AI tools

Talk:Defense of Sihang Warehouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Article milestones, Date ...
Close

1180 sailors or 1180 marines?

Summarize
Perspective

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)

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)
@Adachi1939 I'm pretty sure that they did. They were called the Special Naval Landing Forces. The first sentence of the Wikipedia page for them states, "The Special Naval Landing Forces were the marines of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN)". So yes, Japan did have a marine force during the war. Alexysun (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The claim on that wiki page is not even cited and only a bit further down in the article it reads "The SNLF was not a marine force, but was instead sailors who had basic infantry training and were employed in landings as early as the Russo-Japanese War and the Boxer Rebellion." If you want a more up to date source for SNLF and other Japanese naval infantry units I not so humbly recommend my own work "Rikusentai: The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Japanese Naval Landing Forces 1927-1945". You can even download it for free on Library Genesis. I briefly covered in the introduction how the IJN initially had a force known as "marines" in the Meiji Era before abolishing them in favor of the naval landing force system.
Whether they were SNLF or naval landing parties, they were all just sailors reassigned from ships or naval units (such as homeland training or defense units) to fight on land. Some naval officers such as Commander Takeda Isamu who was the deputy chief of staff for the Shanghai SNLF during the battle had studied with the IJA and were considered land warfare experts, but the IJN never classified any of them as marines. Adachi1939 (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

changes as of 7/14

there were a series of inaccuracies surrounding the data that were corrected today. first was the infobox: the sources used for the japanese casualties indicate two snlf dying of wounds from the attack on sihang warehouse on october 30: petty officer tanaka and second lieutenant tian. there are still some issues surrounding the quality of this source but that's for another time. in addition, the figure of 100 japanese killed being an "initial chinese claim" was moved to the summary as it was reported in a newspaper on the day of the chinese retreat, not an official chinese report. it is not accurate to classify a newspaper article as an official chinese military report, while the "post-war chinese claim" was not made up post war, they were reported on by division leader sun yuanliang and added up from chinese combat reports from observation posts. original research in the aftermath section was also removed as per WP:NOR. chinese claims did not increase postwar: the numbers did not appear out of thin air nor is such a claim provided in the source material. they were added up from chinese observation posts and reported on by division commander sun yuanliang. content alleging a major debate over the battle's events was also removed, as there were no citations provided, and no indication of any serious or legitimate scholarly dispute, save for the contents of this talk page. Wahreit (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Wahreit you can not alter the Japanese claim of KIA without adding a citation to support it. Second Lieutenant Tian is not a Japanese name. In fact Tian is the Chinese reading of the first character of the KIA Warrant Officer Tanaka Shiroku's name (田中士陸: Tian Zhong Shi Lu in Chinese) and Second Lieutenant was his posthumously awarded rank. This is not only an issue with no citation for your claims but also WP:OriginalResearch in which you have tried to calculate your own purported Japanese toll and in the process unwittingly turned the same individual into two different people and counted them twice by misinterpreting some unknown source.
Also, you changed the Chinese alleged figure to "Chinese and Western Estimate" and used two sources:
  1. Yuanliang, Sun (2002). "A Moment In A Billion Years". 8/13 Battle of Songhu (in Chinese). Shanghai Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. pp. 8–9.
  2. Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing. p. 117.
There is not really a need to cite both here as if you read Robinson's book (#2), you will see he cites (#1) for his claims. In essence you're citing the same thing twice. As the original source is based on a 2002 memoir, it is quite literally a postwar claim. Furthermore, Robison is not an authoritative source for all westerners. You should consult more western sources and add a separate "Western Estimate" rather than trying to assert that there is a consensus between Western and Chinese sources on how many troops the Japanese lost.
You also renamed "Chinese account of events" to "Chinese and Western account of events." It seems yet again you are trying to assert that there is a consensus between Western and Chinese accounts. How about I add some reports from US Diplomatic Papers and newspapers at the time if we really want to see the Western view?
Any reason why this passage was removed?
>"As Chinese memoirs and Japanese combat reports for the event largely contradict each other, there remains debate over what truly occurred during the defense."
You also changed the passage about the initial purported Japanese death toll of 100 to be the newspaper reporting it and not what Xie Jinyuan himself had said to the newspaper. This is an important detail given he was the Lost Battalion's Commander.
Overall your changes were a step in the wrong direction and since you failed to provide a source for what appears to be WP:OriginalResearch on the Japanese claim of their own losses and attempted to reframe China's version of events as the western ones too, I have reverted it.
@QiushufangI would also appreciate your input on this and it would be great if you could explain to @Wahreit why when altering a claim you need to include a citation for it. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
your citation itself states there being two japanese marines killed in the direct assault on sihang warehouse. page 231 of your source from JACAR reads clearly, "On October 30th of the same year, two men were killed after being injured in the battle near Sihang Warehouse near Zhabei, Shanghai." two, not one as you claim. this wasn't a change, it was a correction, an action any editor is allowed to do, which someone actually did do in the aftermath section before you reverted it today to match your inaccurate claims.
the "initial chinese claim" was removed because it was a newspaper article published the day of the chinese retreat, not an official military claim. if we are going to count newspapers as official military or state claims, then we should also indicate there being a western estimate of some 40,000 Japanese troops in the area according to arundel's newspaper article. chinese reports did not increase postwar as the article claimed, they were based off of observation reports that had been in existence since the battle. framing it in this manner implies the chinese made up japanese losses out of thin air, something neither zhu xie's nor robinson's works indicate. unless you want those japanese sources to also be labelled "post-war" estimates because they were only declassified "post-war," this change remains.
the sections about a "debate" were removed because they were unsourced and because there is, quite literally, no external debate. the works of peter harmsen, stephen robinson, eric niderost and a bunch of other chinese and western sources all indicate a large battle taking place near Sihang Warehouse, and unless you can actual published sources out there indicating a massive scholarly debate surrounding the events of the battle (without your own original research), this part is inaccurate and needs to be removed.
finally, just as a friendly reminder @Adachi1939, you don't own this page, nor can you dictate what sources can or cannot be used based on your personal preferences. wikipedia is a free encyclopedia maintained by volunteers where anyone is allowed to make edits, not just you. this includes but are not limited to users @Kapitan318@KresyRise @203.221.62.213, @Spqrrome, and @Qiushufang, among many others. if you can't handle criticisms or disagreements of your content without resorting to personal attacks or indiscriminate reverting, then i will need to reach out for moderation.
@Qiushufang or anyone else, feel free to add your perspective below. I'm open to a dialogue, and willing to compromise. Wahreit (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
>your citation itself states there being two japanese marines killed in the direct assault on sihang warehouse. page 231 of your source from JACAR reads clearly, "On October 30th of the same year, two men were killed after being injured in the battle near Sihang Warehouse near Zhabei, Shanghai." two, not one as you claim. this wasn't a change, it was a correction, an action any editor is allowed to do, which someone actually did do in the aftermath section before you reverted it today to match your inaccurate claims.
There is no JACAR source cited stating anybody on the Japanese side was KIA. The source comes from the National Diet Library Digital Archive ref.1906225. I provided a detailed translation for this in the footnotes. I will copy it here in case you didn't read it:
"支那事変尽忠録 第三卷" - "China Incident Loyalty Record: Volume 3," a catalog of all Imperial Japanese Navy personnel killed in action or fatally wounded from the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War until December 11, 1937 has only a single entry relating to fatal casualties around Sihang Warehouse. Page 231 titled "同年十月三十日上海閘北四行倉庫附近ニ於ケル戰傷後死者" - "Same Year [1937] October 30: Those who died of their battle wounds while fighting around the Shanghai Sihang Warehouse" lists Naval Special Duty Ensign [posthumous rank] Tanaka Shiroku (田中士陸). Page 231-232 further states "Warrant Officer Tanaka was a platoon leader in the Haji Corps, Sunouchi Company, landing at Shanghai on the evening of August 19 and being placed under the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force Commander's authority." Page 233 continues "Tanaka was heavily wounded by an enemy machine gun round passing through his lower left leg at 6:25 PM [on Oct 30]. He was bandaged at his position and immediately transferred to the hospital for treatment. He temporarily improved in health but by November 2 his condition suddenly worsened and on the same day at 3:30 PM he honorably died of his battle wounds."
You are welcome to try and find a Japanese user to verify my translation.
The "initial chinese claim" came directly from the commander of the lost battalion himself. Whether it was reported right after or not, it's still valuable information from someone who witnessed the fighting firsthand. Obviously a figure testified by a commander to a newspaper has far more weight than an estimate by a random observer. You have so far failed to provide a source for when this 200 figure first appeared. At least I can say exactly when the first mention of 100 happened.
Most importantly, there was no good reason to completely revert all my changes and completely remove the new section covering the Western Account of Events. This has moved far beyond making reasonable corrections to the article and into edit warring to try and force your viewpoints across. There is no doubt you are trying to frame the Chinese account of events and figures presented as some sort of western consensus. While I certainly don't hold ownership over this article or any for that matter, neither do you. From how I see it, while I add information and provide more viewpoints, you are quite the contrary removing valuable information and trying to hide what details you don't like. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
I readded the western account of events properly with the citations. The Japanese claim for their KIA you were wrong about so I restored that too. Otherwise, most of the changes you made I restored or brought closely to what you said. If you want to censor Xie being the one who reported 100 Japanese KIA to the newspaper again be my guest. It should be obvious looking at the western, Chinese, and Japanese account of events which side was being more truthful anyways. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
@Adachi1939, it would be best for you not to resort to finger pointing, because:
1. it's juvenile
2. it's yet another violation of wikipedia's polices
3. you wouldn't have much solid ground to stand upon, considering you call yourself a "butcher of the sihang warehouse page," and it is you, not me, that has been banned not just once, but twice for obstructive edit-warring and an ownership approach (everyone following this dispute can check his talk page for confirmation).
the reasons why these changes were implemented are clearly outlined above. page 231 of 支那事変尽忠録 第三卷 clearly states 2 japanese dead as a result of the sihang warehouse attack, and the way the original article content was framed did not accurately reflect the sources they were citing. it is true the newspaper does read some 100 japanese soldiers died, but those reports of 200+ japanese dead and tank losses were not made up after the war, they were in existence since the battle ended as detailed on pages 117-118 of robinson's book.
if you want to accuse people who disagree with you of malicious agendas, it would be more appropriate to do it on a different platform: this is wikipedia, not twitter. otherwise, if you cannot communicate maturely and reasonably with other editors, i will need to request a third opinion and moderation on this page. Wahreit (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Western Account of Events

