Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Is she(Aung San Suu Kyi ) still the de jure head of state(state councillor)?

A reliable source(CIA World FactBook) still refers to Aung San Suu Kyi as the de jure head of state despite currently being detained by the military[1].

But the biodata on her wikipage stipulates that she had been succeeded by the military leader Min Aung Hlaing. I wonder whether she should still be regarded as the incumbent head of state?

IMHO she could be listed as "disputed" since 1 Feb (similar to Juan Guaidó, and sourced to [2] (Feb 4): "The members of the Security Council expressed deep concern at the declaration of the state of emergency imposed in Myanmar by the military on 1 February and the arbitrary detention of members of the Government, including State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint and others." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

She's been arrested, which makes her removal definite. She doesn't have the ability to dispute a government position while under arrest. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the response, she's clearly contested the coup, stating "We urge people to strongly oppose the unacceptable military coup". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: you raise a good point. The legitimacy of the military takeover and the legal maneuvers used by the Burmese military have been disputed by a growing coalition of political parties, including the NLD and SNLD, who by extension do not recognize the legitimacy of the State Administration Council. Yesterday, the Committee Representing Pyidaungsu Hluttaw, which is effectively acting as an interim legislative body until restoration of the elected government, enacted a law yesterday to extend the term of Suu Kyi's State Counsellor's office for another 5 years through 2026. The original text of the legislation was published in Burmese on Facebook yesterday. The news has also been covered by Burmese langauge outlets, including BBC Burmese.--Hintha(t) 07:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The question for this page is whether she's still in office, which she very clearly isn't. All reliable sources are referring to her as having been deposed. The legal legitimacy of the coup is irrelevant. Wikipedia represents things as they are described in reliable sources, and is not for WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The position of many sources seems to be that she still holds the office despite being currently unable to exercise the powers associated with the office. It's an unusual situation. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think that's the case. Can you provide sources covering the coup that say she's been allowed to remain in office? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't have an infobox labeled "allowed to remain in office". There are post-coup sources, such as the UN statement I described, continuing to identify her as State Counsellor. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, again, I ask you to provide your sources. I don't know what We don't have an infobox labeled "allowed to remain in office". is supposed to mean. I've provided some of my sources below that describe her as deposed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not have any sources stating she was "allowed to remain in office". This is not required, because we do not have an infobox labeled "allowed to remain in office". We do have an infobox labeled "State Counsellor of Myanmar". I have provided a source (the UN) stating she remains the State Counsellor of Myanmar. I can provide additional sources stating that she remains the State Counsellor of Myanmar if requested. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, I would like to see those additional sources, because the UN source does not appear to support your claim. The only time it mentions her is: "The members of the Security Council expressed deep concern at the declaration of the state of emergency imposed in Myanmar by the military on 1 February and the arbitrary detention of members of the Government, including State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and President Win Myint and others." Of course she was State Counsellor at the time of her detention. It doesn't say anything about her remaining in office despite the coup, as you've suggested. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point, the source (and many others) talked in the context of the detainment. The US called on 11 Feb for "the immediate release of political prisoners, including State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi" ([3]). Other sources in the release context are "elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi"([4]), "de facto leader of the civilian government, Aung San Suu Kyi"([5]), "the country's elected leader who is in the custody of the coup leaders."