Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aung San Suu Kyi article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 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)[reply]

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

Daw

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]