Summarize
Perspective

Today I added a western account of events based on news reports from the North-China Herald and a US diplomatic record. I would be very grateful if more contemporary western sources could be added to this section to provide further detail for the western account of events. Thanks! Adachi1939 (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

your contributions to the western accounts of the battle were kept because they were actually verifiable and appear to be a good faith synthesis of the article's contents. assuming you do not immediately revert my changes and are willing to cooperate, i am willing to develop this section further with you in the coming weeks. Wahreit (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
you removed them and deleted all the citations when readding them... Adachi1939 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
was a minor mistake made during the process of moving content, glad to see you fixed it before i did. seeing that you did not immediately undo all my edits (though there are still many issues), i'll assume this means you'll be more cooperative and civil with other editors in the future. i look forward to editing this page with you. Wahreit (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Contributed a fair amount of new information to this section again today. There are now many contemporary accounts of the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces/Naval Landing Party/Marines engaging in the battle included. Funny how none of the contemporary western accounts say "IJA 3rd Division"...
As always, the more western accounts the better. I have heard mention of westerners witnessing Japanese troops dying in the assault so I would really like to see where those accounts originate from. At least we do have some accounts of a few casualties added now. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

the 3rd division's involvement and context for disputes

Summarize
Perspective

context for above: for anyone curious as to why the page as been undergoing major shifts for some time, here's a tl;dr of the situation, user @Adachi1939 has been suppressing the involvement of the 3rd ija division in the battle of sihang warehouse for some time now (coming up on 2 years). to achieve this, he has removed all prior mention of the 3rd division on this page which you can confirm via accessing older versions of the article before 2023, constantly reverted all edits that contradict his claims which you can find this history, and has a habit of aggressively confronting anyone who disagrees with him, which is visible on his talk page and this talk page. there's much more to this situation, but that's for another time.

the consensus: the established consensus is that the primary attackers on sihang warehouse were the 3rd division from the Imperial Japanese Army. this was established on the defense of sihang warehouse page since its origin in 2006, and was only removed by adachi in early 2022 in the spirit of "removing chinese propaganda." furthermore, the following secondary sources, each written and published by established historians, clearly support the 3rd division's involvement:

"Eight Hundred Heroes" by Stephen Robinson, an australian military historian and author:

"The 3rd Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, was known as the 'Lucky Division' and its men who survived the next two months of savage fighting would face the Eight Hundred at Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 62).

