Talk:Shanghai International Settlement

message: Is there anybody who can shed any information on the Japanese involement in the International Settlement? My understanding of it is that the original combined British and American settlement was bounded by Suzhou Creek on the north, and that when the Japanese entered into treaty relations with China that they concentrated themselves in the Hongkew area to the north of Suzhou Creek. Japanese strength in that part of Shanghai built up at an enormous rate throughout the 1930s until it seriously rivalled the British strength south of Suzhou Creek. Then of course, in December 1941, the Japanese took control of everything. It's possible that Japan may have been involved in the municipal council, but I'm pretty sure that the original area of the International Settlement south of Suzhou Creek was always a predominantly British affair, with the Americans having a large presence too.
In fact, I can't see any sign of a Japanese flag in the flag of the International Settlement. I have a feeling that the Japanese settlement at Hongkew may have been something different like the French Concession, but I'm not sure enough about this to write anything in the main article. David Tombe (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem as if this old newspaper cutting (The Lewiston Daily, 12th April 1940) has answered the question. The Japanese were on the municipal council in its latter days, and they tried to take it over. See here . David Tombe (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The Japanese in the International Settlement

message: I've removed the Scandinavian translations for the settlement as they were clearly Google Translate phrases (more akin to "Shanghai International Debt Payment Process" than a reference to a human habitat). I suspect the Russian translation is rubbish too, as "Settlement" is merely Cyrillic representation of the characters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.31.186 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad Language

message: The article is "British-centric" for a good reason. Under the 1843 Treaty of the Bogue, the British were granted extraterritoriality, which effectively gave them complete control of their concessions in China. The Chinese government didn't get a look in.  Philg88 ♦talk 14:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bias is never actually becoming. The article needs Chinese, American, &c. coverage as well (not that it seems bad atm) and the extraterritoriality of British citizens has very little to do with it. — LlywelynII 03:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  British centric? 

message: The new maps are beautiful. Thank you. — LlywelynII 03:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Maps

message: (both at first and over time) need to be included at some point.
In particular, w/r/t to the boundaries of the Shanghai Ghetto, what was the parallel chosen as the edge of the American concessions in Yangpu and Hongkou? It didn't follow any of the streets and (according to these maps) it wasn't quite 31°17′ or any obvious fraction. The French Concession seems easy as it (at least by the end) was bounded by roads, but what was the rationale for the western end of the British settlement? — LlywelynII 03:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Boundaries

message: It might make more sense for this section to be split off as a separate listicle, which could be linked to from here. Thoughts? --diff (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively it could be converted to a Wikitable and shown collapsed as the default. That would keep everything in one place.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Chairmen of the Shanghai Municipal Council 

message: From Shanghai International Settlement: "The French and Americans surrendered without a shot, while the only British riverboat in Shanghai, HMS Peterel, refused to surrender and was sunk although nobody was killed."
From HMS Peterel (1927): "Of the British crew of 22, 18 were on board Peterel at the time of the attack. Six of them were killed by the Japanese; they have no known graves and it is unclear whether their bodies were recovered from the water."
Which is it? 178.84.130.253 (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HMS Peterel 

message: The article in its current form is lovely but obviously inaccurate. The Shanghai International Settlement didn't exist until 1863 and the article needs cleanup to reflect that. Great to have an overview, but probably should have separate treatment of the American and British exclaves during their separate existence.
Alternatively, the page could be renamed to something more generic, such as foreign concessions in Shanghai in order to cover the entire period. — LlywelynII 07:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Currently the infobox gives "1945" as the end-date for the International Settlement which seems to contradict the text. As I understand it, the International Settlement ceased to exist de facto in 1941 and de jure in 1943. The former seems more logical, so I have made the change. If I am missing something important, it would be worth discussing. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  End date 

message: On Wikipedia article the motto is written as "Omnia Juncta in Uno", but I found another source showing this motto written as "Juncta in Uno Omnia". So which one is right? -- Great Brightstar (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for motto