This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Malayan Emergency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The first sentence includes "between pro-independence fighters of the Malayan National Liberation Army" "against the armed forces of the British Empire and Commonwealth". Firstly, encyclopaedic articles on wars typically start with when/where/whom before discussing the objectives of each side. It could be disputable, for example, whether the MNLA was motivated primarily by independence or establishing a communist state. Secondly, is it grammatically correct to have 'between' and 'against' both in the sentence?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehigh ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The main picture, which also shows whenever this article link is hovered over on anther article, is of a British marine holding up two decapitated heads. Whilst this is clearly relevant to the Malayan Emergency, and may be right to be included in the article - it does seem unnecessarily gruesome for it to be shown so prominently with absolutely no warning. These articles should not shy away from the brutal truth of war, but I think by moving this picture a little further into the article, maybe against a specific topic on the head hunters, we would make the article less off-putting and therefore generally increase its readership and be able to widen public knowledge on this important conflict more? 81.96.209.242 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Never seen or heard of that picture till just now, and frankly it does not appear genuine. The supposedly severed heads look cut-and-pasted on and the faces seem to have been photographed in a different light from the soldier supposedly holding them. The fact that the picture originated in the Daily Worker is not a good sign. But then it's generally a poor article. It doesn't appear to make clear that the CTs (Communist Terrorists, as the British characterised Chin Peng's guerrillas) were ethnic Chinese, drawn from less than a quarter of the population, and that the ethnic Malays hated them, hence in large part the success of Britain's counter-insurgency operation, because Malays would give information on the whereabouts and doings of the hated CTs -- a factor the Americans overlooked when they used the British success in Malaya as the model for their doomed campaign in South Vietnam, where no such ethnic factor applied. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
References
A paragraph in the section on differences between the Malayan Emergency and Vietnam War which focusses on infantry training is the subject of a low-level edit war. I shall withdraw from this, because (as has been pointed out to me) the source is iteself insufficiently sourced; no publisher, author etc. However, I will try to develop it with more research.
User:The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) pointed out in an edit summary "...Also America also had conscription and also trained in jungle warfare. This claim that Britain focused on 'low-intensity' also contradicts the paragraph on Britain using saturation bombing."
I must take issue with some of these assertions. Firstly, the British forces in the Far East soon stopped relying on saturation bombing and other large scale, clumsy methods (sweeps of the jungle by large formations etc.) However, as a difference between Malaya and Vietnam, it may simply reflect that the Malayan Emergency was far less dangerous for the infantry. In Malaya, the British faced only small numbers of guerrillas; in Vietnam, the US faced both guerrillas and comparatively heavily equipped regulars (both VC and North Vietnamese), so could not focus on "low-intensity" conflict.
That's not to say that the British were necessarily more effective. In the example in the "Conduct of Operations" section, American author Robert Taber pointed out that several months' operations by a whole battalion, with the expenditure of more mortar bombs and artillery shells than exist in the arsenals of some South American nations, were required to eliminate a mere 35 guerrillas.
There may also be a reflection of British and US contemporary societies. Britain in the 1950s had no race riots, growing drug problems, inner-city tensions etc.
