Talk:Aung San/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

For example: [1], [2], [3]

On this page it says a rival assasininated him. On another page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ne_Win it says it was the British. Who was it???

I'm pretty sure this is the more correct version. Ambi 23:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

bonfire: U Saw was found guilty of assasination. But the truth was mystry. According to the book, Aung San(I cant recall the exact title), U Saw was shot by a paramilitary who was donning uniform under General Aung San's command. He was wounded serverly and hospitalized for several months. Since then, U Saw targeted General Aung San. According to the author of the book, the paramilitary who shot U Saw was not affiliated with General Aung San's forces. The shooter also did not intend to kill U Saw; they (the shooter and people behind it) let U Saw harte General Aung San. Author concluded that Ne Win was the most responsible person behind the whole thing. I know that it is impossible to accuse someone without concrete evidence. I, myself, was not born during that time. That will be great if someone who know far more better than me could post here, but it is almost impossible because people who involved in the investigation are mostly dead.

  • Your account is correct in part. What is known for sure is that there was an attempt to kill U Saw and that he blamed Aung San. The Shooter of U Saw has never been identified. An initial British report of the assassination claimed that those who carried it out were wearing the uniforms of the 4th Burma Rifles (Ne Win's Battalion). But after that first report, mysteriously nothing is ever said about that accusation again. That is all that can be known for sure. Many people may have wanted Aung San dead including Ne Win, the British and other political rivals. Its also possible that a group within the British authorities rather than the official government was responsible. Unless there is unrealeased material in the British Records, its unlikely that the truth will ever be known. The only thing that is known for sure is that after 1947, anyone who became a serious rival to Ne Win either ended up dead, driven from office, became a rebel or was driven into exile. The only exception (until 1962) being U Nu

According to a cable from Rance (Governor of Burma) to Pethwick Lawrence (the S of S for Burma in London) on the evening of the day the attack occurred, U Saw was shot at by men wearing the uniform of the PVO, Aung San's people (Pyithu Yebaw Tathpwe). I've revised the article on U Saw to summarise the account from Kin Oung's book, which remains the best - Kin Oung's investigation is thorough, and his standard of proof for any incident is two independent accounts. PiCo 12:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have heard that U Myat Hlaing, who is the editor of Shumawa Magazine and, Yangon U Ba Swe tried yo hurt U Saw, but unluckily, U Saw lately know this when he was in the prison waiting a hang. That is written in the diary of U Saw, which was handed to his daughter, Daw Babysaw. For Daw Babysaw gave it to Daw Aung San Su Kyi, for washing her father's guilty.

I got confirmation from a relative, who was a young lieutenant in the Burma Army and assigned for security in the city at the time of Aung San's assassination, that it was Yangon Ba Swe of the Socialist Party (nothing to do with Aung San) who shot U Saw and that it wasn't a warning but an assassination attempt on U Saw. By all accounts, whatever else he was, U Saw was a brave man who seemed to have followed the old Burmese motto That yè yin, thei yè ya me (If you dare kill someone, you must not flinch when killed); he refused to have a hood over his face when he was hanged for his crime according to an eyewitness, a prison warden I knew who attended the execution. My relative's unit was, not surprisingly, stoned by the public when they went on patrol in town after the news of Aung San's death broke. Wagaung 22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gen.AungSan

when you look at the bigger picture, you can clearly see that the Brit wanted to take care of AungSan. The Brit had a beef with him. I mean, first of all, he was one of the founding father of independent movement and he made a bold move by bring Jap into Burma. Yo...British hates that kind of thing. plus, the dude was only 32 when he die....You know what i saying here... AungSan was a smart ass and still young ....had potential..and he wrote several paper about how the west was dominating the world and of color people ......you know ....matter of fact, AungSan hates WhitePeople....well, British Killed him.. U Saw was a puppet of UK. he was in British Jail during ww2. he cut a deal ....because 2 weeks before Aungsan death, some burmese army officers reported that some guns from arm depot were missing....( at that time, Brits and BUmrese armys were joint guarding most of the main posts in Yangon. but English officers were in charge) and those guns numbers and U Saw group' guns .....there are crystal clear proof. u do the math. Whitemen kill another color brother...just because he knew what the European were doing and he had an ability to fight back politically, diplomatically and in civilize ways ... YES>>>> BRITS KILL Gen. Aung San. not U Saw. ask me more about Burma, i know about that country more that burmese.

