Talk:Defense of Sihang Warehouse

message: Vandalism removed 75.2.167.71 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Music television. Actually music video. Should have been more specific. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. Not notable enough, methinks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Further discussion here and on MILHIST Peer Review page. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism removed

message: This is in regards to: . I've actually got a few questions about this. Is it Really on the roof? I don't know anything about chinese warehouse building, especially since all the roofs I've known are of modern construction, but it seems that those guys are on cobble stones with a lip of a sidewalk nearby. It appears there looks like a building that looks like other pictures of the Sihang warehouse in the background, which doesn't mean anything, but it might mean the picture is not on the roof but nearby.  Given that all the surrounding buildings (which mentioned in the article were occupied by the IJA, and that those 'occupied buildings' were higher than the warehouse (as the picture implies) it'd be a poor choice (tactically, not for a picture) for soldiers to be prone when the IJA occupies higher building floors across the street, And given that the article states that the roof was heavily fortified (2 HMGs, etc.) I don't think it'd be easy to accomplish that with IJA on higher building floors a few score meters ways away.
Continuing, barbed wire positions on the roof? It wouldn't be unheard of, especially since the IJA was trying to scale the building using ladders.
-- What I suppose i'm saying, is unless cited, I can't reasonably believe that is a shot of soldiers on the roof. I'd suggest rather "Picture taken of NRA troops in a fortified position during the defense of Sihang Warehouse." Chapparal 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Will look into this. -- Миборовский 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry it took me this long to reply. I have been unable to find concrete, incontrovertible evidence indicating the origin of the picture in question. I have removed it. -- 我♥中國 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roof Picture 

message: "This drew the attention, if only briefly, of the international community to Chiang Kai-shek's bid for world-wide support against Japanese aggression."  In the U.S. at least the Japanese invasion of China was very closely followed and CKS was well-known and supported, albeit by Christian missionaries who wanted to convert the whole country but still, the statement doesn't seem accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.177.1.127 (talk) 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Attention 

message: If I judge this correctly, the amazing part of this is not merely the success of the defence itself, but the method in which the foreign concessions distanced themselves. "Hey look, our hosts are fighting a war of resistance, let's not lift a finger to help them in any way!" Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 09:23, 3 May 2006 
(UTC)
I dont want to rain on anyones parade but the whole tone of the articles is jingoistic celebration of chinese strength.  Its was a sucessful rearguard action not a victory and the Japanese aggressors captured the warehouse and eventually also captured the surviving defenders.  Militarily it had little value as the escaping army was not within the boundaries of the defence. Its purpose was entirely political and though casualties were high and terrible the action was hardly suicidal.
:Well, it's doubtful that the ang moh kwei thought of themselves as "guests". They "leased" their concessions and enjoy extraterritoriality on them. (Not sure if these were repealed during the Republic.) Anyway, if one studies modern Chinese history, it's rather apparent that the Brit, Yank, Bolshi leaders of the time were all pretty two-faced. Lend Lease was a joke, Brits sat on their butts, and Bolshis of course supplied both the commies and the nationalists and let them duke it out after the war. IMHO Germany was the most faithful, but even they withdrew their help in mid 1938. We signed one of the only two non-Versailles treaties that were "equal", and look! Well that's how it is, weak guys get pushed around. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The unequal treaties were all voided in 1941 or 1943 I believe. And yes, China got pretty much the short end of the stick all the time. BlueShirts 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The unspoken part  

message: The intro looks good, but I think the sentence The successful defense [...] proving that when properly led and motivated, even a small group of Chinese troops could overcome a much greater Japanese force is rather misleading. The main force of Chiang Kai-shek's army, including the 88th division which the lost battalion belonged to, had already fought the Japanese to a standstill valiantly until its lines crumpled after continuously delayed order to retreat. Thus I think right now the intro sentence implies that the defense was the "only" instance of Chinese fortitude and resourcefulness during the battle and that is patently incorrect. The defense of the warehouse itself was militarily rather insignificant, and it did not really "cover" the retreat of the Chinese troops eastward. The bulk of the Chinese troops have already retired from Shanghai and were on route to take part in the defense of Nanking. The main purpose of the lost battalion was to let the international delegates of the Nine-Powers Treaty, in session in Brussels, to know that the Chinese were still fighting. BlueShirts 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, now that I've gone back and read it, it does give that impression. What would you suggest we change it to? My brain's not working right after studying for the AP Bio and Chem tests next week... :S -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 09:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question about the intro 

