Talk:Malayan Emergency/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sockpuppet OR

These edits were made by a sockpuppet who regularly falsifies sources. Some of that was done on this page, as noted here. Per edit summary request, bringing here the request that these WP:OR additions and source falsification are reverted. (The additions also don't align with WP:LEAD, but that is a far less important issue.) CMD (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Of the sources removed in your edit, two are not supportive of the text that immediately precedes it: the conference paper by Christi Siver and the RAND study. I've removed both, and the tangential sentence citing RAND. Additional RS which further support the other text – already supported by the existing sources – have been added. Hope that closes the matter. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

With those two removed, that leaves Hack 2018 p203. This source was added along with the new text "to 500,000...depriving civilians of all their civil rights and violating the Geneva Conventions." I do not see how that is supported, with the page giving "more than 500,000", and saying nothing at all about civil rights and the Geneva convention. Further to this, in addition to adding good sources, it would be useful to remove the obviously fake ones, as well as those also added by the same author and equally unlikely to actually support the text. (For example, there is no way the British could violate the Geneva Conventions here, as the Geneva Conventions do not apply outside of times of war.) CMD (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Remaining unsupported by sources or by the article body are the addition of Borneo, Singapore, and Southern Thailand to the location portion of the infobox, and the unexplained switch from European to British moves away from the Yao 2016 source which notes the gunman stated "We are only out for the Europeans and the running dogs". CMD (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The paper in Journal of Southeast Asian Studies gives a higher figure still. I've removed "civil rights" which is not relevant anyway. The Geneva Convention matter is discussed at great length by Siver (perhaps it was put in the wrong place); I've amended the text accordingly. In contrast to your claim, it is clear that a. the British military leaders' understanding was that their forces were subject to the Geneva Convention, and b. troops violated them. Are you really wanting to argue the point about locations? It's quite common knowledge the war involved the border regions; there's even a counterinsurgency book that refers to Borneo in the title. Singapore was part of Malaya. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what the relevance of a higher figure in another source is, the point here is that the Hack source (as with all the others added) did not support their text. On the Geneva convention, whether or not the British included their principles into their rules of engagement doesn't change the fact that they could not have violated them. The Geneva convention is an international treaty between states relating to conduct during war. On location, again the change is unsupported by the text. Borneo gets a single mention, as the location of Iban recruits, (a book title covering the konfrontasi does not support relation to the Malayan emergency,) Singapore is mentioned only as a place troops operated out of, and Thailand is mentioned only as a place the MNLA retreated to at the end of the emergency. None of these merit equal billing in the lead infobox, especially not without some reliable sources which also give them such billing. CMD (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

OK.... well it's supported now. Who is carrying out original research? The source states that they violated the Geneva Convention, whether you believe they could not have done so is not relevant here. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The source does not say that. Its conclusion is that "the British military...did not adequately socialize soldiers in the laws of war or their obligations to protect civilians". It includes them as one of a wider body of policy, such as "Geneva Conventions or the laws of war". It says the Scots Guard was involved in war crimes, but that is not the same as violating the Geneva Conventions, which is a subset of warcrimes. (The source does also not mention judicial justification or lack of.) The current phrasing is also a poor reflection of the source in question, which is centred around a discussion of why different units acted in different ways, whereas the article text suggests it is policy. CMD (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, in the book of which that paper forms a part, the author uses the introductory chapter to establish that while the principles predated the Geneva Conventions, it was those treaties that gave force to the obligation to protect (and not to kill) civilians. She also establishes that these applied in the case studies used, including the Malayan Emergency, and that the military leaders had acknowledged their application (and thus discrediting the myth to the contrary that you mention above). She further cites diplomatic correspondence with the UK's chief representative to Geneva.

The principles underlying the Geneva Conventions, particularly protection for civilians, pre-dated the creation of the legal treaties. While actors on both sides of World War II had abandoned principles of proportionality and protection of civilians, these principles had previously been upheld by states and even used as propaganda to prove the moral cause of states engaged in conflict. Certainly, the re-affirmation of these norms in the Geneva Conventions did not bring an end to all war crimes or threats to civilians. But, the treaties did provide a standard for evaluating military actions...No longer could states, leaders, or soldiers claim a right to attack civilians. [p.8]

The militaries I examine, the United States, Great Britain, and Canada, all function within major power democracies that have committed themselves to uphold the laws of war. Even in the cases of the Korean War and Malayan Emergency, which commenced very quickly after the completion of the Geneva Convention negotiations, U.S. and British civilian and military leaders stated their intention to uphold the norms underlying them. [p.20]

Having established that killing of civilians represents a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, the author then documents instances in which troops killed civilians, with the Malayan Emergency forming one of the five case studies.