Chinese name

Why did he have a Chinese name? Andwhat did his various names mean in Burmese? 86.166.125.182 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but where is the Chinese name?--Huaiwei (talk) 06:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
He might have used the same characters in his Chinese name as his Japanese name. Also, he was trying to find refuge in China when he fled India.Ferox Seneca (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Aung San used a fake Chinese name when he boarded a ship to China in 1940 in order to evade arrest.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

British officers involved in the assassination

The U Saw article says that low-ranking officers were involved and describes how one officer provided arms. This article refers to middle-ranking officers being "involved" in the plot - which implies more than just providing guns. -- Beardo (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The low-ranking officers (majors and captains) were selling guns - not just to U Saw, who carried out the assassination, but to everyone. Their motive was probably greed. John Bingley, the British Council representative in Rangoon, was another matter. It's not clear just what he was doing, but he was clearly involved. I'm afraid that nobody really knows anything, and the rest is just speculation. Read Kin Oung's book "Who Killed Ang San?"PiCo (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Links for Aung San's Founding of the Communist Party of Burma (1939)

Google Books link:

The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of Burma:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tMBtwdQ9ZUsC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Aung+San+founder+of+communist+party&source=bl&ots=fHE9UUIIaM&sig=OzSfWyDHDSB9QLcPun3kDI_BXDs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=k8zpUajOE-7k4AOemICYBw&ved=0CHQQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Aung%20San%20founder%20of%20communist%20party&f=false

Cornell University Press link:

The Rise and Fall of the Communist Party of Burma

http://seap.einaudi.cornell.edu/node/8445 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.131.126 (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

@The Buddhism City of Myanmar: Please stop adding uncited and questionable information. You have been reverted by multiple editors and continue to spam the same information. Please discuss challenged additions on the talk page. Ogress smash! 05:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aung San. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

D/M/Y vs. M/D/Y Dates

Soapboxing by a blocked user. This discussion has been closed; do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please stop changing the dates to D/M/Y. Wikipedia's policy is that whatever dating system was used first should be the dating system that is used. If you look at the history of this article, you will find that it was originally M/D/Y.Ferox Seneca (talk) 09:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop talking nonsense. And stop with your POV pushing. Your secularism and multicultrualism didn't exist during Aung San times. MOS:DATETIES CLEARLY states: Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the date format most commonly used in that nation. Your edits and missionary views are obnoxious.73.170.255.4 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Your comment reminds me that there has been a lot of deletion and modification of sourced information in this article since I last edited it, probably without attempting to check the sources that this information is sourced from. If you believe that alternative interpretations exist, please find that research and cite it as an alternative perspective. Please stop deleting and modifying sourced information without regard to what is in the original sources.
Regarding multiculturalism, Aung San made it very clear in his writing and public speeches that he intended Burma to be multi-ethnic after its independence, not a Bamar-dominated mono-ethnic state. If you believe that some research exists that refutes this, please find that research and cite it in the article rather than deleting sourced information here that conflicts with your opinions.Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The changes you made were massive. The sources you used are not authoritative. For example, The Political Leaders Whose Names Will Live Forever. What the heck is this? You picked up from a random bookstand? Please use scholarly and authorative sources. While I don't want to accuse you of anything like the IP did, your edits emphasize too much on conspiracies and not on facts. Please note that this article is not your own (WP:OWNERSHIP). Stress theorist (talk) 20:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Almost all of your edits are sourced to a book called The Political Leaders Whose Names Will Live Forever. Nobody ever knows that book or its author exists. Some sort of self-published book without any editorial oversight. Stress theorist (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with your recent deletion and alteration of sourced information, and I will do a manual revision to reverse it. I'm sure that your motivations are good, but I think you misunderstand my contributions to the article or my understanding of the sources cited. I don't claim to "own" the article, but I am the one who has actually read all of the sources cited in the article and wrote most of the extant article based on what those sources actually say. You might think that the previous IP editor's version was the "original" version, but this is not true: the version that I wrote is the version that actually reflects the facts and perspectives of the sources that are cited in the article, and what you're doing is modifying sourced information that contradicts the sources cited in the article. If you are confused about my contributions to the article, please check the article's history. If you are confused about Wikipedia's policy that information in its articles should actually reflect the articles cited in it, please see WP:CS.
Regarding Nay, I cited this source in a few minor places to fill in information that I couldn't find in any other source when that information does not contradict any other sources: since this is the best source I could find for those sections, this is consistent with Wikipedia's policy. When more authoritative sources mention something that Nay also says, I used those sources instead.
Regarding your request to discuss every "change" you want to make in the article, I'm willing to discuss anything, but it's important that the article actually reflects the sources it cites, and the original version is what the sources actually say (I know since I read them all). If you read any of those sources and disagree with what the article says they say, if you do not have access to the sources and want me to quote parts of the original sources to justify my interpretation, or if you have alternative sources that you want to add that you think contradict the facts or perspectives of the sources cited, please let me know.
I'm willing to discuss the article in the ways discussed above, but I will request that we take this to mediation if we can't agree to respect the sources cited in the article in this way. I don't have the intention of carrying out a long-term edit war.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Your edits have no consensus. Multiple users have reverted yours over time. Please do not try to "force it through" without consensus. Stress theorist (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Undue Weight" Tag

Soapboxing by a blocked user and their socks. This discussion has been closed; do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Someone put an "undue weight" tag on the "assassination" section. I assume that this was done because the section discusses possible actors in Aung San's assassination besides U Saw.

U Saw was convicted with circumstantial evidence, Aung San's assassins were never caught, and from the time of Aung San's assassination until the present day many politicians, military figures, and reliable news organizations have openly discussed theories that there were other actors, the most commonly cited of which have been some faction in the British army or Ne Win. It hasn't been entirely possible to investigate these theories, since any investigators in Burma doing so after 1947 were themselves assassinated, and since the Tatmadaw closed the country and enforced strict censorship, but it is very normal for English-language historians writing about Aung San's assassination to include information about the controversy surrounding the event rather than presenting it as a simple set of factual information. All information in the section is taken from reliable sources, and is a reflection of the sources cited. I don't see any attempts from other editors to provide alternative opinions. Where is there undue weight?Ferox Seneca (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please please please. Ne Win assisnated Aung San? What is going on here? You are promoting fringe theories that are totally discarded by mainstream scholarship. Pick up any history of Burma book. You won't find your theory. Stress theorist (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It's not your job "to investigate" any "theory". As WP:NPOV states, editors need to present all significant viewpoints. You can't present a random fringe conspiracy theory and say it hasn't been disproven. See WP:FRINGE. Stress theorist (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that you are mistaken about what "scholars" say about the assassination. The most commonly cited interpretation of Aung San's assassination is not the interpretation of "scholars", it is the official interpretation of the Burmese government and the old colonial government. The scholars cited in that section (which are all authors of books or articles on Burmese history) discuss that official version, but then also discuss how many politicians, generals, news organizations, and members of Aung San's family have said or implied that they have different interpretations. The scholars cited in that section are not "random fringe" authors, and the primary sources they cite are generally people who either knew Aung San or were very close to other actors in his assassination. Citing these sources makes the article reflect the actual scholarship on the assassination and is not a reflection of any "conspiracy theory".
All of this information is sourced to reliable sources. Please check the sources cited in that section to see what the actual scholarship on Aung San's assassination is. I'm willing to go through a formal mediation process to have the article reflect the sources it cites. If you keep deleting and modifying reliably sourced information without inspecting or referencing what those sources actually say, you are just edit warring. If this is the case, please stop.Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I referred the two disputes on this talk page to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Aung San. Please comment and give your side of the dispute on that page so that we can come to a mediated agreement on how to edit the article more constructively.Ferox Seneca (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Aung San knew thousands in his life. You cited a gossip by Kyaw Zaw on the Irrawaddy (an exile anti-government outlet) as evidence of U Nu involvement. Thousands of "close associates" have said 10GB of statements about Aung San. It's the job of historians to figure out which to choose. Not yours. You can't handpick those to support the conspiracy theories. Stress theorist (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
As you know, Gen. Aung San became a national hero. After his death, politicians in Myanmar smeared one another saying "He killed Aung San." U Nu would allege Ne Win, who seized power in a coup, killed Aung San. Communists would say both Nu and Ne Win did it. And so on. Serious historians would not entertain those gossips and smears. Stress theorist (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Nay confirmed doesn't exist. Searched through all published books in Myanmar. JordanKSM (talk) 12:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

