that time), and "Myanmar" twice. I have no opinion on which is correct, but either "Burma" or "Myanmar" should appear all seven times. Nyttend (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I should think that 'Burma' would be better; it is used for the article of the country itself. I'd put an invisible notice on the article, too, and direct people to the talk page of Burma for clarification. 85.210.98.52 (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Address

I don't think it is right to put her address on Wikipedia. Given that her house has been broken into, we just cannot let people know the exact location of where she lives. Soxrock24 (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

you can google her address if you want to brake into her house. if you cant find, simply pay a taxi driver 3000 kyat or so, to show her house.

File:Burma 3 150.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burma 3 150.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wealth

How much wealth does she have? All that time under house-arrest, did she have a job? How'd she pay the bills? --24.89.198.6 (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Totally unrelated and out of order. HAPPY BIRTHDAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.1.112 (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

maybe 4 million dollars. 1.5 from nobel. but she donated everything to the charity. she pays the bill by borrowing from US embassy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.182 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Does she have any policies

What did people vote for? What policies does she advocate apart from people being allowed to vote for her?93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

People vote her simply because she is the daughter of Aung San, the man who is worshiped by the Burmese twice a day.203.81.67.182 (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not true, as far as I know. Please provide a source for your claim that General Aung San is worshiped twice a day. --61.4.76.17 (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos with Clinton

Please upload this photo and put it in the relevant section. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.181 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dassk.org

Are you sure that dassk.org (currently only accessible via wayback [8] is Suu Kyi's own website? Shadyaubergine (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No. It is not affiliated with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. Check out the bottom of that page. It says We are the students from all around the world helping in bringing Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma causes to everyone for serious attention and effectual assistance.SWH ^talk 06:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Status as an MP?

Should we not add to the box on the right-hand side of the article that she is now currently a Member of Parliament as of 2 April 2012?Liberal92 (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically I believe she's still just an MP-Elect, no oath of office yet. Khazar2 (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

ေျပာခ်င္ပါတယ္ ေကာင္းပါတယ္။ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.175.226 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Was there any controversy with her?

The devil's advocate jerkass in me wonder if there was some genuine criticism of Aung San on some aspects - like if she was accused of pushing foreign neocolonialism?

I means, the dictature is HARSH and nasty, but I wonder... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.163.21.122 (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah. She is just an international symbol for Democracy and grace under pressure. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The media loves her to hate, even in my country (Croatia), so, even if there is some controvery about her, they won't publish it. The national TV has at least one-two news weakly about her. Personally, I neither like or hate her. I respect her because of the house arrest, but nothing more. It's the same kind of respect I have for Imam Khamenei or Hamadi Jebali to name some. It suspicious that you can find many controveries about them and not about ASSK. HeadlessMaster (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

What is there not to like? Her selfless devotion to a Democratic cause, her long and asymmetrical struggle against a brutal dictatorship. She exhibits mental strength and resolve; qualities that make her an inspiration for all the oppressed and a model for all humanity. Not to mention in a world where female role-models are so scarce, she is a role-model women all over the world can aspire to. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're acting like YOU are Wiki-dictator and cenzorship god. I have full right to express my thoughts as the rules of Wiki say. She is a daughter of a wanna-be dictator Aung San, and, as I had learnt from examples of my homeland's "freedom fighters", I THINK she fights only to get in power. As much as I know, Fidel Castro also fought against brutal military dictatorship (Batista). Gadafi fought against dictatorship of King Idris. Both my country's fascist-aligned (Pavelić) and communist (Tito) dictators fought against dictatorships. On the other hand, we have more positive examples like Niger's General Salou Djibo, etc. Which way she will go, we can tell only if she comes to power. Until then, I can't tell for sure if she fights for ideals or for power. I don't care if she's male or female, as I support FULL gender EQUALITY, where males and females should be treated equaly, without so-called "positive discrimination". Also, as I always say, I don't merely care about democracy, but I care about how good life of people is, regardless of system. I would rather have a benevolent leader like HRM Sheykh Khalifa bin Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan in power than democrat like Adrian Năstase. HeadlessMaster (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. You have the right to have thoughts but not the right to express them. Mere soapboxing is not permitted on article talk pages. Please use the talk page only to suggest properly sourced content, rather than your views on what someone may or may not do in the future. --regentspark (comment) 19:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are so ready to personally attack me with tripe like Sorry, but you're acting like YOU are Wiki-dictator and cenzorship god., merely for expressing my opinion about her I think you either misread my reply or you don't have the capacity to understand what I wrote. If the former is true I expect an apology from you. If the latter is correct, I forgive you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

