Talk:Aung San Suu Kyi

Please mention her honorary doctorate degrees

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

Aung San Suu Kyi#Organizations already says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I share your concern for the violence in Arakan State, but if her non-comment on this issue is of vital importance to it, other media will write articles on it soon enough. I'd argue that our job here, though, is to neutrally summarize the twenty years of coverage of ASSK regardless of our own concerns; a single paragraph from an op-ed by a nonnotable economic prof is just a blip among those hundreds of thousands of news articles (25,000 in the last month alone! [1] ), and to include it would likely be undue weight. Khazar2 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 14 October 2012

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

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

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

"democracy activist"

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

I'd support some mention of her being a democracy activist. I agree with you that it seems like a no-brainer; searching the two terms together gets 100,000+ Google results [2]. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

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

u2 song dedication

I feel like the article deserves a mention that the U2 song "walk on" is dedicated and written for her.