[6], "elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi" (photo caption) ([7]). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, all of those uses can reasonably be interpreted as referring to her title when she was detained (they have to let readers know who she is, after all). None seem to support this claim that the military has not, in fact, stripped her of the title of State Counsellor. The explicit claims in reliable sources I've provided describing her as deposed take precedence over statements that only imply she still has her title in other sources. You need to provide sources that more directly contradict the claims that she's been deposed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:41, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, they are obviously referring to her current title. As for the rest, it sounds like we're talking past one another. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, I just don't see how you square that with the sources that describe her as deposed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are just a few of the many articles that describe her as having been ousted, deposed, etc.: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, she can certainly be described as ousted/deposed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, you're arguing that she's both the deposed and incumbent State Counsellor? I don't see how you square those two positions. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Take it up with the WP:RS, I'm just passing on what the RS say. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, that's a nonsensical response. Are you honestly suggesting we write a direct contradiction into the article, saying she's the current State Counsellor, but also that her term ended on 1 February? How can you hold both positions at the same time? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm not suggesting that we "we write a direct contradiction into the article, saying she's the current State Counsellor, but also that her term ended on 1 February", not sure where you even got that idea. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, you've stated above that she can certainly be described as ousted/deposed, but have also continued to argue that she remains State Counsellor. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Keeping in mind WP:OTHERCONTENT, a comparable case would be Venezuela where Nicolás Maduro is de facto ruling President, and Juan Guaidó claims to be President and is recognized by several nations, they simply list both as President... (contested). I don't know of any broader guidelines and would recommend making one, in WP:WikiProject International Relations Shushugah (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, I agree that broader guidelines would be helpful, but for now, per WP:OTHERCONTENT, I don't see much use in looking at how other pages have handled this. I will point out, though, that the infoboxes for Juan Guaidó and Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya no longer state those people are the presidents of their countries, although I do remember that being the case at one point. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Shushugah, I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't list offices as contested unless there's legitimate doubt over who has the ability to exercise the powers of an office. Trying to determine who "rightfully" holds an office based on a country's laws, constitution, elections, etc. is a form of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS that strays from Wikipedia's commitment to represent the content of reliable sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What about historical cases like Gorbachev where a figure lost, and then regained, de facto control over their office? The RS don't generally consider that to constitute two separate terms of office. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, but if he lost control and then regained it, then yes, I think we should describe that as having been a discontinuity in his term. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Which is different from your proposal, which would be that his term ended when he was deposed. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, I don't think so. If Aung San Suu Kyi returns to office, I'd certainly support adding that to the infobox. I think we're talking past each other a bit; I'm using "term" loosely, to refer to the time one is in office, i.e. able to discharge the powers of their office. That doesn't necessarily line up with the term to which one is elected, although we may be accustomed to that being the case in democratic nations that don't have coups. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"former state counsellor" -> "deposed state counsellor"

