Jump to content

Talk:Malayan Emergency

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 95.149.55.0 (talk) at 09:25, 19 August 2017 (→article name: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

relevenc to kashmir insurgency

fixed a minor spelling/grammatical error (begun became began), otherwise, excellent article with clear implications for today.-- spm

Second Malaysian Emergency

Should it be noted here, or a new article started? – Matthew A. Lockhart (talk)

There's a second emergency? Or is that referring to the spate of communist uprisings after the fall of South Vietnam?

There is a second insurgency, circa 1969 - 1980. Compared to the first insurgency, the second is harsher. Though the areas affected is much lesser compared to the first emergency. The Government of Malaysia also had to contend with a number of different rebel groups, altogether 4 including the PKKU in East Malaysia. The four includes two splinter groups from the original MCP. I don't have much details on the whole insurgency, however.

Where is the info on this second Emergency? I'm assuming PKKU is Parti Komunis Kalimantan Utara, but there's scant info on the internets on them. Here's a white paper on the conflict[1] —Han talk) 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEATO

The article says "Australia was willing to send troops to help a SEATO ally" but according to SEATO Malaya/Malaysia was never a member. Could this be referring to the fact that the UK was also a SEATO member? Wouldn't there be a more relevant treaty between the Aussies and Brits then, seeing as SEATO was never a major factor in Southeast Asian geopolitics? Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally fixed this - ten years later! Snori (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Briggs Plan into this article

A Google search on "Briggs Plan" only gets 569 hits. The separate article adds little further information. And, by the way, there's also another article on Harold Briggs for his own notability. --Mereda 14:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree. Malayan Emergency deals with macro level of the conflict while Briggs Plan takes on the micro. On Google, in Malay, it's "rancangan briggs" [2] and that offer another 1000+ result. Briggs is an historical important move by the Brit in Malaya. If the number of Google result is the basis of merge, than Korsun-Cherkassy Pocket (which has around 1000 results) should be merged with Eastern Front (World War II). Problem with Google that it doesn't have much mention about obscure subject. It might be a systemic bias given that the plan has more mention in one language but not English. Pardon my grammar, I'm having a minor headache. __earth (Talk) 15:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accuracy. The current article is weak, however suitable the Briggs Plan might be as good micro subject in principle. There are very few points in it that aren't in the Malayan Emergency article; and, where there are, it's partly inaccurate. It says, wrongly, that the Briggs Plan was (just) a resettlement plan. A more accurate description would mention its strategy and other specific elements, like the joint civil-military-police work [3][4]. So, even as a stub, the article needs a bit of remedial work if it isn't to be merged. --Mereda 10:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this article not being merged. Briggs Plan is basically a military & political long term strategy and wills, with no expectation of speedy and decisive results. The success of this Plan against guerilla warfare is unparallel since, although it has been emulated in various forms in other countries. The Briggs Plan show an effective and credible mission analysis at it best, as one cannot prevail over what one does not understand. The discussion on the planning, tactic, implementation, and success need to be laid out in clear and detail if one want to know what make it so successful in Malaysia, but not in others countries. Yosri 10:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Merge. The Briggs plan is a big enough subject to warrant its own article, and I thinl we should leave the article to grow, even if it is not presently extremely good. Chroma liberator

Communist support & reason for the war to break

I don't quite agree on the matter on why the war broke. The reason given in the wiki said that the minority Chinese felt oppressed. The better way to state it out should be non-Malayan Chinese. Malayan Chinese (or second or third generation Chinese) are closer to the British government and were not much involved with the communist. In fact, a large portion of urban Chinese are against the communists and they supported the war against the CTs by joining the local Home Guards and police forces. This was less highlighted as the British had wanted to pull all the Malay support, which in a way is counterproductive in the long term.

