Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Template:Vital article

Untitled

relevenc to kashmir insurgency

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

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?

Monarch Details

As per articles like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aden_Emergency and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising it is not essential to list the current Head of States (Monarchs) during the Malayan Emergency.

I suggest they remain absent. EDJT840 (talk) 15:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Can’t help but wonder why you added it back in. Cambial — foliar❧ 07:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The communists fought to win independence for Malaya from the British Empire and to establish a socialist economy, while the Commonwealth forces fought to combat communism and protect British economic and colonial interests"

This seems to be a pretty inaccurate summary given that independence was promised by the British fairly early in the campaign, no? FOARP (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds perfectly accurate to me. Britain may have made half hearted promises of independence but only on their terms, which meant that Britain still held a monopoly over Malaya's natural resources, foreign policies, and media. Heck just look at the Baling Talks to see what a short leesh the British kept legal Malayan parties on. Independence isn't just about flags, anthems and leaders, it's also about self determination and the freedom to make choices without outside interferance. Besides none of this negates the fact that independence was the driving force behind many of the MNLA fighters. BulgeUwU (talk) 09:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a reasonable and neutral summary of the article body, and of the citations to Deery, Phillip (2007). "Malaya, 1948:…" and Newsinger, John (2013). I have not read the other. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly Jehigh, GraemeLeggett, and the IP editor above already offered sources on this, and an alternative wording, that seem reasonable. The British/commonwealth position should not be described in the terms that the MNLA would have used. FOARP (talk) 11:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would seem an extraordinarily cynical view of British and Commonwealth operations in the Emergency: independence had already been promised, and it would be more balanced to include this as part of a wider Western policy of containment against Communism in newly-independent colonies as opposed to a simple colonial war of posession? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.48.86 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Statements about Western [read:Anglo-American] intentions should be based on evidence, rather than any cynical or naive assumptions about the strategy underlying their actions. Scholarly examination of the evidence (the bulk, although perhaps not the most pertinent, of which has long been available under the thirty-year rule) largely supports the description used. If that is considered cynical, the cynics would be the foreign office policy planning staff, rather than WP editors merely reporting the available scholarship. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any argument that Britain's counterinsurgency campaign was a part of a strategy to "contain communism" is nonsense, due solely to the fact that the MNLA never once accepted foreign aid from any party or government during the Malayan Emergency. Talking about the reasons for the war, one thing I do think we need to include more of is information about the corporate interests of Dunlop and other such European companies which looted much of Malaya's resources, and the work of the British military to protect these profits through counterinsurgency. BulgeUwU (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think people can understand what is driving the present slant of this page from the above statement. That independence had already been promised in 1948 is a very well-established fact and we should not simply be stating that it was not (or was not really) the case in the voice of Wikipedia. FOARP (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great: you can rest easy, as we're not doing so. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BulgeUwU: Britain was indeed primarily motivated by its commercial interests, at least initially, but it was only one party of the Commonwealth forces. New Zealand and Australia joined because they saw nearby communist expansion as an existential threat [Edwards, 1987, The Australian commitment to the Malayan emergency, 1948–1950]. The Muslim Malays saw Maoism as a threat to their religion [Lim Yu Sing, 1998, The Malayan Emergency (1948-1960) – Can Lessons be drawn for Present Day Situations?]. Jehigh (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UK gvt offered something they, for their own reasons, called independence. The other side in the war did not call what the British said they were "promising" independence, loaded as it was with myriad political and economic restrictions. There seems room to clarify what the independence the MNLA were fighting for consisted of, but not for disputing that it was a motivating factor in their going to war. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP: Even if the British Empire did promise their version of "independence" it would still be irrelevant because they spent the next 9 years shoving 100,000s of people into concentration camps to make sure it didn't happen. You need to learn to seperate the stated public goals of an Empire with their true goals, which in the case of the Malayan Emergency was to stop a revolution which threatened British corporate interests. BulgeUwU (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BulgeUwU: This is an issue with the neutral point of view in this article - if it is important for the introduction to critically separate the "true" rather than stated motivation of the Commonwealth forces (which crucially included over 250,000 Malayans, not just British), then why not for the MNLA? They were deeply influenced by Maoism which was unconscionable for the Muslim majority [Ong, Voice of the Malayan Revolution, 2010].

Claimed Sockpuppet “Original Research”

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Malayan_Emergency&oldid=1094705226