@User:Tartan357 This edit, which was suggested by another editor, seems obvious given WP:RS for the latter and that it is more specific and informative. Do I really need to submit an RfC for such an obvious change? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, I'm not sure why your comment is directed at me since Mjroots is the one who declined that edit request. I later objected to the requestor's claim that the outcome of the coup is not yet definitive. I have not commented on the merits of changing "former" to "deposed" in the short description. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: - seeing as I've been pinged here, and don't have any strong feelings either for or against your suggestion, I think an RFC might actually be the better option here. It will give you scope to set out your suggestion in full, and allow editors time to come to a consensus as to whether your suggestion is valid or not. To paraphrase Churchill, jaw jaw is better than edit war. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I also do not have strong feelings about this either way. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

If I misunderstood and in fact nobody has yet voiced any objections to the edit (?), I'll try the edit first per WP:BRD and then we can try an RfC if someone disagrees with it. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems that the use of "deposed" instead of "former" is being taken by some—including Rolf and the original requestor of the edit—to somehow imply that Aung San Suu Kyi is still the leader of Myanmar, perhaps in a de jure capacity, which is, of course, blatantly counter-factual. Given the steady stream of disruption faced by this page over exactly that issue, I think we should keep "former". Using "deposed" in the way that's being suggested is inappropriate for a short description, which are supposed to be concise and straightforward. The short description's purpose is to briefly tell the reader who Aung San Suu Kyi is. It's really not intended to carry loaded language with complex insinuations. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 Is there any other wording you would accept besides "former state counsellor", which "buries the lead" that Myanmar is currently in a political crisis[13] that centers around this exact individual? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, "Former" is a simple factual representation for the short description. If you have proposals, I'll respond to them. I won't speculate in advance about what I will and will not agree with. I fail to see how the simple factual representation of her as a former state counsellor implies anything biased about Myanmar's political crisis. I also fail to see why you think changing it to "deposed" remedies that supposed bias. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 "Outed state counsellor" and "Elected leader" can be sourced, provide more information to the reader than "Former state counsellor", and are less contradictory with some of the sources that claim she is still state counsellor (but which, according to you, I am misinterpreting). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, I am willing to discuss using "ousted" or "deposed" instead of "former". I am not, however, willing to continue going around in circles with you on this nonsense claim that some reliable sources claim she is still still state counsellor. Enough, please. That is just not true, and your continued insistence is getting extremely tiresome.​ ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 Would it be productive to get a third opinion on whether some sources continue post-coup to claim that she is in some sense the State Counsellor? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, as El_C said below, we can consider that if there are sources describing her as such expressly so and in context. You have not provided any such sources yet; you've only made inferences from sources that merely mention her state counsellor title. No, I am not interested in wasting any more time on your bogus objection to this WP:BLUESKY matter. Provide sources that actually describe her as the de jure or disputed state counsellor. If you can't, we're done here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 There are sources describing her explicitly as "deposed leader Aung San Suu Kyi"[14] and "deposed civilian leader"[15]. I have given you reasons to prefer deposed to former, in the form of current RS stating she is (for example) the elected leader, but you have stated I was misinterpreting them. It does not sound like you're interested in a third opinion on whether this is misinterpretation. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, now you're talking about something else. I have not disputed that the sources refer to her as deposed, and I have been consistent in saying I'm open to using "deposed" or "former" in the short description. I've disputed your claim that the sources claim she is still the state counsellor. Deposed means removed, which just supports my position that she is no longer state counsellor. You're switching back and forth between two different issues here: the language to use in the short description, and whether she can be described as the current (disputed) state counsellor in the infobox. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 This section is proposing changing "former state counsellor" to "deposed state counsellor". The text "former state counsellor" appears in the shortdesc only. The infobox does not use the text "former state counsellor", so I don't know where your confusion is coming from. Your edit[16] reverted exactly that change. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, my confusion is over the following claim you've repeated twice in this section. I've quoted it twice already but will quote it a third time for you. You've said that reliable sources claim she is still the state counsellor. 1) This is not true. 2) I fail to see how this is at all relevant to changing "former" to "deposed" in the short description. Please, separate out the issue of former vs. deposed from the issue of whether she's the disputed state counsellor. You keep mixing them together and I've completely lost the thread of your argument. Outline a separate position for each issue. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 A source stating that Aung is the current state counsellor somewhat contradicts our simple description of her as a "former state counsellor", thus the relevance. This is why it is relevant whether such sources exist. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Okay, it's clear to me that we need to settle the issue of whether she's currently the disputed state counsellor first, then we can handle the language in the short description. Trying to address both at the same time is not working. Can you agree to that? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Sure, we can do them in whichever order you like. It sounds like either way we should resolve whether some RS deliberately continues to characterize her as the State Counsellor. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Great, I started a section for that below. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Any suggestions for wording/forums for the RfC? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

FAQ issues

@User:El_C left the following message on my user page after I edited Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi/FAQ: "Hi. Please do not editorialize the FAQ or otherwise edit it without securing the consensus to do so on the article talk page. Thank you. El_C 17:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)". I'm baffled by this nonsense. The FAQ was added literally the day before without an attempt an consensus; I de-editorialized the FAQ so that it would not falsely suggest consensus. Perhaps we should delete the FAQ until we reach consensus on what would be a de-editorialized version, if that would help. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