message: Okay, the part where it mentions that the battalion was "technically over-strength" but in actuality "under-strength" - can someone explain that? Is this related to having 800 troops in one battalion (a number made up when Yang Huimin asked for a list of names) and thus this technicality occurred during the battle, or was there something "on paper, but not in practice" that occurred before the battle? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 13:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overstrength as it was officially listed as an overstrength battalion. A battalion is about 600 men. As the 88th was a triangular division, (sorry, more military jargon, but there's a diagram here), it means that the battalion is formed of 3 companies + misc units (signal, comm, medical, artillery etc). An overstrength battalion is formed of (usually) 4 or more companies, which is the case here. So it's "supposed" to have approx 800 people in 4 companies. However due to battle losses, slow reinforcement, etc, the real strength of the battalion at the time of battle was around 400+, which is why it's actually understrength. Now how do I explain all that in a concise sentence... :X -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 09:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Technically "over-strength"

message: I find that having the article title translations, such as (), in the lead really kills the readability of the first few lines of text. Ideally, we want the lead to be as clear and concise as possible and having the translations clutters the flow without any real benefit. The interwiki links are available if I need to know what the event is called in another language, and for the vast majority of people reading the article these translations merely get in the way when they're put in the lead. I'd like to see the translations removed. Just something to think about. --NormanEinstein 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title translations in lead

message: Was there a Zhabei District during the ROC era? — Instantnood 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. -- Миборовский 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When was the Zhabei District established? — Instantnood 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  and . It seems that certain elements date back to 1675. But, "上海开埠以后，新闸、老闸北面也开始发展，闸北之名开始出现。" so it wasn't until the Treaty ports were opened that Zhabei developed into a city area. Then "辛亥革命后，闸北即成立闸北市政厅。" so it was some time after 1911 that it was formally made into a district. -- Миборовский 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 市政廳 may not equal 区. I've replaced Zhabei District with Zhabei. — Instantnood 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Zhabei District

message: *Sihang Warehouse seems to be known as J.S.S. in some older literature.
*The address is 22 Retrocession Road (光复路) in Zhabei District, Shanghai. That's a small road, so find North Tibet Road (西藏北路) and where it crosses Suzhou Creek. It's quite close to the Shanghai (North) Railway Station.
*The lyrics to the propaganda song is hidden in one of the oldest revisions of the article, but you can find it too at User:Miborovsky/Propaganda.
-- Миборовский 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to the lyrics, it should be mentioned that on your page you say "Not gonna provide translations as they can't do justice to the highly emotional nature of these songs". Maybe true, but very frustrating for English-speakers! If anyone is willing to translate them, then do please say so! 217.33.74.20 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellany 

message: Something somewhat related: http://www.im.tv/vlog/personal.asp?memid=200483&fid=383998 I like KFC a bit more now :) -- Миборовский 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol that really is the best commercial ever. BlueShirts 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are those thing supposed to be? Legs of some sort of animal (presumably chicken)?Mr.WaeseL 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's a KFC commercial it's probably chicken, LOL. It's a pun on the name of the... chicken. A rather sacrilegious commercial, but it's good they still remember it. -- Миборовский 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best. Commercial. Ever. 

message: I just Figured that I'd let the person who contributes to this entry know that there is more vandalism on the page:  in large blue letters at the top it says "cunt".  I tried to fix it but I could not locate it.  Have a Good One!
24.248.188.125 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This is really inconsistent throughout the article - can we just stick to the title "defenSe"вWakipedia 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense or Defence  

message: Maybe it is just me and my browser (Firefox 2.0.0.8), but "sihangmap.png" obscures the text at the beginning of the Background section on my screen.  It would be nice if it didn't, especially given that this is an FA.  Thanks.  --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: In the chapter ″29 October″:
″He grabbed the first Japanese soldier's rifle, choked him with the other hand, pushed him off, and finally shot another Japanese soldier on the ladder before pushing the ladder off.[6]″
Is this action sequence encyclopedic prose enough?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.236.60.19 (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overkill description of a combat situation? 