State-backed influence operation

Soapboxing by a blocked user. This discussion has been closed; do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What I suspect is a state-backed influence operation going on here. Stress theorist (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

  1. The author has access to wide-ranging sources in Burmese and English but uses them in a duplicitous manner. For example, anti-Japan statements are "invented" out of the blue without support from the sources. Often, they are cherrypicked. In Robert Taylor's Ne Win page 32, Taylor says generally the Japanese treated the Thirty Comrades the same as Japanese officers undergoing training. Taylor has pages that are generally favorable toward how the thirty comrades were treated in Japan. But those were dismissed. There is one sentence that says some of the comrades grew suspicious because the invasion had been postponed again and again. The sentence was used to support this: Thirty Comrades did not know that they would be invading Burma as an auxiliary force behind the Japanese Army, and had been led to believe that they would be operating alone to organize a guerrilla insurgency against the British. When they eventually learned how the Japanese were planning to use them, in late 1941, they felt betrayed and misled, but felt they had no choice but to continue working with the Japanese.
  2. If there are preexisting statements that seem favorable toward the Japanese, they get usually drowned in massive paragraphs filled with trivia. Sources are used deliberately to paint this. Journalists such as Lintner and Aung Zaw are used extensively. Irrelevant quotes from British officers have also been used.
  3. Many statements are clearly pro-CPB (which was backed by the CCP) and anti-Ne Win (who defended CPB's attempt to take over the country). Anti-Ne Win statements repeat an age-old accusation by the communists that Ne Win killed Aung San. Several paragraphs were devoted to this.
  4. The author looks like he knows Burmese, given obscure books are cited and translated here. However, other factors point out that it's due to access to multiple translators. It highlights an operation to translate Burmese language books wholesale to understand well about local culture and thinking. Guess who would have access to all those?
  5. Years ago, there was another similar state-backed influence operation. Please see Talk:Myitsone Dam. However, it was more honest and failed. Stress theorist (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This article seems to have excessive interest from Chinese editors, mainly adding communism-related stuff. JordanKSM (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
@JordanKSM: I'm pretty sure the only editor of this article in the past decade who has publicly stated (or implied) they are of Chinese descent is myself, but I'm not a Chinese citizen, and even if I was a Chinese state-sponsored editor (which you apparently think I am), most of this article was written by other editors way prior to before I even made my first edit here. If you check the article statistics, I don't even break the top ten in added content.
The presence of Aung San's work and study of communism has been in this article for many years; my edits were not a new addition but a revert of a removal which I did not believe was justified. If you think the inclusion of that content is problematic, please give a policy-based reason as to why it should be removed. Do not simply label others and revert their edits.
I've worked with senior editors in WikiProject Myanmar for nearly eight years now and have never encountered such a rash accusation before. Please remember to stay respectful and assume good faith; it is the policy of Wikipedia and, in my opinion, should be the common practice of one's life. Yue🌙 19:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The source doesn't exist. It's not my job to prove a nonexistent source that makes wild claims exists. It's your job to back yourself up with a link perhaps? The repeatation of wild claims proves that you are probably a family sock of the "retired" state-backed editor. Many CCP accounts try to obscure themselves with years of fake edits. It's pointless to bring in "statistics." You have gone way too far from where a typical Wikipedia editor would go.
Aung San has no "work" on communism. He was a popular leader who was wanted by everyone else. His involvements with Dobama Asiayone and Thakins were far more important than his few meetings with the BCP, which he did not like, and from which he resigned in short order. We didn't even have any Dobama Asiayone or Thakins in the top. Putting BCP is undue at this point. JordanKSM (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Nay doesn't exist