"However, the troops in the 'Lucky Division', after being in constant battle for over two months, were barely combat effective and in some cases corporals commanded shattered companies which had been reduced to platton strength. These fatigued and bloodied troops would soon reach Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 66).

"The Japanese 3rd 'Luckyy' Division, led by General Susumu Fujita, humiliated by the defiant flag, planned an all-out assault to capture the warehouse that day." (Robinson 95). "On the morning of 31 October, soldiers of the 3rd "lucky" Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, continued their siege of Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 108).

"Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" by Eric Niderost, a history professor and writer, published on Warfare History Network which is fair game as wikipedians are allowed to cite published articles:

"The Sihang defenders faced the Japanese 3rd Division, considered one of the best of the Imperial Japanese Army. They also had mortar teams, artillery, and armor—probably Type 94 Te-Ke tankettes." (Niderost).

"Three Months Of Bloodshed: Strategy And Combat During The Battle Of Shanghai," a thesis by Georgetown alum James Paulose who is quoted on the battle of shanghai wikipedia page:

"The 3rd Japanese Division under Matsui advanced to the warehouse after taking Shanghai North Railway Station, but the first assault was ineffective." (Paulose 18).

"On the precipice of Change," a thesis by Marta Kubacki at the University of Waterloo, whilst not explicitly naming the 3rd division in this specific quote (but she does so in a table on page 166):

"In slowing the Imperial Japanese Army advance, the extra time gave the rest of Shanghai's troops time to evacuate downtown Shanghai." (Kubacki 49).

in addition, these vidoes and articles, whilst admittedly not as reliable as the ones above, clearly show the same consensus: the bulk of the japanese attackers were the Imperial Japanese army, the 3rd division.

https://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85: Second Battle of Shanghai by founder C. Peter Chen:

"Moving toward the Sihang Warehouse were troops of General Iwane Matsui's 3rd Division. With access to Type 94 tankettes and Type 89 mortars, the Japanese wielded far greater firepower." (Chen).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxpG19OTmns:

Kings and Generals: Sihang Warehouse 1937 - Chinese Thermopylae - WW2 DOCUMENTARY go to 5:18: "They would be facing the 3rd IJA division, commanded by Iwane Matsui." I know youtube documentaries are not reliable per wikipedia's policies, but the point stands: it is the established consensus that the 3rd division was present.

these are the sources can be found with a quick google search (save for Robinson's book), i'm sure there's more. but what is common ground across all these sites and media, is that the IJA spearheaded the attack on sihang warehouse with the 3rd division. it is more than enough to warrant a presence on the sihang warheouse page and this one too. we will be fixing this as per Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, although we do anticipate pushback.

for those of you who read this to the bottom, apologies for the wall of text, but it was time someone finally got to the bottom of the matter. there is no ill will towards anyone here, we're simply trying to deliver the facts as they are. if anyone has any perspectives or questions, we're all ears Wahreit (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