To Dr.K.: I only expressed my view that it is suspicious that there is no contovery about her in media, while you can find controversy about anybody (including people like Hamadi Jebali or Moncef Marzouki or even Ioannes Paulus II) and you replied in a pretty rude manner. If you didn't mean to be rude, then you have my apologize, otherwise you don't have it. You know the best if you were rude or not. I wrote: "I neither like or hate her" and you responded like it is a crime not to have opinion about her. If English is not your native, I understand it sounded ruder than you had intended it to sound and in that case, I FORGIVE YOU. Also, if I am wrong, correct me (English is my second foreign language, after Russian, with my native being Croatian, so I might misunderstood something). I also find your remarks about "capacity" pretty rude, but, I forgive you as it is pretty far from truth.

To RegentsPark: Yes, I had gone to far in expresing personal views (and I am sorry for that), but I tried to encourage some research about her, especially by people who speak Burmese, to find at least what the junta says against her. Also, Dr.K. expressed his personal views before me: "Nah. She is just an international symbol for Democracy and grace under pressure" and you hadn't said anything against him doing it. Taking sides, huh? HeadlessMaster (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Not taking any sides. But you're the one who's speculating about controversy not Dr. K who was responding in jest anyway. (Plus, I mistakenly thought you had initiated this thread but I now see it was an IP - my apologies for that.) --regentspark (comment) 23:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I agree I made same comments I shouldn't (although saying that there is no controvery is also speculation) and I apologize once again. HeadlessMaster (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If I had agreed with you, you would obviously not think that my reply was rude. But because I disagreed with you, you thought that my reply was "rude". You ascribe motives to me that are clearly a reflection of your prejudices. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I could say same for you, that your reply was rude because you disagreed with me. Couldn't I? I would react in the same way if you attacked my idols (like HIaRH Crown Prince Otto, pope Ioannes Paulus II and some others), but the fact is that I HADN'T attacked Aung San Suu Kyi and you reacted like I did that. However, I will now end this argue and I don't want fight which leads to nowhere. Peace be with you, Dr.K. HeadlessMaster (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Likewise HeadlessMaster. My thanks also go to RegentsPark for his understanding and his gracious comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I think headless master has a point, and I am glad that I am not the only one who is not taken in by this preposterous charade. She is the daughter of a guy who would have been your run of the mill asian tin pot dictator had he not been killed. She sounds, looks, and smells like the dictatress-elect. She is being feted as a head of state on the basis that she is in favour of democratic reforms (not impressive, given how low the bar lies in her country) and the assumption that the people of Birma would elect her if she were allowed to run. And because of her endless suffering which does not compare to the suffering she would have had to endure had she not been internationally known, with an oxbridge education and powerful friends in Britain. If you so much as cough in the presence of a police officer in Birma, you suddenly and mysteriously disappear, unless of course people in the West have heard of you and your disappearance might embarrass the government.88.110.124.28 (talk) 05:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

In April 2012, British Prime Minister David Cameron became the first leader of a major world power to visit Aung San Su Kyi and the first of a British prime minister since the 1950s. In his visit, Cameron invited San Su Kyi to Britain where she would be able to visit her 'beloved' Oxford, an invitation which she later accepted; no specifec date has been confirmed but the month is thought to be June 2012.