​Rolf h nelson, what changes would you suggest? Your change just equivocated the FAQ, thus making it useless in deterring more counter-factual edit requests. Also, FYI, placing an @ before someone's username does not ping them. You need to use {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} to do that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're trying to "square the circle" by somehow closing off further discussion without going through an RfC. But wording like "This subject has been discussed already on the talk page, and there is no consensus to change the text to list Aung San Suu Kyi as a leader, disputed leader, or de jure leader. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please start by reading the past discussion and reviewing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Comments or edit requests that appear not to have read the past discussion may be ignored" would be fine with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 03:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, please WP:SIGN your talk page comments. An FAQ is intended to deter repeat edit requests from new editors, who are unlikely to understand Wikipedia's editorial processes. It needs to be clear and definitive to work. And there will never be consensus to list Aung San Suu Kyi as the current leader of Myanmar, because that would be a blatant violation of WP:V in the form of a fabrication. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rolf h nelson, you're baffled? You've gone on to editorialize the FAQ in a way that effectively neutered its potency almost down to zero (or a 50:50 or whatever), changes which were were clearly tendentious. Please don't do that again. Not sure why you find wasting article talk page resources over such a bogus objection, which has no basis in fact (but, rather, a basis in fabrications), is a worthwhile pursuit, but you should be aware that it isn't a great look. If you want me to make it easier for you by invoking my discretion as authorized by WP:ARBBLP, consider it done. I deem the FAQ as-is to be important in preventing the continuous influx of disruption faced by this page. If you have real suggestions about adding to or modifying the FAQ , that you are welcome to pursue. But, no, not this nonsense. Sorry for being harsh, but being blunt about this will probably save everyone a lot of headache in the future, yourself included. Please let this resonate, because this is important: trying to erode a basic, WP:BLUESKY-type of factual representation for an article subject (who is also a living person) may be grounds for Arbitration enforcement sanctions. Thank you. El_C 03:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C Yes, you will need to officially invoke your discretion. Are you officially doing so? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, what part of consider it done do you find ambiguous? El_C 03:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C Per WP:ACDS/sanctions.appeals step 1, please reconsider your decision to mandate the FAQ be installed as proposed by Tartan357 rather than as proposed by Rolf h nelson, and reverse your finding that "disputed leader" and "de jure leader" are WP:BLUESKY violations. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, contingent on reliable soruces being presented which show this isn't, in fact, a BLUESKY matter, I will gladly do so. Otherwise, original research is not permitted. (Also, why are you referring to yourself in the 3rd person? It's a little weird. Oh well.) El_C 04:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The US called on 11 Feb for "the immediate release of political prisoners, including State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi" ([17]). Other post-coup sources state "elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi"([18]), "de facto leader of the civilian government, Aung San Suu Kyi"([19]), "the country's elected leader who is in the custody of the coup leaders."[20], "elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi" (photo caption) ([21]). Tartan357 has stated I am misinterpreting these sources, but I cannot see how. These sources indicate that Aung San Suu Kyi has some type of (obviously disputed) claim to being the leader. In addition, referring her as the elected leader indicates that she is de jure the leader. Therefore neither "State Counsellor (disputed)" nor even "State Counsellor (de jure)" would be WP:BLUESKY. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are misinterpreting those sources. They are clearly referring to her position prior to the coup; after all, they have to tell readers who she is. Those sources all describe her as ousted or under arrest, which does make the fact that she's no longer in office a WP:BLUESKY matter. This claim that she's somehow still wielding political power from a jail cell is preposterous and without any basis in the sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

No, they would have said "former". You can be a de jure or disputed leader while still being in jail. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a source that actually says "disputed" or "de jure". It can't be inferred. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rolf h nelson, the point is that there is no civilian government right now, it's a military dictatorship. All the elected leaders (I think, unless some defected to the military's side) are no longer in power. This is the BLUESKY here. Now, as for possibly Juan Guaidó-ing it up in some way (hopefully, that's self explanatory, see his article's infobox), that may be fine, and should be left to editorial content work, so long as there are sources that support whatever (expressly so and in context). That would also encompass adding to or modifying the FAQ to align with whatever the outcome is of such a discussion. But having, like, 7 edit requests in a day or two about how she is still the "State Counsellor" (no qualifications), that's a problem. One that, hopefully, having a FAQ will remedy. El_C 04:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that "State Counsellor" (no qualifications) is ruled out. However, the current FAQ text seems (to me, at least) to claim the term "former state counsellor" is the only allowable term under Wikipedia rules. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ merely reflects the present consensus, and can be changed if that consensus changes. It says at the top of the FAQ: This FAQ is only here to let people know that these points have previously been addressed, not to prevent any further discussion of these issues. If we decide, in a way that complies with WP:V, that she can be described as the disputed state counsellor or something else of the sort, then we'll change the FAQ. The FAQ is only intended to deter repeated edit requests from new editors. Also, reaching a consensus to Juan Guaidó this article will require a similarly-strong base of sources describing her status as disputed. WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies here. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

