Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] 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"

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Our National Democracy Leader

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Ghandi citation?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)