TLDR: The so-called consensus and you are wrong. You are wasting time to spread a false notion while wrongly accusing me of suppressing their involvement.
Just because something is written in a book does not make it true.
Failed verification - Robinson's book has been thoroughly debunked.
"The 3rd Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, was known as the 'Lucky Division' and its men who survived the next two months of savage fighting would face the Eight Hundred at Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 62).
There is no citation provided on this page to support this claim, however earlier on the page he cites "Hatttori, Satoshi, with Dera [misspelled], Edward J., 'Japanese Operations from July to December 1937', The Battle for China, 169'
As stated earlier, just a few pages later in this same work pages 174-175 cover late October in the Shanghai Campaign and clearly that by Oct 25 the 9th Division had already left Shanghai for Zoumatang Creek, followed by the 3rd Division on Oct 26. In addition there are no mention of these IJA units fighting more at Shanghai after this in the work. They were evidently busy trying to cross the Suzhou.
"However, the troops in the 'Lucky Division', after being in constant battle for over two months, were barely combat effective and in some cases corporals commanded shattered companies which had been reduced to platton strength. These fatigued and bloodied troops would soon reach Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 66).
There is no citation provided for this claim in his work either.
"The Japanese 3rd 'Luckyy' Division, led by General Susumu Fujita, humiliated by the defiant flag, planned an all-out assault to capture the warehouse that day." (Robinson 95). "On the morning of 31 October, soldiers of the 3rd "lucky" Division, commanded by General Susumu Fujita, continued their siege of Sihang Warehouse." (Robinson 108).
Both of these have no citation either.
Robinson's work does not provide any solid citations for his claim of the IJA 3rd DIvision's involvement and his cited works even contradict his own claims. He probably read the old Wikipedia article like you did and wrongly thought the IJA 3rd Division was there.
Failed verification - "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" by Eric Niderost
This work does not provide any citations. Such a low value source cannot be used as a "consensus" which disputes actual primary sources and scholarly articles with sources.
Possibly Okay - "Three Months Of Bloodshed: Strategy And Combat During The Battle Of Shanghai," a thesis by Georgetown alum James Paulose
"The 3rd Japanese Division under Matsui advanced to the warehouse after taking Shanghai North Railway Station, but the first assault was ineffective." (Paulose 18).
For once we actually have a citation provided for this claim, the cite O’Connor, Critical Readings on Japan, 273-75. I cannot verify the source provided but at least we have a reference provided which uses a proper citation for the first time by @Wahreit so far.
Irrelevant/Grasping at Straws - "On the precipice of Change," a thesis by Marta Kubacki at the University of Waterloo, whilst not explicitly naming the 3rd division in this specific quote (but she does so in a table on page 166):
Failed verification - Second Battle of Shanghai by C. Peter Chen
Just like the Niderost article, random web article with no sources. Cannot be used to prove a point. Filled with outdated info anyways.
Failed verification - Kings and Generals: Sihang Warehouse 1937 - Chinese Thermopylae - WW2 DOCUMENTARY
YouTube video with no sources. Looks like they copied info off the old Wikipedia article but no way to be sure since no sources. No good.
Furthermore you are attempting to do WP:OriginalResearch with the primary source JACAR ref. C14120674900 for the IJA Division movements. Yes there were IJA units in general proximity to the warehouse, the 101st Division was also around Northern Zhabei. IJA units being in the vicinity is no surprise. There is however nothing on the maps or text showing the involvement in the attack on the Warehouse. When I reluctantly provide primary sources, I simply translate what the information written without synthesis. You mistranslate simple details such as asserting two KIA when only one was written and proposing scenarios the documents do not explicitly state.
You have to tried to say there is some sort of consensus with the IJA 3rd Division being present but 5/6 of your sources failed verification and the only possibly good one can't be fact-checked. On the other hand, I have provided an academic English source which states the 3rd Division had already left Shanghai proper, and numerous Japanese sources which provide the correct Order of Battle. A proper battle history would mention the units from the IJA 3rd Division involved anyways, such as which regiments were involved. None of these poor sources seem to demonstrate this because they don't know what they're talking about. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
this doesn't mean much.
>followed by the 3rd Division on Oct 26. In addition there are no mention of these IJA units fighting more at Shanghai after this in the work.
yes, because this book is a macro-meso analysis of the battle of shanghai. omission does not constitute a legitimate counter, nor does it counter the six sources i provided above (more detail on that later).
>They were evidently busy trying to cross the Suzhou.
your assumption, no real argument here. also, war isn't a paradox game: divisions can attack in multiple directions.
>On the other hand, I have provided an academic English source which states the 3rd Division had already left Shanghai proper
incorrect again. suzhou creek is in shanghai proper. as page 13 of your own source indicates: https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/listPhoto?LANG=default&REFCODE=C14120674900
the 3rd division's center of mass and sihang warehouse are half a mile distance from each other. no real argument here.
>The so-called consensus and you are wrong. You are wasting time to spread a false notion while wrongly accusing me of suppressing their involvement.