In addition to limits imposed by the principle of minimum force, Britain also faced new obligations to protect civilians under the recently negotiated Geneva Conventions. While the treaty negotiations did not end until December 1948, the military was aware of the Conventions and making plans to comply. [p.61]

British efforts to educate soldiers about the Geneva Conventions either did not ever reach units deployed in Malaya or left no impression on them...All of these regiments went through the introductory jungle warfare course and received the same instruction about 'snap shooting' and differentiating between targets. Differences in training do not seem to explain why some units killed civilians while others did not. [p.73]

The massacre at Batang Kali, alongside civilian and military leader’s preference for a counterinsurgency strategy based on force, weakened British efforts to bring peace and stability to the former colony. Civilian killings and brutal treatment weakened Britain’s relationship with local authorities and the Malaysian people and fueled the counterinsurgency [p.82]

Cambial — foliar❧ 21:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the principles behind some of the Geneva Conventions existed before. The Geneva Conventions are just one aspect of the wider topic of war crimes. The intention, per your quote, is to "uphold the norms underlying them". That is different from a specific violation of the letter of the law, and none of those quotes say that there was this specific violation. Further, as I mentioned before, various incidents do not amount to a specific campaign as suggested by the text you are inserting into the lead of the article. CMD (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not clear where you're getting "specific violation of the letter of the law" from – it appears to be your own phrase, not relevant to the question at hand about the sentence in the lead. The source clearly supports the sentence, as demonstrated in the quotes above (there is no ambiguity in "Britain also faced new obligations to protect civilians under the recently negotiated Geneva Conventions." and "Civilian killings and brutal treatment weakened Britain’s relationship with local authorities". Your decision to completely ignore almost the entirety of those quotes, and focus on a five-word phrase to try to suggest otherwise, is not persuasive. As the reference to breach of the Geneva Conventions has been in the lead for well over a year, and your removal of it has been reverted by two other editors, the lack of consensus for your proposal indicates it should remain on the article at present. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not getting it because it is not in the source. We should not be coming to a conclusion the source is unwilling to state itself, and none of the sentences you quote come to the conclusion. Regarding this edit, can you please provide the relevant parts of Hack 2018 p203, Newsinger 2013 p218-219, and Newsinger 2015 p52 that "support the characterisation in this section. attribution of "Britain's my lai"? My lai certainly isn't mentioned on that page of the Hack source. CMD (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Those are two separate comments which is why they are separated by a full stop. The sources support the characterisation of the place where civilians were held as "internment camps" (though one uses the word "detention" - a fair synonym). The attribution was added because the passive "it is often referred to as" is a rather MOS:WEASEL way of phrasing. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

With regards talk page headings, we are discussing whether certain long-standing content constitutes original research. Assuming the truth of a disputed matter is not a neutral heading for such a discussion. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

If the sources are now being used to support that instead of what they were originally being used for that is good. The Hack source does support that, but as mentioned can you provide the quotes from the others? On the discussion header, the topic of this discussion that I opened as requested is the issue of OR and source fabrication made by an editor with history in such antics. This OR/source fabricatoin remained as you note in this article for a year. I fail to see how it is in dispute that it was OR/source fabrication, considering you removed much of it yourself or had to find new sources for it (I have not looked at these). Nor do I understand why it is in question that the cahnges were made by a sockpuppet, as they were. I would ask again the topic I raise not be misconstrued through a misleading header (only parts of the lead are pertinent, and the relevant source fabrication was not limited to the lead). With the removals and new sources, what remains of the dubious sock edits are: the three sources which have been repurpose for different content with the exact same pages, and the assertion the British attempted extrajudicial killings in violation of the geneva conventions, which has had a source shifted to it which does not state the same. For these two points, it would be good to get the quotes as mentioned, and to either rephrase the Geneva Convention text to match the source now being used for it, or to find a source which makes the same statement. CMD (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretending content is OR

On most, if not all, other articles, this goes without saying; apparently there is a need to spell it out here. Content is not to be removed under the pretence that it is original research, when there is sufficient scholarly literature cited in the article to support it. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What content is in contention? CMD (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Decapitated heads

Surely only a body can be decapitated ? 2A02:8108:48BF:F214:2442:3C31:AAA4:659F (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

decapitated heads VS disembodied heads

I'm calling for opinions on a minor and trivial matter concerning the infobox photograph showing the infamous photo of a Royal Marine holding human heads.

@SlyGuyFox believes that we should change the text from "decapitated heads" to "disembodied heads".

@GraemeLeggett believes we should keep the term "decapitated heads".

Personally as the uploader of the photograph and probably the most knowledgeable person on Wikipedia on the issue of headhunting during the Malayan Emergency, I do not have a strong opinion on either term. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily suggesting - let alone believe - that 'decapitated' is ideal, it's that 'disembodied' is worse; as the general meaning of the word is equivalent to non-corporeal (as in "disembodied voice"). I think most readers would understand "decapitated" as meaning the heads were produced by decapitation but "severed" would convey similar deliberate intent without getting bothered over the adjectival form (PS looking for guidance I found the OED entry is rather dated) GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Helicopters

The article could probably use a bit more on the use of helicopters in supporting combat operations. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)