Soapboxing by a blocked user. This discussion has been closed; do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am coming here because I got a notification email from JordanKSM's ping. Actually, Nay doesn't exist. It's established at [[4]]. The source cannot be found on World Catalogue or anywhere online or offline. I have quoted the resolution admin in verbatim;

I've searched online and I cannot find any evidence this source exists- not even a Worldcat entry. This does seem to indicate it is not Reliable. And if its not a WP:RS this discussion is unnecessary because any information supported only by this source cannot be included. Once you have notified the involved editors and provided publication information- I will be happy to mediate this discussion. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Stress theorist (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So many Chinese accounts

Soapboxing by a blocked user. This discussion has been closed; do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Just imagine the chance that the Wikipedia article of Aung San, a national hero in Myanmar, is heavily edited by so many Chinese users. Of course, just pure chance! Stress theorist (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Chinese are planting rumors here. There will be real-life consequences and responses to this. Stress theorist (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
@Stress theorist: A reminder that touting conspiracy theories goes against the Wikipedian principle of assuming good faith and is a blockable offense. It's the reason why SSH remoteserver and JordanKSM, two users who have made very similar accusations as you have, were blocked. Stick to policy-based reasoning with evidence; this is Wikipedia, not a social media battleground. I don't know how anyone can convince you that there is no secret Chinese government operation on the English Wikipedia, especially since you sound as deep into the conspiracy as the other two blocked users. Seeing a Chinese-sounding username and immediately assuming conspiracy is ridiculous, and you're wasting your time and energy by parroting accusations that nobody but the (likely) accused have addressed. Yue🌙 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Your Ugly Chinaman syndrome shows up every time. How many times did you revert my edits to nonexsistent "Nay" using many several pretexts? How many times did you try so hard to retain the conspiracies in this article? I won't argue with you here. You have been told many times that the source doesn't exist. And you keep reverting! If the conspiracies you inserted went viral on Burmese internet and anti-Chinese riots occur, I would be laughing! Stress theorist (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
And yes, typical touting principles with rotten-to-the-core ugliness. There's nothing worse on Wikipedia than using fake sources to insert conspiracies which may be state-backed. Stress theorist (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
And yes, it's stating the obvious. India has 1.4 English-speaking billion population with whom we share a colonial history. China has 1.4 billion non-English speaking population with whom we share nothing. Here on Wikipedia, so many Chinse accounts have popped up to massively alter several Burmese articles to suit their taste. In addition, Wikipedia is blocked in China! Stress theorist (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I actually did not notice this racist comment from you until now. Glad you got blocked, but disappointed that it took you calling an administrator a "Damn whitey" for it to happen, especially since you had been using racial slurs (against many different ethnic groups and races) across several socks for three years and feigning ignorance, which some how worked. Yue🌙 23:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aung_San/Archive_1&oldid=1140001033"