In April 2012, British Prime Minister David Cameron became the first leader of a major world power to visit Aung San Su Kyi and the first of a British prime minister since the 1950s. In his visit, Cameron invited San Su Kyi to Britain where she would be able to visit her 'beloved' Oxford, an invitation which she later accepted; no specific date has been confirmed but the month is thought to be June 2012.

NB specifec > specific

Gerardhearne (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 19 June

The pronunciation of her name is approximated as "Awn Sahn Sue Chee," although the "ch" in "Chee" is unaspirated.

WP:PRON states that pronunciations must be shown using IPA and respelling should be used only for English words in addition to it. Consequently, can someone change the above (from Name) to

{{IPAc-en|aʊ|ŋ|ˌ|s|æ|n|.|s|uː|ˈ|tʃ|iː|}}

Furthermore, the source for this is

{{cite web |url=http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/Aung%2BSan%2BSuu%2BKyi?q=Aung+San+Suu+Kyi |title=Oxford Dictionaries Online |accessdate=19 June 2012}}

Thanks! 109.149.78.250 (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am thankful to who made my change, but it got rid of the Burmese pronunciation of her name, which shouldn't have been done. Apologies if the place for my request was vague, but the respell still exists in the name section. It is that (sentence above) that needs replacing. Thanks! 109.149.78.250 (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It approximately sounds like Ox Bridge Posh Queen88.110.124.28 (talk) 06:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't a criticism section be added given BBC, Channel 4 UK and various media has reported her saying that she does not know if Rohingya are Burmese and is amazingly quiet on that issue given her Nobel peace prize. See 2012 Rakhine State riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asifkhanj (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why has the Burmese pronunciation been removed?

I think it should be kept: [àuɴ sʰáɴ sṵ tɕì].

• I've re-added the Burmese pronunciation alongside the supposed Oxford pronunciation, which I assume represents what a Westerner should try to approximate to. But it's certainly not representative of a native Burmese pronunciation. The last three syllables (sæn.suːˈtʃiː) are all off, in the vowel "æ" (it's more like a "ʌ"), or the "n" ending (there's no such ending) or in the wrong tone in both "suː" and "tʃiː". Hybernator (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Please mention her honorary doctorate degrees

Please mention her honorary doctorate degrees such as Doctor of Civil Law from Oxford University, etc... http://www.ncgub.net/NCGUB/staticpages/index83a4.html?page=20070319202156445 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.185.143.50 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC) http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120620.html\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspm007 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi#Organizations already says:

• St. Hugh's College, Oxford, where she studied, had a Burmese theme for their annual ball in support of her in 2006. The University later awarded her an honorary doctorate in civil law on 20 June 2012 during her visitation on her alma mater."

Several other honorary titles are mentioned but a complete list seems excessive. Political leaders often get a bunch of these from institutions they aren't really affiliated with. Other things about her are more important than such a list. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does not anyone mention her hypocritical attitude towards Burma's Muslim genocide?