The Emergency was actually a result of an attempted take-over of Malaya by Communist China. An attempt at invasion by infiltration.
Malaya at the time was a British colony (although moving towards independence) and the majority of ethnic Malays had no problem with the British rule however in the preceding years up to World War II large numbers of both Indian and Chinese had settled in Malaya, either to set up small businesses, or to gain employment in the work that was available, and it was some of these latter ones who had moved there for the work who supported the attempted take-over. So the ones who supported the Chinese side were not in fact Malays at all, but were immigrants, and were not even Malayan citizens or British subjects. Thus it was not even their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 10:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MilHist Assessment

A nice, long, detailed article. It has an infobox, a good number (and good organization) of sections, and a beautiful navbox at the bottom. I think it could be beneficial to merge this with Briggs Plan, and in any case, I don't think that an article merits higher than B-class if it still has these sorts of tags at the top. But the infobox is nicely detailed as well, and as near as I can tell, the vast majority of the core information essential to the subject is included here. LordAmeth 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article name

Malayan Emergency is British-sided and POV. Name should be changed in accordance to guidelines. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the official name. __earth (Talk) 03:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
given by who? --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
historians? I've had the luxury of experiencing Malaysian and American education system. In both systems, the event is known as Malayan Emergency. It's already an established name. Try encyclopedia britannica. Or any other major encyclopedia. Further, search on Google produces significant number of result [5]. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." . So, this page name is already in line with Wikipedian guideline. Else, the name Glorious Revolution needs to be changed too because it's biased. But we're not in the art of rewriting history. We're only recording it. __earth (Talk) 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree totally. Whilst I am British-educated, I've never heard it called anything but the 'Malayan/Malay emergency.' I also fail to see how this is 'British-sided' - whilst 'emergency' is a somewhat silly term for a 12 year war, it happened in Malaya and was an emergency. Doubtless Maoist history books would call it 'The Great Patriotic Struggle of the Oppressed Malay Proletariat against the Filthy Imperialist Dogs,' or some such, but that's clearly ludicrous. Psidogretro 11:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There were two sides in the war. One side called it the "Emergency". The other side called it something else. I've seen the term used by the MCP; I don't remember it exactly, but its something like "Malayan Liberation War". To uncritically use one side's term is to give the article a non-neutral point of view. The British designation is undoubtedly confusing, and misleading -- perhaps intentionally so. The MCP designation is probably somewhat slanted also, but, I would say, considerably less so than the British one. A state of "Emergency" is usually connected with something like bad weather , a flood, . . . . This one lasted 12 years. Two large armies, well armed, centrally organised, were going at each other. That is a war, not an emergency. "Glorious Revolution" has been established alot longer than "Malayan Emergency". Perhaps it has seniority rights that can be reasonably withheld from "Malayan Emergency". Also, "Glorious Revolution" is obviously biased. Bias is bad, but the obviousness makes it less harmful. "Malayan Emergency" is biased, but more sneakily so; someone with no prior knowledge can not tell that this is a partisan term when they encounter it. It also confuses the distinction between the legal measure, the state of emergency, and the conflict. I think there is a good case to be made for changing the article name. Chroma liberator
The UK title for the war was because of insurance purposes - it had been deemed that the costs of insurance for a "Malayan War" were too prohibitive, so war was never admitted. But this is the name of the war as given by one of the participants - the victor - and the MCP were certainly not noted for unbiased POV. docboat 08:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what would you propose for what is euphemistically called The Troubles? The length of usage doesn't hold here, but the popular usage does. Jooler 12:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Malayan Spot of Bother? docboat 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). We are not in the business of rewriting history. __earth (Talk) 03:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Every time one edits a history article on Wikipedia, one is rewriting history (which after all, was written by the victors to suit themselves to begin with!). I suggest Malayan War as a reasonable compromise.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections, I'll move the page. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict was named the 'Malayan Emergency' because due to the acts of the infiltrators the legal government declared a formal 'State of Emergency' which gave them certain legal powers over-and-above those that they had during normal governance.
Thus as there was no declared war, nor even a recognised sovereign state to fight against, the term 'emergency' was used thereafter as legally-speaking it wasn't a 'war'.
BTW, at the time (1982) while it was ongoing the Falklands War was referred-to by the UK as the 'Falklands Conflict' for just this reason, there being no declaration of war.
For a legal government, i.e., one that follows its own country's laws, the terms 'state of emergency', 'conflict', 'war', etc., have certain and different precise legal meanings, with certain prescribed responses enshrined (and allowable) in law, thus it is important for them to define the situation accurately.
So the term 'Malayan Emergency' is used because that is simply what it was, and Malaya was never in a State of War at the time as there was no sovereign state with-which to be legally at-war with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.98 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
" ... The rubber plantations and tin-mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyd's insurers if it had been termed a "war".[9] " - not even close. Lloyd's would have paid out on policies no matter whether it was a declared state of war or not as the acts by the CT's were classed as criminal acts and therefore came under normal 'crime' categories.