message: The entry as written appears to be written entirely from the Chinese side. We hear about Chinese personnel of various ranks down to private but not their Japanese counterparts. Is there a Japanese account of the battle that identifies some of the Japanese soldiers who led small units, threw grenades, climbed ladders, etc., that could provide more information on what was taking place on the other side of the battle? Imagine a contemporary account of the Battle of Iwo Jima that discussed only the American experience in detail. This is not a dis on China and the Chinese, but is there more information out there. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a Japanese account of this battle? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Defense of Sihang Warehouse. 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://archive.is/20070716080347/http://www.kjlw.org/nr/g/4816/711096.html to http://www.kjlw.org/nr/g/4816/711096.html
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) 02:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The defense is intentionally made to be a piece of propaganda; given that, the lede should contain not the slightest bit of unsourced material, yet I see more  here than in any other article I can remember.  --84.189.84.17 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: As of 2023/06/28 I have restored the article to a more historically verifiable version. It should be understood that there are NO Japanese sources that can attest to the any IJA divisions let alone the IJA at all being involved in the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. Japanese sources point to this being an entirely IJN operation carried out by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force. The correct forces present in the battle have been added to the article, with their strength and casualty figures included. The claim of "200+ killed - Hundreds wounded" is not only historically unverifiable--as it relies heavily on Chinese language sources which themselves draw from period accounts from NRA soldiers which are generally propagandistic in nature and of dubious authenticity--they are even more so illogical. Based on the Japanese order of battle, only some 980 troops were involved, meaning 200 KIA would have absolutely devastated the Japanese forces and resulted at the very least in a call for reinforcements from another battalion/company if not suspension of the operation altogether. Yet there is no mention of this in any Japanese sources. Japanese sailors killed during the fighting in Shanghai are meticulously documented in this book ( https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1906225/1/1 ) yet there is only one mention of an officer succumbing to his injuries after fighting around Sihang Warehouse. Where are the other 199 supposed KIA? What unit were they from? For this figure to be correct we would have to assume the Japanese just decided to cover up 199 KIA for this particular part of the battle but made no effort to conceal other heavy losses such as the dozens killed in a single day while landing at Woosung covered in the same book. There are a number of local histories published in Japan which cover the deaths of men sent to war during the Battle of Shanghai but my search did not result in any more KIA at Sihang Warehouse being discovered. No contemporary Japanese scholars or any scholars in the past 85+ years have uncovered Japanese sources for this figure. It's far more logical that the Chinese accounts are simply using false figures that have no historical basis.
If others wish to make large changes to the article, I kindly ask that you use sources which are historically verifiable, not dubious accounts which defy logic. I am open to discussion and looking for more good sources but as it stands there is not any justification for altering the Japanese order of battle or casualty figures beyond pro-Chinese historical negationism. Adachi1939 (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Restored 

message: Yesterday I had added a number of citation needed tags as well as failed verification and irrelevant citation tags for changes previously made by user @KresyRise in addition to labeling the Chinese account of events used for the article as "Chinese Account of Events" and adding a section for the Japanese Account of Events. These changes were made in an effort to improve the neutrality of the article and bring improper citations into question.
The first area of contention is the strength figure, which the aforementioned has listed as 20,000. The citation they have used (Hattori, Satoshi; Dera, Edward J. (2013). Japanese Operations from July to December 1937, The Battle for China. Stanford University Press. p. 173. ISBN 0-804-79207-0.) has failed verification as the page mentioned does not mention this figure on the page and an examination of this work shows this figure is not mentioned on any page for the Japanese forces involved on the assault on Sihang Warehouse. They have removed the failed verification tag in spite of this and added an additional citation (Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-922539-20-5.). While the citation fails to provide a page number for the page, I did read through the book and did not find a mention of this figure for the Japanese force involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse. These citations are not proper. 
The second area I would like to bring attention to is participating forces on the Japanese side. Users have listed the IJA 3rd and 9th Divisions along with "Special Naval Landing Forces: Japanese Marine and Naval Infantry Units" (it should be noted Imperial Japan did not have marines after 1876). The participating forces are disputed as Japanese sources list the only unit involved as the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force (see 1st citation on the article), which was part of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), not IJA. I have not been able to examine all of the sources provided as they are not properly cited and are missing ISBN numbers, but of the one citation I could verify (Hattori, Satoshi (2013). Japanese Operations from July to December 1937, The Battle for China (1st ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 172. ISBN 978-0804792073.), I was able to confirm it makes no mention of either of the IJA 3rd Division nor the IJA 9th Division being involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse. I had previously added an irrelevant citation tag for this citation but it has been removed by KresyRise without explanation. There needs to be work made to this section as the poor citations and conflicting sources points to it being factually inaccurate. 
The third area I would like to address is the accounts of the battle. As the account of the battle relies heavily on Chinese primary sources and secondary sources drawing from the former, I had taken the liberty to label it as "Chinese Account of Events" and add the Japanese Account of Events below for neutrality's sake. The Chinese Account of Events has instead been relabeled to to simply "Battle" by another user with the Japanese Account of Events preserved below. Given the large number of disputed and/or historically unverifiable claims made in what is now called the battle section, I believe it is appropriate to keep the events based on Chinese accounts labeled as such. Exerts such as "Hundreds of Japanese infantry attacked the warehouse from all directions with artillery fire and support from Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes." are present in the battle section, with citations leading to articles that themselves provide no sources. Meanwhile Japanese sources make no mention of employing armor in the assault at all. It is extremely misleading to prevent this section as a neutral retelling of events.
The last area I would like to bring to attention is the following two paragraphs in the Japanese account of events. It was originally written as follows:
"Surviving reports from the Imperial Japanese Navy do not include specific figures for the number of Japanese wounded nor enemy dead in Sihang Warehouse alone, but do make mention of some 100 enemy corpses left in Chapei on October 31 and a total of 42 Japanese troops wounded during the advance on Chapei. Of the 42 wounded, three were in serious condition, including a warrant officer from the 10th Battalion involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse who would later succumb to his injuries on November 2, 1937.[10][11]
The Imperial Japanese Naval Ministry Educational Bureau recorded and published all servicemen killed in action during the Battle of Shanghai across three volumes of books known as Shina Jihen Jinchuroku (支那事変尽忠録, China Incident Loyalty Records). Aside from the aforementioned warrant officer, there are no other records of Japanese troops killed in action or gravely wounded during the assault on Sihang Warehouse, making the Chinese claims of 200+ Japanese killed highly unlikely if not impossible."
User @KresyRise has altered it to the following, removing the Chinese casualty figure and explanation of Japanese killed in action recording purported by the Japanese:
"Surviving reports from the Imperial Japanese Navy do not include specific figures for the number of Japanese wounded nor enemy dead in Sihang Warehouse alone, but do make mention a total of 42 Japanese troops wounded during the advance on Chapei. Of the 42 wounded, three were in serious condition, including a warrant officer from the 10th Battalion involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse who would later succumb to his injuries on November 2, 1937.[14][15]
The Imperial Japanese Naval Ministry Educational Bureau recorded and published all servicemen killed in action during the Battle of Shanghai across three volumes of books known as Shina Jihen Jinchuroku (支那事変尽忠録, China Incident Loyalty Records)."
I can agree some language used in the original two paragraphs may have been somewhat partisan in nature, but I would like to understand their reasoning for removing the Chinese casualty figure and explanation of why Japanese sources bring Chinese claims into dispute. Doesn't the inclusion of these details help with the neutrality of the article? While my analysis of the sources has made me reach the conclusion that the Chinese sources are largely exaggerated and of dubious accuracy, I am willing to compromise and work to both viewpoints being presented in the article, so that a reader may reach their own conclusion on what occurred during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. Removing areas from the Japanese account while preserving highly contested allegations from the Chinese accounts will not allow for this.
@KresyRise please provide me some insight into your changes and why you are using citations that do not support the information you are adding to the article. If I don't hear back I will be requesting a third opinion.
Thanks,
Adachi
Adachi1939 (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: i have tagged the user in question and messaged them on their talk page but have heard no response, I would like to reach an agreement on this matter without further edit warring. Requesting a comment from a third party  Adachi1939 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: On August 19 the user in question once again added citations to the article attempting to alter the Japanese strength and order of battle. These citations have already been determined to not support the content they have added to the article. As a result, I have reverted their changes. @JBW if you don't mind stepping in, can you suggest what can be done here? I have no interest in edit warring over the content of the article but I do not believe it is right for irrelevant/non-supporting citations to be used to mislead readers of the article.  Adachi1939 (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy and neutrality 

message: A passage was removed for the reason "Removed improperly cited content (Robinson makes no mention of dogs) " however citation "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Australia: Exisle Publishing. p. 134. ISBN 978-1-922539-20-5." has the passage as follows "“After sunset the Chinese defenders observed dogs dragging away Japanese corpses." As such, I am re-adding the passage.
Going forward, @KresyRise please read sources before saying there is no mention of such things in them. I even included the page number which in many cases you have neglected to do. Thank you.  Adachi1939 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogs 

message: 1180 sailors or 1180 marines? There's a big difference. I think the word we are looking for is marines, but I could be wrong. I seriously doubt they were pure sailors though. Alexysun (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The IJN didn't have a marine force in the 20th Century. Their naval infantry units were made up entirely of sailors. In memoirs of Japanese naval officers, including those who fought at Shanghai such as Ota Kazumichi (whose memoirs are in "Shikikantachi no Taiheiyo Senso"), they specifically state they are not marines but rather sailors assigned to land duties.  Adachi1939 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1180 sailors or 1180 marines?