Talk:Third Anglo-Burmese War

Point of View concern
Can we have a less pro-British stance? This article feels like an imperial Briths propaganda piece.
 * Because it is.83.240.20.46 (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Towards a NPOV
The word "Fortunately" starting last sentence in third paragraph could be removed. "a total of no less than" (4th paragraph) suggests that the invading force was doing a "jolly good job". "unexampled" (second sentence, para 5) also is pro-Brit. "the scourge of the country" sounds like a Soviet / USA description of Afghanistan. "valuable and curious loot and property" suggests the legality of the looting. "fortitude and courage" - forget it ! (if you can). "punish" near the end sounds like burning-bush-talk. So much for the way this article is expressed. As for content, I am informed that "Burmese Days:New York:Harper & Brothers,1934" by George Orwell gives a non-vicious background account of this. I have ordered a copy and will get back here when more enlightened. 81.250.200.198 14:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

George Orwell isn't a trustworthy source for the history of Burma. His book is an overtly political work. He was never a historian of Burma and his personal observations are decades out of date with the actual war.

Stiff Upper Lip rules OK
"Burmese Days" provides no historical details of this, or any other Burmese war. It does however explain how the Brits obliged each other to stick to the "cause", and is an excellent study in the delusion of racial superiorty. Why, therefore, any British account of these and similar events takes the tone of this Encyclopedia BRITannica extract. Perhaps the sources of the En. Brit. article could be used to compile a more NPOV version. In a way, it could be a shame to "correct" the present article, providing a link to it, for curiosity purposes. It's like an old teapot, or someone like Peter Sellers doing a "colonial" number. Orwell's work can be consulted here : []. 83.195.44.61 20:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Burma Cops It
Also, see "Shooting an Elephant" by Orwell, for a further illustration of colonialism. 81.250.134.250 00:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm computer literate, but a web newbie, and I dont understand why these three things I've posted here, each followed by four (4) tildes, gives a different numerical address (in red) each time. Help ! "loony@altern.org"


 * You need to create an account and log in. The numbers are your (temporary) IP address.  --Henrygb 23:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:-Burma1885peacockfeltflag2.jpg
Image:-Burma1885peacockfeltflag2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Added images, needs more neutral text
I've added a number of images to the page. It, however, needs to be written more neutrally. I've taken only a very cursory look at it, but it has the style of an old-fashioned imperial history. Doesn't work in 2008. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Burmese insurgency


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Burmese insurgency. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Third Anglo-Burmese War. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Third Anglo-Burmese War – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Jonsolomon85 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It is possible to link an article I've created titled "Burmese Insurgency 1885-1895" under the main page of "Third Anglo-Burmese War" under the sub-heading "Annexation and Resistance"?

Text from Encyclopedia Britannica
Because this article contains a significant amount of text from EB the 'more footnotes' tag is not really appropriate, and may give the casual reader an incorrect impression of the article's provenance. This applies to a number of Burma related articles, and should be reviewed by someone who is an SME in this field. Downsize43 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Third Anglo-Burmese War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060822071151/http://www.regiments.org:80/wars/19thcent/85burma.htm to http://www.regiments.org/wars/19thcent/85burma.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

hooper
hallo, a brief visit from the german wikipedia. i wrote the article about willoughby wallace hooper yesterday and wonder why there's no article about him here, in the english wikipedia. hooper is mentioned in this article four times, and his role as a photographer in "hindustan" and the burmese war was significant. Maximilian (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Review
After reading this article, I have come to notice the that this article has a lack of reliable sources. The sources in this article are primarily from encyclopedias which is not reliable. However, if the information in this article can be proven as facts, then it will be a good article. For example, in the second paragraph of the section titled "The War" two citations were to encyclopedia articles. This is not very good sourcing but he is what is good about this article:

Lead
The lead has a great start for a reader to understand what the article is about. However, it left out information about Kinwun Mingyi U Kuang. It should include information about him because he is such an important factor for the end of the Konbuang dynasty.

Balanced coverage
The article has a balance of the background of the war, the war itself, and the aftermath of the war. It has a decent coverage of the events of the war.

Clear Structure
The article follows a contents box which displays the structure of the article.

The article has many flaws about it also. Here are some flaws:

Content is not neutral
The content in this article is biased to British colonial view points.

I agree with this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.201.66 (talk) 08:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing
The sourcing in this article is not great. The article consist of some bare URLS which are bad citations because the website may change at any time which may lead to not knowing what was cited for the article.

The Article will be better if these problems become omitted.Makaveli334 (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked one of your words. ;) Dr Aaij (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)