This should be in the cold war reference section

This was a war won by the Brits against the communists and was another victory in the cold war should at least be noted in the article. YankeeRoman(24.75.194.50 21:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Strangely it's never been treated as part of the cold war ( although obviously it's linked ) : perhaps because neither US, USSR or China were involved, and Brits tend to treat it as 'post colonial tidy up'. 145.253.108.22 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was never part of the cold war. The reasons for the war were entirely a matter of local politics and the struggle of communists for control of the country, not as part of a larger war against capitalism. In fact, it was a terrorist organisation trying to usurp power against the wishes of the majority of the population using murder and intimidation as tools. Much as you see in Nepal now, or Jolo or any one of a number of places in the world today. Not cold war - merely terrorism in the place of politics. docboat 09:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Cold War reference still resides in the infobox. Have we come to some kind of consensus that the Malayan Emergency is unrelated to the Cold War effort? —Han talk) 05:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is part of cold war. It is obvious, British are fighting the communist party to protect their own interest. Even Malayan gain independent, the insurgent can be stopped by given voting rights to communist party, but the independent country refuse, and let the fight continue. The political move to remove the communists than embrace it are obvious cold war product.

--Tan S.L. (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the 'Communist Terrorists' were in fact Chinese nationals who had no business being in Malaya, but were actually trying to take the country over, hence the effort to expel them. The number of ethnic Malays, i.e., the people who actually lived there, and whose country it was, supporting them was very small, which is why they lost, as they lacked popular support.
And when earlier the Japanese invaded Malaya in 1941 the vast majority of Malays didn't support them against the British either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.249 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia today reference

I added a failed verification template to the Malaysia Today reference under Legacy. This way, if someone can find a better source the sentence can be left as is, or merely edited. —Han talk) 07:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-communists referred to the MNLA as "communist terrorists", which was often abbreviated to "terrs", "Charlie Tango" or "CTs".

The anti-communists referred to the MNLA as "communist terrorists", which was often abbreviated to "terrs", "Charlie Tango" or "CTs".

I removed this sentence at the tail end of Origins because it didn't have a source and it isn't relevant to how the Malayan Emergency began. Perhaps in a later section that describes exactly who were anti-communist at the time (this sentence was the only reference to anti-communists in the entire article) and the tension between anti-communists and MNLA. —Han talk) 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing organisations

Any dispute to removing all reference to left-wing organisations, leftist parties and so forth? The only other organisation mentioned is Min Yuen, of which very little is known. I suggest until there's more notable and verifiable information about left-wing orgs, we leave all references to them out of the article. —ReSearch ReSource (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense but I suggest you go to the library to know more about Min Yuen. It was a active participant in the conflict. __earth (Talk) 13:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi earth, I left the original message. I'm saying we can add more information when it is available or when I have time to get to the library. If the only thing we know about the organisation is that it equipped the MCP, it is more likely to confuse rather than clarify the topic. —Han talk) 11:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New leader paragraph

The Malayan Emergency refers to a guerrilla war for independence fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA) from 1948 to 1960; some have gone as far as to characterise it as a civil war. Despite the communists' defeat in 1960, MCP leader Chin Peng would renew the insurgency in 1967, which would last till 1989, and become known as the Communist Insurgency War.

Malayan Emergency was the colonial government's term for the conflict. The MNLA termed it Anti-British National Liberation War.[1] The rubber plantations and tin mining industries had pushed for the use of the term "emergency" since their losses would not have been covered by Lloyds insurers if it had been termed a "war".[citation needed]

The resulting state of emergency is still in effect as of October 2008.

