Talk:Malayan Emergency

Opening Sentence

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)

Main Picture

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)

@81.96.209.242

Agreed, and amended. EDJT840 (talk) 13:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree! The image of the Royal Marine holding two heads is arguably the single most widely used and recognisable image ever taken during the Malayan Emergency. More importantly all sides from former British soldiers to Communist guerrillas have readily used the image to illustrate the war. The image of a royal marine with two heads is as integral to the Malayan Emergency as the image of Phan Thi Kim Phuc (Napalm Girl) is to the Vietnamese war or the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is to the Pacific campaign. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree! How are you quantifying that is this 'arguably the single most widely used and recognisable image.' Not only does it not immediately appear on google images (not for a while), it is equally not locatable via other means. This is made even more apparent when it rarely features in published literature, or, on any reputable websites (beyond the press) - see reverse image search (google, tin-eye, bing, etc).

Rarely have I seen this image used to illustrate the war - yes, when addressing the crimes committed by Commonwealth (inc. Malayan) forces; rarely beyond that.

There are significantly more well-known and recognisable images, i.e. those patrolling through the jungle; the famous checkpoint scene; or the close-up of the suspected communist terrorist with blood on his face, and the soldier to the right.

This image is not 'integral to the Malayan Emergency' - it is more appropriately placed further down the article, with the 'war crimes' section.

p.s. you really shouldn't revert a change without bringing it to the talk page.

EDJT840 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to do a better job of explaining my reasoning. When creating the image collage above the infobox I searched hard to find images which would encapsulate as many different aspects of the conflict as possible. A photo for media, communist forces, commonwealth forces, social change, and technology. The one image you suggested of a captured guerrilla with blood across his face is another iconic image and probably the only one I can think of that rivals the current image in how well known it is, but I couldn't find nearly as much about its origin and it is a much lower quality image seeing as it was taken from a frame of an old video. The infamous Daily Worker image on the other hand has not only has a longer paper trail and a demonstrable influence on British politics but it appears so frequently online and on social media sites that I suspect a massive amount of the views for the Malayan Emergency wiki are people looking for the origin of the photograph. If we moved the image lower down or removed it entirely then we would be making it much more difficult for these people. Unlike the alternative images suggested, the current one also represents not only a common and controversial practice among British troops during the war but also the resulting media scandal, the influence of British anti-war activists, and the public's perception at home. For these reasons and more I am 100% in favour of keeping the current images. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that tI have done a lot of research into the background of the image of the marine holding two heads and it is far more commonly used then a google search reveals. It has been used in a number of documentaries including the BBC's Malaya: The Undeclared War (1998), War School (2019) by Mic Dixon, Absent Without Leave (2016), and channel 4's Empire's Children (2007). It even inspired a novel, Hunger by Jin Zhimang 1912-1988. I could spend a long time detailing the many ways in which this image has influenced perceptions of the war. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Weather or not this is an widely used image is irrelevant. Lead images are supposed to be selected to have the least shock value see MOS:SHOCKVALUE. The example they give is literally how it is better to use a non iconic image of prisoners being selected on the holocaust page vs the more iconic one of the piles of bodies.

The same principle clearly applies here and a different image should be used. 76.28.247.246 (talk) 20:13, 14 July 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)

Dear Khamba Tendal, sadly you are wrong and the Daily Worker headhunting images are genuine. The British government admitted so in 1952 when Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttelton openly admitted to the House of Commons that the Daily Worker headhunting images depicted real events and were not forgeries. You can read his published speech in parliament via Hansard records. Even Winston Churchill himself got involved when he discussed the Daily Worker headhunting photographs with his Cabinet. Additionally, Britain's top general during the Malayan Emergency, Gerald Templer, defended the practice of decapitating members of the MNLA.

It is also accepted by multiple professors of British colonial history, including Karl Hack, the world's leading expert on the Malayan Emergency, who wrote several pages on the issue in his seminal work on the war.Other professors who discuss the Daily Worker images and accept them as genuine include Caroline Elkins,Wendy Webster, John Newsinger, and Susan Carruthers. For an easily accessible article on the subject I recommend Maria Creech's article in History Today. There is simply no denying that British soldiers in Malaya often decapitated corpses and photographed the heads, and that this practice was supported (or in some cases tolerated) by some of the very highest echelons of the British military and government. I am unable to find a single historian who questioned whether the photographs were genuine.

As for the source of the photographs, the Daily Worker should not be disregarded because of its communist political beliefs. In fact I would argue that their communist beliefs actually make them more trustworthy when reporting on issues of colonialism, as their anti-racist and anti-imperialist politics largely immunised them from the widespread racism and pro-colonial propaganda that dominated most major British newspapers during the 1950s. To further stress the quality of the Daily Worker's coverage of the far east in the 1950s, look no further than Alan Winnington.

I want to word these next few sentences carefully and assume good faith to avoid violating WP:EDITSNOTEDITORS. You said that you have never come across this photograph before, but I myself have seen it countless times both online and mentioned in the academic literature on the Malayan Emergency. Is it possible that the literature you have been reading has been primarily from a pro-colonial viewpoint, written by authors uninterested in tackling issues which paint the British Empire in a bad light? I ask this because earlier you described the anti-colonial faction, the Malayan National Liberation Army, as "terrorists". The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

References

British/Commonwealth infantry training

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)

What Robert Taber book are you referring to? This is why we use proper citations, because nobody has an entire week to plan a trip to a reference library and read every book ever written by Robert Taber when you could just spend 1 minute to give us the book title, publisher, publication date, & page number.

Also let's address "Britain in the 1950s had no race riots, growing drug problems, inner-city tensions". This is wrong. Look up the 1958 Notting Hill Race Riots, the colour bar, and the British fascist movements and racist police violence of Britain in the 1950s. Not sure what drug addiction has to do with military strategy in far east Asia or what point you are trying to make, but I do not think you understand British history during the 1950s.

If you do not properly cite your contributions on the Malayan Emergency wiki then I will delete them and replace them with my own paragraphs backed up by properly cited academic literature. Your talk page says you've been editing Wikipedia since 2006!!! So why are you digging your feet in and refusing to cite page numbers? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with History Wizard when he states the obvious: that citations require title, year, publisher and page number. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Taber, Robert (1965). The War of the Flea : A Study of Guerrilla Warfare Theory and Practise. Brassey's. ISBN 9781574885552.

Source not immediately to hand, so cannot yet provide page numbers. Will do so as soon as possible.HLGallon (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

On effectiveness, I found a piece recently that described the situation thus: the Communists were not huge in numbers though they had some support so the situation was that were trying to maintain their existence rather than take on the British en masse. There was no communist capital for the British to take, or a communist army to be routed on the battlefield - the British were removing the communist threat piecemeal where they found it although finding it was difficult (lots of jungle to hide a small groups in) and the way to do that was patrol, patrol, patrol. Effective though not efficient. Now if I could just find where I read that... GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of "saturation bombing", one thing the RAF seems to have dropped at lot of is leaflets eg 140 million in 1955. With a side order of voice broadcast from the air.

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) Hello @109.157.92.138 , it's me the "toxic user". Over the past week I deleted large chunks of the Malayan Emergency wiki so that it can one day qualify as a GA article. Sadly this wiki page is very poor quality, dozens of entire paragraphs contain no sources, some paragraphs only contain primary sources, the content is cluttered, some content was repeated under multiple headers, and the wiki is difficult to navigate. The past week I've culled much of the unsourced content. Could you visit the revision history and give me an example of an edit you disagree with? The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC) I have to agree with @The History Wizard of Cambridge, they are simply making changes to improve the article. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 08:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC) Earlier today it was discovered this IP is a sock puppet belonging to a permanently banned wiki editor called militaryfactchecker who has been harassing me for almost a month. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Anti-British National Liberation War

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)

No. The way this article has been edited in recent years is a joke. Needs a heavy edit to bring it back to NPOV. FOARP (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the article's neutrality is very poor. The section entirely dedicated to headhunting is crammed with photos. It's source? A British communist tabloid. Yes the alternate name does exist, but it was only called that by the MNLA. 119.74.173.229 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The title is evidently quite widely used in the journal literature, which is considered the most reliable source. In general alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Cambial — foliar❧ 08:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

My grandfather served over there during his time with RAF , he always called it the Malayan Emergency when referring to it. Sarlouki (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Communists and 'liberation'? Oh, the irony. 2A0A:EF40:12F0:C01:60E7:D633:4B57:EA3C (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources

"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)

Yup. I find this whole article is incredibly biased towards the Malayan communists not mentioning the atrocities they committed. SuperSodiumalreadytaken (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)