I will try and research these important differences, with better sources. HLGallon ( talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Section started by sockpuppet
Cambial —
foliar❧
14:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
( Personal attack removed) user Why is User:The History Wizard of Cambridge removing sourced information in large amounts that he doesn't believe is important as well as acting like he believes he owns the article and has final say on it? WP:OWN? {{ help me}} 109.157.92.138 ( talk)
|
There is one citation for this alternate name for the Malayan Emergency. Is this a valid label for the conflict? Can it be verified that the Malay population or other parties referred to the emergency in such a way? 82.25.47.192 ( talk) 15:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
"Newsinger is a member of the Socialist Workers Party,[3] speaking at their Marxism Festival in 2014[4] and participated in meetings for the Socialist Alliance.[5]" So of course his rewrite of history is scattered through the article to explain how the communists massacring farmers were actually the Official Good Guys. This site makes me physically ill. 207.32.162.180 ( talk) 07:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Malayan Emergency article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2Auto-archiving period: 60 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The first sentence includes "between pro-independence fighters of the Malayan National Liberation Army" "against the armed forces of the British Empire and Commonwealth". Firstly, encyclopaedic articles on wars typically start with when/where/whom before discussing the objectives of each side. It could be disputable, for example, whether the MNLA was motivated primarily by independence or establishing a communist state. Secondly, is it grammatically correct to have 'between' and 'against' both in the sentence?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehigh ( talk • contribs) 10:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
The main picture, which also shows whenever this article link is hovered over on anther article, is of a British marine holding up two decapitated heads. Whilst this is clearly relevant to the Malayan Emergency, and may be right to be included in the article - it does seem unnecessarily gruesome for it to be shown so prominently with absolutely no warning. These articles should not shy away from the brutal truth of war, but I think by moving this picture a little further into the article, maybe against a specific topic on the head hunters, we would make the article less off-putting and therefore generally increase its readership and be able to widen public knowledge on this important conflict more? 81.96.209.242 ( talk) 23:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Never seen or heard of that picture till just now, and frankly it does not appear genuine. The supposedly severed heads look cut-and-pasted on and the faces seem to have been photographed in a different light from the soldier supposedly holding them. The fact that the picture originated in the Daily Worker is not a good sign. But then it's generally a poor article. It doesn't appear to make clear that the CTs (Communist Terrorists, as the British characterised Chin Peng's guerrillas) were ethnic Chinese, drawn from less than a quarter of the population, and that the ethnic Malays hated them, hence in large part the success of Britain's counter-insurgency operation, because Malays would give information on the whereabouts and doings of the hated CTs -- a factor the Americans overlooked when they used the British success in Malaya as the model for their doomed campaign in South Vietnam, where no such ethnic factor applied. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 18:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
References
A paragraph in the section on differences between the Malayan Emergency and Vietnam War which focusses on infantry training is the subject of a low-level edit war. I shall withdraw from this, because (as has been pointed out to me) the source is iteself insufficiently sourced; no publisher, author etc. However, I will try to develop it with more research.
User:The History Wizard of Cambridge ( talk) pointed out in an edit summary "...Also America also had conscription and also trained in jungle warfare. This claim that Britain focused on 'low-intensity' also contradicts the paragraph on Britain using saturation bombing."
I must take issue with some of these assertions. Firstly, the British forces in the Far East soon stopped relying on saturation bombing and other large scale, clumsy methods (sweeps of the jungle by large formations etc.) However, as a difference between Malaya and Vietnam, it may simply reflect that the Malayan Emergency was far less dangerous for the infantry. In Malaya, the British faced only small numbers of guerrillas; in Vietnam, the US faced both guerrillas and comparatively heavily equipped regulars (both VC and North Vietnamese), so could not focus on "low-intensity" conflict.
That's not to say that the British were necessarily more effective. In the example in the "Conduct of Operations" section, American author Robert Taber pointed out that several months' operations by a whole battalion, with the expenditure of more mortar bombs and artillery shells than exist in the arsenals of some South American nations, were required to eliminate a mere 35 guerrillas.
There may also be a reflection of British and US contemporary societies. Britain in the 1950s had no race riots, growing drug problems, inner-city tensions etc.
I will try and research these important differences, with better sources. HLGallon ( talk) 14:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Section started by sockpuppet
Cambial —
foliar❧
14:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
( Personal attack removed) user Why is User:The History Wizard of Cambridge removing sourced information in large amounts that he doesn't believe is important as well as acting like he believes he owns the article and has final say on it? WP:OWN? {{ help me}} 109.157.92.138 ( talk)
|
There is one citation for this alternate name for the Malayan Emergency. Is this a valid label for the conflict? Can it be verified that the Malay population or other parties referred to the emergency in such a way? 82.25.47.192 ( talk) 15:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
"Newsinger is a member of the Socialist Workers Party,[3] speaking at their Marxism Festival in 2014[4] and participated in meetings for the Socialist Alliance.[5]" So of course his rewrite of history is scattered through the article to explain how the communists massacring farmers were actually the Official Good Guys. This site makes me physically ill. 207.32.162.180 ( talk) 07:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)