In an effort to make the lead more compelling (MOSBETTER#Provide_context_for_the_reader), I've rewritten it as above. Please let me know what you think. I try to address the name of the Emergency as well as its long-reaching effects. I edited for clarity too or eliminated what I felt would confuse a new reader on the subject. The original lead makes no mention to the causes of the war and so, I've added it. —Han talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably add that I worked the first paragraph of the Guerrilla War section into this new lead. I felt information was repeated. —Han talk) 14:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mohamed Amin and Malcolm Caldwell, ed's. The Making of a Neo Colony; 1977, Spokesman Books, UK., footnote, p. 216.

Chinese terrorists

It should be clearly stated that the Malayan Emergency was fought between on one side the British-Malay (with some Australians) and against the CHINESE terrorists as they were called at that time. These Chinese were backed up by China and they main communication language was Chinese. It needs to be clearly stated as one of the goals of those terrorists was to take over Malaya and impose chinese rule. George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.26.213 (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the CT's were not solely Chinese Malayans but included Malay & Indian Malayans also.

<blockquote="'The Malayan Emergency & Indonesian Confrontation: The Commonwealth's Wars 1948-1966'By Robert Jackson"> The smallest MRLA formation at this time was No 10 Regiment with 300 men, and this suffered paticularly severely. Formed in Pahang from left-wing Malays and a sprinkling of Indians, it had been decimated by September 1949 and was later reformed as a predominantly Chinese unit.

Also as well as British, Australian and Malayans (all varieties) the security forces also included New Zelanders (The New Zeland Squadron of the Special Air Service and The New Zeland Regiment and various RNZAF squadrons) and also unless you count these as lumpt in with the term British then they also included Nepalese (British Army Gurkha's) various African races (The King's African Riflest) and Rhodesians (The Rhodesia Squadron of the Special Air Service and The Northern Rhodesia Regiment) and Fijan's (The Fiji Infantry Regiment). Same source as the quote I've given as it includes an list of battalions and squadrons that were involved at some point or other.

I also seem to remember reading in the book that China pulled thier supports for the CT's at some point but I cannot find the exact spot in the book at the moment. But can find an part where it says they were not impressed with them;

<blockquote="Same Source"> In October 1951, Chin Peng, the Secretary-General of the MCP, presided over a meetiing of the Politburo to work out future policy. The meeting was attended by an unspecified number of officers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army who had infiltrated into Malaya, possbile by sea from Hainan Island. They brought with them thier own experiences of discipline, training and, more importantly, tactics and strategy. By all accounts they were not impressed by the MCP and did not stay long in Malaya.

(Po (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

350 million tonnes of leaflets

No way is this figure correct. If a standard letter weighs 10g that would be 35 trillion leaflets in 12 years, or 3 trillion a year, enough for 1000 each year (3 a day) for every person on the planet then living. Only 7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Vietnam. 122.167.96.217 (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malayan emergency doesn't have an ending date!

After reading some article, it seems that Malaysia, as a "modern" country, neglect to declare the end of emergency. There is no official declaration of ending date from Malaysia Parliament. Thus, this allow Malaysia government continue to abusive law such as Internal Security Act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.164.209 (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons with Vietnam

There is another differnce between Vietnam and Malaya. The British dealt with an internal problem on their own turf. There was no need to control any "allies", they fought with there own administration.--109.91.74.243 (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War crimes allegations

As it stands, the short paragraph on the claims of war crimes committed by British troops reads as overly dismissive of the claims. The linked Batang Kali massacre page suggests that there were/are serious questions to be answered, but that the passage of time, along with the election of a Tory government at a crucial time in the investigation, ensured that no charges were ever bought. The text in this paragraph should be amended to better reflect the seriousness of these claims, and their unresolved nature, rather than give the last word to the British Government. --Carl weathers bicep (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas the MNLA started it all by just going in and murdering a bunch of defenceless white planters and their families.