I think this should be mentioned here as paradox to her Nobel Price Award. She remained silent to attrocity of Burma's Muslim community from Buddhists there. Even more she supports killings and slaughtering. For example, recently she stated that muslims in Burma should not have citizenship of their own country, Burma, in which they have lived as far as Buddhists did.Batokanda (talk) 15:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, how is opining that Muslims shouldn't have citizenship the same as "she supports killings and slaughtering"? You have no reference at all for that statement and I would assume that is why there is no mention of it in the article. Helpsome (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if not direct support then at least it was racialist statement of her. To say that the people who have lived there for centuries does not have essential right guaranteed by all international cnventions is supportive for those who are apt for killing anyone who is different. As a winner of Nobel Price for Peace she should should condemn attrocity of innocent people in her own country if not to try to prevent it. And there lies her hypocrisy, respectfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.65.174.223 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Her silence on the Rohingya issue has been mentioned in the New York TImes so perhaps a line on that could be included somewhere. I'll take a look in a couple of days if no one else gets to it. --regentspark (comment) 20:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I'm thinking of the same piece as you, it was just a passing mention in an op-ed. For a woman who's gotten her level of world media coverage for twenty years, that may be a bit trivial to include. If we can find articles devoted to her non-comment on this issue, though, or if it regularly is mentioned in coverage of the violence, that would seem to me more worth including. Khazar2 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We all think of the same piece here. It is not trivial to air it everywhere, because we have to try to prevent all masacres everywhere in the world. She is very important figure there, and if she, who won such a prize, fails on such occasions then what to expect from others.Batokanda (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I share your concern for the violence in Arakan State, but if her non-comment on this issue is of vital importance to it, other media will write articles on it soon enough. I'd argue that our job here, though, is to neutrally summarize the twenty years of coverage of ASSK regardless of our own concerns; a single paragraph from an op-ed by a nonnotable economic prof is just a blip among those hundreds of thousands of news articles (25,000 in the last month alone! [9] ), and to include it would likely be undue weight. Khazar2 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought that our job here is to scrutinise on authorities, scientists, notions, terms etc. But, if this is an affirmitve article without critics, then it is alright; otherwise, it is a big flow to me.

Regards for The New York Times.Batokanda (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC) You're right, the current piece was an op-ed. There have been other mentions this one for example, but I'm not sure if this rises to the level of inclusion. We would need a specific RS that says that her response to the plight of the Rohingya is problematic. --regentspark (comment) 01:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What does RS stand for?Batokanda (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

She hasn't been totally silent. She did say that the government needs to define who is a Burmese citizen which is surprising as she didn't come out to support them but cast doubt that the Rhonigyas are Burmese, she is mixing them with Bengalis who are different people altogether. At least the first part should be mentioned. Asifkhanj (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 October 2012

Please replace - 'Subsequently, she earned a PhD at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in 1985.' with - 'Subsequently, she earned an MPhil in Burmese Literature at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London in 1988'. Reference/evidence on the SOAS alumni website, https://www.soasalumni.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=852

She has received honorary doctorates, so can still be called Dr, but did not earn a PhD. 183.88.72.20 (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the information! --regentspark (comment) 21:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

"democracy activist"

The introduction labels her a politician, but this is only a relatively recent development, most of her life and career she has been what I would think is best described as a "democracy activist", and yet she is not called an activist anywhere on the page. Do people disagree with me? Is this an intentional oversight? If so, why? Would people support changing the introduction to include this description? -Kez (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd support some mention of her being a democracy activist. I agree with you that it seems like a no-brainer; searching the two terms together gets 100,000+ Google results [10]. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this, although not sure if that's commonly used wording. Perhaps "pro-democracy activist" makes more sense, or "human rights activist." --Jethro B 23:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

u2 song dedication

I feel like the article deserves a mention that the U2 song "walk on" is dedicated and written for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.82.8 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Position toward human rights violation against Rohingya Muslim population

The article does not mention anything about her position toward the severe human rights violations being committed by her new government against the Rohingya Muslim population. 67.193.171.189 (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It does here:

"Some activists criticized Aung San Suu Kyi for her silence on the massacre of the Rohingya in July 2012, described as the most pressing human rights situation in Myanmar.[158] After receiving a peace prize, she told reporters she "didn't know" if Rohingya could be regarded as Burmese citizens.[159] The Rohingya have been stripped of citizenship since 1982 and are treated as illegal immigrants, with restrictions on their movement and withholding of land rights, education and public service.[158] Some describe her stance as politically motivated.[158]"

Seems sufficient to me for now, as coverage of her position on Rohingyas is only a tiny fraction of the coverage she's received total. But if that changes, we can adjust the balance accordingly.