El_C Here's a third proposal from me: "Some of Wikipedia's sources describe Aung San Suu Kyi in passing as "former State Counsellor"[22]. Other sources describe her differently, but in the case of a difference, she cannot be described unambiguously as State Counsellor. Some editors have proposed describing her instead as "deposed leader", "ousted leader", "disputed leader", "de jure leader", or "elected leader"; these changes are currently under discussion. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please start by reading the past discussion and reviewing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Edit requests that appear not to have read the past discussion may be ignored." Rolf H Nelson (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, all the edit requests wanted to list her as the incumbent state counsellor in the infobox. "Former", "ousted", and "deposed" would all still lead to the current infobox configuration saying her term ended on 1 February. As for "elected", of course she was elected. That doesn't say anything about her current predicament. "Disputed" and "de jure" are the suggestions you're making that would actually change the infobox, and as I and El_C have repeatedly told you, you'll need to provide sources expressly containing those labels. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tartan357 No, one of the collapsed edits was literally 'I request that the following line be changed from "former state counsellor of Myanmar" to "deposed state counsellor of Myanmar"'. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources on current status

I'm starting a new section purely to discuss her current status as described in the sources, since the previous discussions have gotten a bit muddled with talk of the short description wording. @Rolf h nelson: Please make a clear case, with sources, for the current status of Aung San Suu Kyi (please pick one, such as "disputed State Counsellor" or de jure State Counsellor"). Offering multiple, as you've done above, is getting a bit confusing. State what you think her current status is, and as El_C put it, back up that claim with sources using said label expressly and in context. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: The status is disputed between different RS, so I believe that "disputed" would be a reasonable description for the infobox. Leaving the infobox as-is with her term ending Feb 1 (Jan 31?) would also be reasonable, as there's no easy way to shoehorn a dispute in to the structured data field. We both agree (I think) that sources exist characterizing her current status as "former state counsellor/former leader", "deposed state counsellor/deposed leader", or "ousted state counsellor/ousted leader", so I won't provide sources there. There's no specific source saying "State Counsellor (disputed)", because our sources aren't writing an encylopedia and each source is free to say what *the source* best thinks her status is. They don't have the problem we do, where we're trying to compromise between different characterizations. Do you still want the sources that imply she's still, in at least some capacity, State Counsellor? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Rolf h nelson, any label we use will need to be sourced. I don't agree that we can fabricate information because our sources aren't writing an encylopedia and each source is free to say what *the source* best thinks her status is. What you're proposing is WP:SYNTH. From that policy: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This is something we simply cannot do on Wikipedia. As El_C said, the label we use needs to be stated expressly and in context. Labeling Aung San Suu Kyi with a political status that is not expressly mentioned in reliable sources is a total non-starter for me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: OK, so those are our positions on the infobox. Like I said, I'm personally fine with leaving the infobox the way it is. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: My reply addresses more than just the infobox. I'm against stating or implying that Aung San Suu Kyi's status is disputed, in any way, without a source explicitly saying so. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: We can't *imply* that her status is disputed, unless we have a source *explicitly stating* her status is disputed? So that means we can't say Y, based on sources *explicitly stating* Y, because Y implies Z, and Z is not explictly stated by the sources? That makes no sense. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: I have no clue what you're talking about. What I'm saying is very straightforward: We can't say her status is disputed without sources to back that up. This is WP:V, a core content policy. You have stated you want to describe her as the disputed state counsellor. We cannot say that without sources to back that up. Period. I'm getting tired of going around in circles with you on that. Original research is not permitted on Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: In the context of the sources, should we talk here about how sources relate to the proposed change of the shortdesc from "former State Counsellor" to "deposed State Counsellor"? There are two reasons for the change, #1 is that I believe sources continue to call her the State Counsellor. Reason #2, is that "deposed State Counsellor" is more informative. If we just call her "politician" that would solve reason #1, which is my main concern. I can list the sources again if you think it would help. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: It would help me for you to list the sources again. I am not convinced that #1 is true; I'd like to see a more clear outline of the sources that supposedly say she is the current state counsellor before we dive further into that discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: The US called on 11 Feb for "the immediate release of political prisoners, including State Counselor Aung San Suu Kyi" ([23]). Other post-coup sources state "elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi"([24]), "de facto leader of the civilian government, Aung San Suu Kyi"([25]), "the country's elected leader who is in the custody of the coup leaders."[26], "elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi" (photo caption) ([27]). Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: None of these rises to contradicting the solid coverage of her having been removed in the coup. I understand that Wikipedia has recognized disputed offices in the past, such as with Juan Guaidó. However, there is an abundance of sources in that case that actually say Guaidó is in a dispute with Maduro over who holds the presidency; the dispute has been covered. A dispute has not been covered in this case. The simple description of her as "elected leader" or "state counsellor" are not enough to support the idea that there's a dispute going on. Please read WP:EXCEPTIONAL and try to think about what it's saying. It's been well-established (including by the sources you've provided) that she was removed in the coup. So, sources that supposedly contradict that claim need to pass a high level of scrutiny. An inference from the label "elected" in a photo caption doesn't come anywhere near to passing muster. The sourcing quality for her being a former state counsellor is orders of magnitude better than what you've presented. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:40, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: Since neither of us are saying anything new, should I open an RfC? Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Sure, if you believe that's necessary. I think the third opinion request will likely get rejected because El_C already gave their opinion. Can I pull the third opinion request? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: on second thought, I think a WP:BLPN discussion would be more appropriate for a complex sourcing dispute such as this. Can we take this there instead? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: I suggested a 3o because I wanted a third opinion on whether RS exist that characterize Aung San Suu Kyi as State Counsellor; feel free to pull it if you believe El_C has weighed in on it or if you just think it would no longer be helpful. Feel free to post to BPLN if you think that would helpful. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tartan357: To be clear, IMHO BLPN and/or any RfC should be over the shortdesc; I don't personally see any need to continue discussion on the infobox since it sounds like all the current editors can live with the current contents of the infobox. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: Just go ahead and change the shortdesc. I'm fine with that as long as it's not being taken as a reason to change the infobox or otherwise state that Aung San Suu Kyi is still in office. I disagree that sources say she's still State Counsellor, but "deposed" still communicates "former" with some additional detail, so I'm fine with that as long as it's the only change. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I just BRD'd it, so the shortdesc will read "Burmese politician, deposed state counsellor of Myanmar" if nobody else objects. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I think the FAQ should stay as-is. Its use of "former" is more referring to the infobox saying her term ended on 1 February than the short description. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2021

She is the State Counselor 160.3.254.90 (talk) 10:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: See the FAQ. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 14:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Preceding office

@JLo-Watson: The position of State Counsellor was the head of government. Immediately preceding the position's creation, the president was the head of government. There's a five year gap in between the prime minister and the state counsellor being the heads of government, in which the president was the head of government. So, stating the prime minister was the preceding head of government is inaccurate, as it skips over the five-year period when that was the president. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Some of the English syntax needs editing and I don't have permission

eg bad syntax " in May and discussed to have good diplomatic relationships " and this paragraph needs to be simplified... she just had several different meetings. Other issues. I am not permissioned to make any edits.... a bit surprising, but no skin off my nose. TGcoa (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC) ...in fact, I would delete entirely the above paragraph... no longer interesting today. Just part of her normal work at the time. Other things that can be deleted too along with syntax corrections.TGcoa (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

She we include that she is now the State Counsellor of the National Unity Government?