There are a mass of entirely unsupported allegations on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.76.253 (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communist terrorism

It has been suggested (on the Communist terrorism talk page) that the Malayan emergency be represented as a manifestation of "Communist terrorism", and the insurgents be labeled exclusively as terrorists. In my opinion, it would be useful if the users working on this article, who seem to be much more knowledgeable than I do, expressed their opinion on this account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batang Kali

On 5 Septemner 2102 campaigners calling for an official investigation into the alleged massacre, at Batang Kali, of 24 Malaysian rubber plantation workers by British troops more than 60 years ago lost a High Court fight. "Relatives described the alleged killings as a "a blot on British colonisation and decolonisation" and said there was enough evidence to justify an independent inquiry. They asked judges to overturn the Government's refusal to hold a formal investigation." [6]. Shouldn't this be added? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batang Kali massacre was mentioned under the Legacy section. STSC (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Malayan" mean?

Does it mean people living in Malaysia, or does it mean ethnic Malays? Given that to a significant extent the Emergency was a racial war of Chinese vs ethnic Malays, the distinction is important. I would suggest that the word never be used, and instead either "ethnic Malays" or "general population" be used. Tuntable (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


A racial war? You better be able to prove this before amending the article. - Bob K | Talk 02:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to the name of the country, the Federation of Malaya, where the war was fought. And the fact that different ethnic groups aligned on different sides in the war does not mean it was a racial conflict. TFD (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits in Comparisons with Vietnam section

I've removed or edited some problematic recent edits to this section but I think we need further discussion. There's already a tag re. possible original research, so let's not make it worse. It's all very well for an editor to cite material on British tactics in Malaya that appear similar to those used by the US in Vietnam, but unless the source used explicitly makes a comparison between the two conflicts, it looks like cherry-picking references to support an editor's opinion. I've also noted in the summary of my recent edit straight cutting and pasting from sources, references that don't in fact support statements in the article, missing citations, and emotive/opinionated language. I might add that creating subsections of "Differences" and "Similarities" seems a bit unencyclopedic to me and prone to listcruft, but let's see what others think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this comparison was often made in the older literature on the Vietnam War (often with smarmy British authors and the occasional Australian using the victory in Malaya as a stick to beat the US with), I don't think that it's taken seriously by historians or military theorists any more: it's generally recognised that the two wars were wildly different, and that the US forces in Vietnam actually did attempt to employ the tactics which had worked in Malaya, without much success. The notion that the Australian Task Force was more effective than US units due to it using Malaya-style tactics was also largely disproven in the Australian official history. I'd suggest chopping this or at least trimming it to a paragraph as it's basically outdated historiography. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support substantial trimming of this section. It is unnecessarily long and verbose, and includes too much information irrelevant to the main topic of the article. (As an example, the sentence "Many tactics employed by the British in Malaya were similar to the ones the US used during the Vietnam War." should be the other way around; the American tactics in the later Vietnam War were similar to those used in the earlier Malayan conflict. Specific informaton on the use of defoliants and the incidents at Tanjong Malim and Batang Kali should be moved into the main body of the article. Vague generalisations on the nature of jungle patrols should be removed entirely. HLGallon (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anotherclown (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comparisons are usually made because both the Malayan Emergency and the Vietnam War were both primarily jungle wars fought against insurgents coming in from outside of the country's borders.
As for differences, I agree, they are not comparable, one was successful, fought by mostly conscripts using hard-learned lessons gained in the jungle campaigns in Burma and India, the other, also fought by conscripts, was not. The first is often used as a model in military colleges for how to successfully fight such a war. The second is not.
The other important difference was that the former had the support of most of the local 'native' population who had also supported the legal government against the Japanese occupation ten years earlier. The latter did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.180 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear result

The infobox says the result was "unclear". How is that the case? Why is the qualifier there? StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this report is not accurate

what brought the emergency to an end was OPERATION SINGAPORE I served in Malaya in the SOUTH WALES BORDERERS 1955 1958 WE HAD CONSIDEABLE effect did not lose a man & general Templer was the one responsible for operation SINGAPORE G.M.Davies2602:304:CDEE:6EF0:FC97:9F3D:FEB7:98E7 (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, if you would like to see something changed, please be more specific. For instance, which sentences specifically need to be changed and what would you like them to say? Equally, please provide references for your assertion. These should be from books (including page numbers), journal articles, websites and or (to a lesser extent) newspapers. Personal experience is not, however, acceptable per site policies against original research. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Malayan Emergency. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 10:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayan_Emergency&oldid=796217872"