-- Khazar2 (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no section about her continuous silence on the civil war happening in Kachin State? I think it's deserved to be mentioned here too since her political standing on this matter says pretty much about her attitudes towards the ethnic minorities in Burma, some of them co-founded the modern day Burma when it got independence from UK.

Op-Eds

May not be used for statements of fact on a BLP, hence this removal. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed another version as having nonneutral language ("plight"), and also for making a WP:SYNTH connection that does not seem to be in the source; let me know if the sentence I added is an acceptable substitute. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly

The 1990 elections were clearly for the purpose of forming a constituent assembly to draft the constitution. After drafting the constitution, new elections will be held for parliamentary seats. However, in the Western media, the 1990 elections were often mistaken as national elections for parliamentary seats. The election laws were clear on this. Here is an explanation from Michael Aung-Thwin, one of the foremost Burmese historians in the West.

"Yet, virtually every credible scholar of Burma has demonstrated that both the NLD and Suu Kyi knew at the time that these were constituent assembly elections, not national elections. They were meant to select representatives to a National Assembly to write a new Constitution, not to hand over the government to the party who received the most votes."

Bertil Lintner: "the 1990 elections are going to be for a constituent assembly that will draft a new constitution which will have to be approved. After that, new elections will be held and the SLORC will transfer its powers to an elected government."

Here is an explanation from Derek Tonkin.

But didn't SLORC backtrack its promises? Yes. When they staged a coup (not that romantic at that time, beheading and looting going on there), they said repeatedly that they would relinquish power immediately. But they soon changed it and said they would hold power until a new constitution had been drafted. Still, few know how confrontational the opposition was at that time (Nuremberg-style trials etc. etc.). Before serving house arrest, Suu Kyi herself was repeatedly warned, but she didn't heed veteran politicians and ex-commanders and asked them "Are you cowards?". But let's don't talk about it. The point is, the 1990 elections were for the purpose of forming a constituent assembly. SWH^{® talk} 17:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. According to Derek Tonkin's explantions, reports are contradicting. Section A2 it would stay in power until after the parliament elected could agree to a constitution and a government could be formed on the basis of that constitution, A4 If the Hluttaw members unanimously selected one of the two constitutions and formed a government then, power would be transferred to them. We are ready to transfer power to the government formed in accordance with the constitution......The representatives elected are to draw it; if the people approve the constitution then power will be transferred to the government which emerged according to that new constitution, A7...., A8...., A9 A new Constitution can be drafted. An old Constitution can also be used after some amendments.....

Here, junta leaders had never mentioned a second election or election was only for constitution draft. They only said that they will not transfer power without constitution. But it should be noted that A4, A9, which means the election was not for constitution draft and elected government can draft a new or use olds. I have only picked points against your claim. Some other sources supported you. It may be a gray area and cannot say clearly that elections to form a constituent assembly to draft the constitution. But it should be noted that all Burmese voters believed that election was intented for new government. I think this discussion belongs to Burmese general election, 1990, not this page. Laurence Watcher (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that page clearly states the elections were meant to form a constituent assembly. But this page still wrongly states they were national elections and barred her from premiership, an office that didn't exist. So I start the discussion here to change the parliament into "constituent assembly". Translation from Burmese socurces have to take into account of that, in Burmese, Hluttaw can mean both "Assembly" and "Parliament".

"it would stay in power until after the parliament elected could agree to a constitution and a government could be formed on the basis of that constitution."

They were clearly saying not to transfer power until a constitution had been drawn and a new government had be formed.

"If the Hluttaw members unanimously selected" It should be noted that though NLD won 80% seats, they didn't win all, so "unanimously" was impossible and the other way was to draft the constitution. "The representatives elected are to draw it [draft the constitution]; if the people approve the constitution [read: referendum] then power will be transferred to the government which emerged according to that new constitution [i.e. use US constitution for instance, executive power is vested in President who won presidential elections, legislative power in congress, members of which have to win respective elections. Unless a new constitution says power must be vested on NLD forever or for the first round, fresh elections will have to be hold.]