the consensus doesn't become wrong because you don't like it. you're acting like this is a clash in opinions, it is not. we're here to provide facts. furthermore, there are no accusations from anyone, because the sihang warehouse page history and talk page speaks for itself. the contents of my tl;dr aren't even my words, i'm basically quoting @SPQRROME on the sihang warehouse page.
>Just because something is written in a book does not make it true.
we can say the exact same about your primary sources, compiled from untranslated and unpublished works that we, for the sake of good faith, have been accepting from your end at face value. If you have any personal grievances with a book, write an entry on their google reviews.
>Failed verification - Robinson's book has been thoroughly debunked.
robinson's work has not been "debunked" by anything or anyone legitimate, you are appealing to an authority that exists in a dream. unless you can link an actual scholarly source not written by yourself that disproves robinson's book as a whole, robinson's work is fair game. his work is a secondary source too, which puts it higher on the totem pole than your primary sources per wikipedia's attribution policies.
> He probably read the old Wikipedia article like you did and wrongly thought the IJA 3rd Division was there.
your opinion and assumptions, irrelevant.
>Failed verification - "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" by Eric Niderost
we have "cite web" feature on wikipedia for a reason. websites and articles are fair game, and just because they don't leave formal citations doesn't automatically disqualify their usage. furthermore, we have yet to see an actual formal citation from your end that isn't from a questionable primary source. if you don't like niderost's article, then go leave a comment on his blog page.
>Possibly Okay - "Three Months Of Bloodshed: Strategy And Combat During The Battle Of Shanghai," a thesis by Georgetown alum James Paulose
then if one indicates the 3rd division's involvement on the this page citing Paulose, they can assume you won't automatically revert them? this is assuming, of course, that your claims are 100% correct in good faith.
>Irrelevant/Grasping at Straws - "On the precipice of Change," a thesis by Marta Kubacki at the University of Waterloo, whilst not explicitly naming the 3rd division in this specific quote (but she does so in a table on page 166):
a source does not become irrelevant because you don't like it. marta kubacki is a published author with a masters from the university of waterloo, and explicitly highlights the involvement of the 3rd division on page 166, and the ija on page 49.
>Failed verification - Second Battle of Shanghai by C. Peter Chen
Just like the Niderost article, random web article with no sources. Cannot be used to prove a point.
again, point out the wikipedia policy that states one can't use a web article. furthermore, the ww2database isn't "random," it's a web archive classified under the us library of congress, which peter chen is not only the founder of, but also the affiliated imperial japanese navy page. there is no legitimate reason to disprove this source.
>Failed verification - Kings and Generals: Sihang Warehouse 1937 - Chinese Thermopylae - WW2 DOCUMENTARY
the point was to show the original consensus on the battle of sihang warehouse, as the video was based on pre-2020 information surrounding the battle. given you started your presence on the sihang warehouse page on 2023, after 17 years of the page originally indicating the 3rd ija division's involvement and multiple other books and supporting that fact, it's on you to provide sources that explicitly say "the 3rd division was not involved," not cherry pick facts and string them together with your own original research to build a narrative that adds up to: "the ijn attacked sihang warehouse, and since the ija was attacking across suzhou creek (the same creek sihang warehouse is located), no ija were involved."
>When I reluctantly provide primary sources, I simply translate what the information written without synthesis.
completely untrue, @Qiushufang has caught you doing original research multiple times.
You mistranslate simple details such as asserting two KIA when only one was written and proposing scenarios the documents do not explicitly state.
ironic. page 231 of 支那事変尽忠録 第三卷 reads:
"三二. 同年十月三上海閘北四行倉庫附近二於ケル戦傷後死者." Translated, this reads: "32. On October 30th of the same year, two deaths from war wounds occurred near the Sihang Warehouse in Zhabei, Shanghai." 二 is the Japanese character for two. someone changed this in the aftermath section to accurately reflect the article's contents, which you reverted to match your inaccurate synthesis.
finally, failed verification refers when a source material does not support what is contained in the article. all six of these clearly state the participation of the ija's 3rd division in the sihang warehouse which so many editors have been trying to bring to light, so there are no grounds for a "failed verification" as you claim.
overall, your complaints are limited to citation issues in the sources themselves, which are not grounds for a failed verification per wikipedia's policies. if you have no other argument besides "i don't like these sources so they are irrelevant and unusable," then list them in a google review, not here. Wahreit (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
上海閘北四行倉庫附近二於ケル戦傷後死者
ニ here is not the numeral 2, but the katana read as "ni"
It is a particle used to express direction and in this case means "AT" in the context of "Those who were wounded and later died of their wounds in the fighting AT the vicinity of the Sihang Warehouse"
The rest is just poor attempts at justifying unreliable secondary sources and I already covered it on the Battle of Shanghai talk page.
TLDR:Wahreit once again attempts to push disproven narrative using secondary sources that lack sources to back their claims. Also misunderstands basic Japanese grammar and attempts to explain to a Japanese speaker why they are wrong. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Japanese Participating Forces - Summary as of 2024-07-18

Changes as of 2024/09/17

page reorg and rewrite on 1/15

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.