I propose that we include that Aung San Suu Kyi is the the State Counsellor of the National Unity Government as of 16 April 2021, to her infobox page. BigRed606 (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: Reliable sources have covered the existence of the National Unity Government and some of its leaders who are in hiding, such as Mahn Win Khaing Than, but this recognition in the preponderance of sources describing the NUG does not appear to extend to Aung San Suu Kyi and Win Myint, probably because they're under arrest. We should not say Aung San Suu Kyi is leading the NUG unless there is a solid base of reliable sources to back that up. As far as I can tell, most RS have described Mahn Win Khaing Than as the leader of the NUG. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 03:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2021

I would like to request the the change where it is being mentioned as Succeeded by Min Aung Hlaing , to as being Abolished . Hopefully . 79.67.176.176 (talk) 10:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Infobox predecessor

Not entirely familiar with Myanmar's constitutional changes during the 21st century, but it would appear that the Suu Kyi's predecessor (as state councillor) should appear as [[Thein Sein]] {{small|([[[[Prime Minister of Myanmar|Prime Minister]])}}, as Sein's infobox designates Suu Kyi as his successor, and just as Min Aung Hlaing's infobox lists the same. Even Suu Kyi's successor (again, as state councillor) is styled this way. Just looking at uniformity. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

PerpetuityGrat, see my explanation at #Preceding office. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense to me. Thanks! --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2021

On 30 June 2021, her plea to disqualify prosecution evidence on a sedition charge was disqualified . Nafisaali1992 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done: added but using a different source. Alduin2000 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 23:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi being referred to as "Suu Kyi"

Change all instances of "Suu Kyi" to "Aung San Suu Kyi". Shortening Burmese names is not allowed according to naming conventions on Wikipedia.

Instances of Aung San Suu Kyi being referred to as "Suu Kyi" are present throughout most of the article, but are especially noticeable in the 2021 arrest and trial section.

Felz1 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

But they did make it clear, they said to change all mentions of "Suu Kyi" to the full name Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have done the changes Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 December 2021

Second to last sentence before the first section:

-The United Nations, most European countries, and the United States condemned the arrests, trails and sentences as politically motivated.
+The United Nations, most European countries, and the United States condemned the arrests, trials, and sentences as politically motivated.

Requesting correction of "trails" to "trials" and addition of Oxford comma. ──post by AbyxDev ( Talk | Contribs ) 22:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2022

Change Edgardo Boeninger link to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Boeninger as the English page now exists 24.44.73.34 (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done--RegentsPark (comment) 20:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 March 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tsutton1. Peer reviewers: Asia.ngresham, Bnevis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Please could you remove the line next to source 151 which reads "Some of the money she received as part of the award helps fund London-based charity Prospect Burma, which provides higher education grants to Burmese students" as this is not true. Source 151, Prospect Burma's website, confirms what that charity does but there is no evidence to support the statement that ASSK's money supports their work - which I am aware is not the case. Do check with information@prospectburma.org if you need to. Thank you so much for your help. Inferena (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Aung San Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. She appeals below for others to join her in supporting Prospect Burma. This appears to support that. There's also Aung San Suu Kyi became a vocal supporter of our work, and her health and education trust partly funds our scholarships programme. visible here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting the errant link at the foot of https://prospectburma.org/popup/pb-faq/ This has been amended to read "her health and education trust partly funded some of our early scholarships". While there is no direct accounting link from the Nobel prize money through the trust to Prospect Burma, the trust did provide some past funding so it is probably easiest to resolve by just changing the line next to source 151 to past tense and reversing the sentence, thus it would read "Some of the money she received as part of the award helped fund higher education grants to Burmese students through the London-based charity Prospect Burma." COI declaration, I am a paid employee of Prospect Burma.Inferena (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the request template to the template used for WP:COI edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 07:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)