Here is a excerpt from Burma/Myanmar:What everyone needs to know page 91. "The junta had publicly stated almost a year before the elections that those elected could not form a new government until there was a new constitution. On several occasions at press conferences, this was reiterated by Saw Maung and Khin Nyunt. Aung San Suu Kyi personally indicated on July 5, 1989, just prior to her house arrest, that “Whoever is elected will have to draw up a constitution that will have to be adopted before the transfer of power.” Western media was correct at first. The reporters were briefed by SLORC about the election laws. But after subsequent deadlock and Nobel Prize, a lot of emotions started to involve and news reports were changed to align with demands. SWH^{® talk} 02:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that I am okay with either "parliament" or "constituent assembly". Due to obscurity of the country and high level of emotions involved, "reliable sources" for "parliament" are abundant. US government for example, insisted for twenty years to honor the results and relinquish power to NLD. SWH^{® talk} 13:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, reliable sources suggest both "parliament" and "constituent assembly". It is a gray area. Food for thought. Please edit as you like or let others decide. Goodbye. Laurence Watcher (talk) 10:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Aung San Suu Kyi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/27/us-myanmar-constitution-idUSKCN0JB0UK20141127
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150518082937/http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/1997/edition_01-19-1997/aung-san-suu-kyi.html?index=2 to http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/1997/edition_01-19-1997/aung-san-suu-kyi.html?index=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130818225418/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/myanmar;_ylt=AnrDVYwp644QDxk6HyfqqdSaK8MA to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/myanmar;_ylt=AnrDVYwp644QDxk6HyfqqdSaK8MA
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131029201517/http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070922/wl_asia_afp/myanmarprotestmonks to http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070922/wl_asia_afp/myanmarprotestmonks
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090703073909/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gs16E0Y8T8w9Edy1yiDa2nXqxwkwD991MGGG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gs16E0Y8T8w9Edy1yiDa2nXqxwkwD991MGGG0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630111657/http://www.maldiveschronicle.com:80/president-nasheed-calls-immediate-release/ to http://www.maldiveschronicle.com/president-nasheed-calls-immediate-release/

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Current state of Burma

It would have been quite appropriate to add a paragraph about the current state of Burma, from where people seem to trying to escape many kinds of persecution, after democracy was imposed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.28.102 (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/uk-myanmar-election-suukyi-idUKKCN0SU0DK20151105

20:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Does this clause belong in the article?

Here's a sentence from the article regarding Suu Kyi's position on non-violence, with what I take to be the objectionable passage in italics.

Around this time, Suu Kyi chose non-violence as an expedient political tactic, stating in 2007, "I do not hold to non-violence for moral reasons, but for political and practical reasons," however, nonviolent action as well as civil resistance in lieu of armed conflict are also political tactics in keeping with the overall philosophy of her Theravada Buddhist religion.

The italicized passage seems unwarranted as an assertion. First, it's unsourced. (And it seems to be belied by this article.) Second, even if one could find a source for the claim that civil resistance is in keeping with Theravada Buddhism, it would be inappropriately synthetic to include that here, since that would imply that Suu Kyi's personal beliefs have something to do with her non-violence, which the first part of the sentence explicitly denies. Anyway, it's an irrelevant aside. Nearly all religions profess some sort of condemnation of violence. We wouldn't say, for instance, "Obama's campaign promise to end US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan was primarily politically motivated, though in keeping with his Christian faith, which teaches non-violence."68.80.219.115 (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Aung San Suu Kyi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140104065003/http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Newsroom/Publications/Documents/UJ%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf to http://www.uj.ac.za/EN/Newsroom/Publications/Documents/UJ%20Annual%20Report%202010.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)