Talk:Siege of Port Arthur

message: *Morris, Edmund. (Edmund Morris) Theodore Rex. The Modern Library, 2002 (div. of Random House,2001 ISBN: 0-8129-6600-7
----
Thanks Fabartus 07:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The first thing I would worry about is finding a second source. I assume Theodore Rex is a biography of Rooselvelt not a history of the Russo-Japanese war, so Morris is going to approach the subject from a Rooselvelt-a-centric view. What does a history of the war say on the subject? I guess the second question is how much of the discussion is needed here. For example, the fact that President Roosevelt was awarded the Noble Prize, and the long term effect on Japan and the start of WWII may not be needed here. Having said that, if the version above is more accurate than what was there before (and at least it has a citation) the change is a good idea. Andreww 09:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: While the article seems to be dealing mostly with land operations, it does go into naval business when applicable. I think it would be well along the lines if we include a section dealing with sinking of japanese battleships "Hatsuse" and "Yashima" near Port-Arthur - especially considering that they were the only japanese battleships sunk by the russians in that war. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mine Warfare 

message: I removed sentences concerning poison gas. I checked some evaluated books about Siege of Port Arthur or Japanese chemical warfare, but can't find any mentions. Please put back the sentences with appropriate sources.--Amagase 09:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poison gas 

message: I noticed some minor inconsistencies in the article shown by these three quotations:
"11-inch howitzers with 500-kilogram armor-piercing shells"
"the arrival of the first battery of huge Krupp 11-inch siege howitzers, replacing those lost on the Hitachi-Maru disaster. The massive Krupp howitzers could throw a 227 kilogram shell over 9 kilometers"
"Over 1000 of the 500-lb shells from the 11-inch Krupp howitzers were fired in a single day to support this attack."
I know nothing about artillery, but I'm betting someone who is reading this does!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson44691 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some inaccurate descriptions in the sentences. These howitzers were not German-made, but Italian and its copies made in Japan. There were no howitzers lost in the sinking of Hitachi-maru. I can't find any appropriate sources about the weight by now. --Amagase (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of the shells thrown by the 11-inch howitzers 

message: The article mentions several times a "Foch" but doesn't give any idea of who he was, except he was "incompetent". This may need a little more details and argumentation, maybe ? 
He definitely is not the same person as Ferdinand Foch.
A quick search on Google would lead to conclude that it should have been Fock, not Foch. See for example some archives from the New York Times, this article, and a seemingly serious book on the subject
So it's probably an error; this error appears in a few pages (Roman Kondratenko, Battle of Nanshan, Anatoly Stessel) , all related to the same events, so probably from the same source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farialima (talk • contribs) 06:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who was Foch (beside being "incompetent"..) ? Shouldn't be "Fock" ? 

message: I would like to propose that we change the Result from "Japanese Pyrrhic Victory" to "Japanese Victory" or something similar.  By definition, a pyrrhic victory is one where the victor suffers losses so devastating in the achievement of victory that the result proves not worth the cost.  I think it would be hard to argue such was the case at Port Arthur for the Japanese.  Thoughts? Jrt989 (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "Pyrrhic" keeps being added to several battles of the Russo-Japanese War by an anon user, despite repeated warnings to desist by numerous editors. At best use of the word is POV, and it should be removed. --MChew (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Result in Infobox 

message: How many of the firsts were barbed wire and bolt-action magazine rifles were used in the boar war. Maxim guns were also not introduced in this war, although this was the first was they were used in large numbers. Trenchwarfare is as old as the ACW. I rthink we really need sources for this.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: first amoung eqauls

message: Are the death totals right?  Um, seems kind of high.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.90.156 (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  kia 

message: The Landships website is not a reliable source. What's most funny about it is that it says the Obice 280K is not designed by Krupp. If you know anything about 19th century Italian designations, you'd see how lame this is. Krupp made some "un-German" (in Landships terminology) breeches, including the ones on the 400/35 guns (also sold to Italy) and the Gamma Gërat. 
From The Royal Engineers Journal, Volume 43, p. 718:
-- Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obice 280K 

message: Parts of this article seem to be based on the historical novel Saka no Ue no Kumo, or perhaps its TV adaption. Japanese Wikipedia has a large section in the Saka no Ue no Kumo article which says that its account of 203-Meter Hill and Kodama's relief of Nogi is entirely fictional and has no historical basis whatsoever. However, other parts of the article seem to be drawn from real historical sources and I am not sure what to do. I request anyone interested in this topic to review more reliable sources and edit or blank the article as needed. Shii (tock) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanded and added footnotes. Per numerous sources, Kodama had been given written orders by Oyama to relieve Nogi of his command if required, but this proved unnecessary, as Nogi was amenable to accepting "advice" and agreed to follow Kodama's directive to concentrate his attack on 203-Meter Hill. However, (per Warner, Connaught and others) during the seesaw final assault on 203-Meter Hill, Kodama decided that he needed to take a more pro-active role and (with Nogi's acquiescence), began to issue orders directly to the front-line commanders. However, he never formally relieved Nogi of his command. --MChew (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for clearing this up. Shii (tock) 02:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: The Lüshunkou District article says that the Liaodong Peninsula was ceded to the Japanese under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, given back under pressure during the Triple Intervention, then a lease to Russia was "coerced".  This version says that the lease was three days after the treaty was signed.  This being history, I wouldn't be surprised if both were right, but somebody ought to figure it out. :) Wnt (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious inconsistency 

message: I know nothing about this war, but I have studied British foreign policy in the run-up to the Great War at various levels over the decades.  And this is the first time I have encountered Britain being accused of being the main cause of the conflict.  I am aware that Britain had recently signed the Entente Cordiale with France (who was an ally of Russia) while also having alliance with Japan.
But if you're going to say "The main cause of the siege was the British stealth operation conducted under Edward VII which caused Japanese leaders to believe that the French were collaborating with Russia behind their backs" then you must provide evidence. Edward VII, as King, had no control over British politics or foreign policy.  So to suggest that any operations were conducted by him is ridiculous.
Ganpati23 (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The role of Britain. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Siege of Port Arthur. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824082623/http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/port_arthur/05_siege.htm to http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/port_arthur/05_siege.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified