![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An anonymous editor 70.234.227.152 has just deleted recently added material from this article relating to the history of the Burma Rifles from 1917 to 1938. This was done with the comment "removed a great deal of both unsourced and incorrect information". This material was in fact drawn from detailed coverage of the regiment contained in John Gaylor's authoritative history of the Indian and Pakistan Armies from 1903 to 1991 "Sons of John Company". The source reference to this book was deleted by the anonymous editor with the comment "nothing to do with the Burma Rifles". I do not want to get into an edit war over a non-contentious subject like this but I will restore the deleted material unless a reasonable argument is made for leaving it out. Buistr 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A running list of errors:
"An existing gendarmerie unit, the Burma Military Police, was converted to become the 85th Burman Rifles in July 1917."
"Burmese of all racial groups were recruited for these units."
"and both battalions served in the Middle East in 1918-20"
"Two more battalions were raised during 1918, one of which saw service in suppressing the Moplah Rebellion"
"70th Burma Rifles and the 85th Burman Rifles were merged to form the 20th Burma Rifles."
"A new battalion, the 11th (territorial) battalion was also formed in 1922."
"The Burman element in the regiment was mustered out after 1927."
"in 1940 Burmese were again recruited."
"The intention was for officers to be drawn from the British Army. However the majority of the British officers already serving with the regiment chose to remain with their units on secondment from the British Indian Army."
"The remaining highly weakened battalions were disbanded although many of the non-Burmese nationals (Indians and Gurkhas) from them went to form battalions of the Burma Regiment created in September 1942."
"A full dress uniform in the same colours is described in W. Y. Carman's "Indian Army Uniforms" but appears to have been worn on only a few occasions."
"As a result, for the 1943 Chindit operation, the battalion was expanded and broken down into platoons to provide reconnaissance sections for the Chindit columns[2]. In 1944, the battalion was broken down into sections among the Chindit force."
"the regimental badge was a Burmese peacock over a title-scroll in white metal"
70.234.221.75
17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"This regiment should not be confused with an earlier regiment with a similar name, 10th Regiment (1st Burma Rifles) Madras Infantry, which was not a precursor regiment of the Burma Rifles"
If this article is on the Burma Rifles, it should include the all the incarnations of units that used that title. And to say that there was no link is incorrect. After the reorganization of the Indian Army, the old Madras battalions were given regimental numbers in the Indian Army equal to 60 plus their old number under the Madras Army. 60+10 = 70. They were made rifles specifically because of the association to the old 10th Madras and their predecessors in the use of the name. The Indian Army created around seven Burma Battalions but only one Burma Rifles.
I mean what exactly is the logic of removing a section that described the situation and replacing it with sentances that try to claim that the Burma Rifles are not the Burma Rifles? 70.234.221.75 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to see this part of the quotation removed. While he did say it, I dont think its an accurate reflection of events during operations in Burma in 1943. Wingate said similar disparaging things about Gurkhas, Indians and British Soldiers that should equally be forgotten. The tone of the statement is that Burmese are suitable to fetch and carry but not to fight.
"He is not at all ideal in defence. He is not ideal if ordered to attack a strongly held position. But in carrying out rapid, bold and intelligent patrols in the face of the enemy, in obtaining local information, in making propaganda, in handling boats, in living off the country, and in loyal service to his officers he is without equal. This therefore is the use to which he should invariably be put. There appeared to be little difference between Karens, Kachins and Chins in general excellence, except in areas inhabited by their respective tribes."
70.234.221.75 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a great deal of misinforation about the "battle honors" of the 2nd bn, Burma Rifles.
- They were not in Egypt in 1917. They were not in the middle east during the first world war.
- They were not in India during the Moplah rebellion and the Moplah rebellion did not occur in 1923
- While they were involved in the Burma Rebellion of the 1930s, there were no particular battle honors given to the unit with regard to their participation.
These claims can be found in published sources, but they are not correct.
66.226.193.82 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editor 171529401 immediately deleted a one sentence addition that I made to the "Uniforms and Insignia" section of this article with the comment "vandalism". As the deleted entry comprised (i) a more specific reference for an earlier entry I had made myself and (ii) confirmation (which I have just come across) that W.Y Carman has sourced his description of the Burmese Rifles full dress to that worn by the Coronation Contingent in 1937, I fail to see how an innocuous piece of extra detail constitutes vandalism. Please reverse this revert or I will do so myself. Buistr 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at 129.130.202.43's edits at Special:Contributions/129.130.202.43, they are all reversions of claimed vandalism but looking through them they all look totally random and therefore are vandalism themselves. I'm reverting the edit. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of inaccurate information sourced to Steve Rothwell's website. These citations should be removed and/or be replaced with real sources. 66.226.193.82 ( talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
An anonymous editor 70.234.227.152 has just deleted recently added material from this article relating to the history of the Burma Rifles from 1917 to 1938. This was done with the comment "removed a great deal of both unsourced and incorrect information". This material was in fact drawn from detailed coverage of the regiment contained in John Gaylor's authoritative history of the Indian and Pakistan Armies from 1903 to 1991 "Sons of John Company". The source reference to this book was deleted by the anonymous editor with the comment "nothing to do with the Burma Rifles". I do not want to get into an edit war over a non-contentious subject like this but I will restore the deleted material unless a reasonable argument is made for leaving it out. Buistr 06:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
A running list of errors:
"An existing gendarmerie unit, the Burma Military Police, was converted to become the 85th Burman Rifles in July 1917."
"Burmese of all racial groups were recruited for these units."
"and both battalions served in the Middle East in 1918-20"
"Two more battalions were raised during 1918, one of which saw service in suppressing the Moplah Rebellion"
"70th Burma Rifles and the 85th Burman Rifles were merged to form the 20th Burma Rifles."
"A new battalion, the 11th (territorial) battalion was also formed in 1922."
"The Burman element in the regiment was mustered out after 1927."
"in 1940 Burmese were again recruited."
"The intention was for officers to be drawn from the British Army. However the majority of the British officers already serving with the regiment chose to remain with their units on secondment from the British Indian Army."
"The remaining highly weakened battalions were disbanded although many of the non-Burmese nationals (Indians and Gurkhas) from them went to form battalions of the Burma Regiment created in September 1942."
"A full dress uniform in the same colours is described in W. Y. Carman's "Indian Army Uniforms" but appears to have been worn on only a few occasions."
"As a result, for the 1943 Chindit operation, the battalion was expanded and broken down into platoons to provide reconnaissance sections for the Chindit columns[2]. In 1944, the battalion was broken down into sections among the Chindit force."
"the regimental badge was a Burmese peacock over a title-scroll in white metal"
70.234.221.75
17:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
"This regiment should not be confused with an earlier regiment with a similar name, 10th Regiment (1st Burma Rifles) Madras Infantry, which was not a precursor regiment of the Burma Rifles"
If this article is on the Burma Rifles, it should include the all the incarnations of units that used that title. And to say that there was no link is incorrect. After the reorganization of the Indian Army, the old Madras battalions were given regimental numbers in the Indian Army equal to 60 plus their old number under the Madras Army. 60+10 = 70. They were made rifles specifically because of the association to the old 10th Madras and their predecessors in the use of the name. The Indian Army created around seven Burma Battalions but only one Burma Rifles.
I mean what exactly is the logic of removing a section that described the situation and replacing it with sentances that try to claim that the Burma Rifles are not the Burma Rifles? 70.234.221.75 18:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd really like to see this part of the quotation removed. While he did say it, I dont think its an accurate reflection of events during operations in Burma in 1943. Wingate said similar disparaging things about Gurkhas, Indians and British Soldiers that should equally be forgotten. The tone of the statement is that Burmese are suitable to fetch and carry but not to fight.
"He is not at all ideal in defence. He is not ideal if ordered to attack a strongly held position. But in carrying out rapid, bold and intelligent patrols in the face of the enemy, in obtaining local information, in making propaganda, in handling boats, in living off the country, and in loyal service to his officers he is without equal. This therefore is the use to which he should invariably be put. There appeared to be little difference between Karens, Kachins and Chins in general excellence, except in areas inhabited by their respective tribes."
70.234.221.75 19:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a great deal of misinforation about the "battle honors" of the 2nd bn, Burma Rifles.
- They were not in Egypt in 1917. They were not in the middle east during the first world war.
- They were not in India during the Moplah rebellion and the Moplah rebellion did not occur in 1923
- While they were involved in the Burma Rebellion of the 1930s, there were no particular battle honors given to the unit with regard to their participation.
These claims can be found in published sources, but they are not correct.
66.226.193.82 21:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Anonymous editor 171529401 immediately deleted a one sentence addition that I made to the "Uniforms and Insignia" section of this article with the comment "vandalism". As the deleted entry comprised (i) a more specific reference for an earlier entry I had made myself and (ii) confirmation (which I have just come across) that W.Y Carman has sourced his description of the Burmese Rifles full dress to that worn by the Coronation Contingent in 1937, I fail to see how an innocuous piece of extra detail constitutes vandalism. Please reverse this revert or I will do so myself. Buistr 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at 129.130.202.43's edits at Special:Contributions/129.130.202.43, they are all reversions of claimed vandalism but looking through them they all look totally random and therefore are vandalism themselves. I'm reverting the edit. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 18:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is full of inaccurate information sourced to Steve Rothwell's website. These citations should be removed and/or be replaced with real sources. 66.226.193.82 ( talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)