Talk:Defense of Sihang Warehouse

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleDefense of Sihang Warehouse is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 17, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
May 7, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 18, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on October 26, 2007, October 26, 2008, October 26, 2009, and October 26, 2010.
Current status: Former featured article

Vandalism removed[edit]

Vandalism removed 75.2.167.71 00:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Can someone explain what MTV means?

"..and an MTV was made with the modified lyrics "China will be strong.."

Music television. Actually music video. Should have been more specific. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Not notable enough, methinks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was the Nine Powers Treaty that convened during the battle, not the League of Nations. I read it from somewhere that the guy remembered the wrong convention in his recollections. BlueShirts 23:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Roof Picture[edit]

This is in regards to: [1]. 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)[reply]

I agree. The buildings on the photo look higher than the warehouse (if the photo was indeed taken on the roof), while the warehouse is the highest building in the vicinity on other photos. Also, cobblestones on a roof?Mr.WaeseL 16:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will look into this. -- Миборовский 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

International Attention[edit]

"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)[reply]

The unspoken part[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

question about the intro[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Technically "over-strength"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cut half that paragraph out and make it it's own section within the article, which wouldn't be terribly necessary, or explain "While on paper, the 88th was an overstrength batallion [linked to an article about overstrengthed batallions], by the time of the defense of Sihang Warehouse, they're numbers were reduced to about 400 men." Chapparal 21:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article title translations in lead[edit]

I find that having the article title translations, such as (simplified Chinese: 四行仓库保卫战; traditional Chinese: 四行倉庫保衛戰; pinyin: Sìháng Cāngkù Bǎowèi Zhàn), 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)[reply]

Zhabei District[edit]

Was there a Zhabei District during the ROC era? — Instantnood 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Миборовский 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When was the Zhabei District established? — Instantnood 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See [2] and [3]. 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)[reply]
市政廳 may not equal 区. I've replaced Zhabei District with Zhabei. — Instantnood 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Best. Commercial. Ever.[edit]

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)[reply]

lol that really is the best commercial ever. BlueShirts 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are those thing supposed to be? Legs of some sort of animal (presumably chicken)?Mr.WaeseL 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

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)R[reply]

Defense or Defence[edit]

This is really inconsistent throughout the article - can we just stick to the title "defenSe"вWakipedia 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture[edit]

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)[reply]

Overkill description of a combat situation?[edit]

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)[reply]

Is there a Japanese account of this battle?[edit]

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))[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda[edit]

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 [citation needed] here than in any other article I can remember. --84.189.84.17 (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Participating Forces and Casualty Figures[edit]

Changes have been recently made which have replaced the information for the commander, participating unit, strength, and casualty figures for the Japanese side. The person did not provide any citations or reference material for the changes made regarding the commanding officer and the participating unit.

Other sources attached to figures regarding the strength and casualties come from sources that do not seem to provide any comprehensive data or evidence of the limited. I think there needs to be more evidence before changes like these are pushed. There is little to no reference provided for Haji Kitaro being the overall commander and Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion being the primary force in this operation.

Out of the sources used two of them do not support the new figures that were changed.

  1. "陸戦隊の部". C14120644700. Retrieved 24 March 2023.
  2. "主要作戦研究　陸１　上海確保戦（陸戦隊の部）　自８月１３日至８月２２日". Japan Center for Asian Historical Records. Retrieved 24 March 2023.

Source 1 here is a unit personnel chart, and makes no mention of unit tasking orders or specific deployments. Source 2 is pertaining to battles and reports that are not of the appropriate dates and events. Kapitan318 (talk) 02:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adachi1939 Kapitan318 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While some of these sources demonstrate some confirmation of specific figures from a squad level, they do not seem to provide information on the overall battle. A significant portion information in source 2 and source 3 are essentially BDAs (Battle Damage Assessments) and AARs (After Action Reports) from smaller units.
Source 3 - "１１．閘北進撃戦（１０月２７日）". Japan Center for Asian Historical Records. Retrieved 24 March 2023. Kapitan318 (talk) 03:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is an outline and grading of all major Special Naval Landing Force operations from 1937-1940. The Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force portion provides a breakdown of the various operations within the Battle of Shanghai and specifies which battalions and subunits participated. The following units are marked as having participated in the Japanese Assault on Sihang Warehouse - Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion (entirety), Yokosuka 2nd Independent Company (reinforcing 10th Bn), and SNLF 8th and 9th Companies (artillery companies from the 4th Battalion). Source 2 provides figures for the manpower of each of the Shanghai SNLF's units which was used to determine the manpower in numbers. It is not meant to be used as a combat report for the Assault on Sihang Warehouse.
Source 3 is an action report for the entire Shanghai SNLF (division sized at the time). This report is not merely a squad level AAR. While it does not specify the units involved from the Shanghai SNLF, it is clear it is involving the Shanghai SNLF. Additionally there is no mention of the IJA 3rd Division or any IJA forces assisting in the capture of Sihang Warehouse. It lists the total casualties as 42 wounded. Thanks to Source 1 we can determine this report was talking about the aforementioned Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion reinforced with the Yokosuka 2nd Independent Company (reinforcing 10th Bn) and SNLF 8th and 9th Companies. Source 4 - ( https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/1906225/1/1 ) mentions of the 42 wounded, an officer from the 10th Battalion later succumbed to his injuries. All naval troops that were KIA or later died of their wounds during fighting from October 27 to October 31 1937 are included in this publication.
As @Kapitan318 has pointed out on my talk page, original research like this is discouraged on Wikipedia. However in the case where the original article has been filled with blatant inaccuracies that borderlines repeating wartime Chinese propaganda verbatim and due to little interest few Japanese secondary sources exist on the subject, I ask for some leniance.
@Kapitan318 has taken further issue with listing Lieutenant Commander Haji Kitaro—the commander of the primary force involved, the Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion, and most senior officer present in the assault—as the commander for the Japanese forces and suggest reverting to listing Matsui Iwane, head of the IJA 3rd Division instead. I object to this as there are no Japanese sources demonstrating Matsui exercised control over the Shanghai SNLF during the Assault on Sihang Warehouse. Furthermore there are no Japanese sources confirming this was a joint army-navy operation, Japanese reports only show the use of SNLF forces. However as Lt.Cdr. Haji Kitaro's overall seniority is questionable, I altered it to Rear Admiral Okochi Denshichi, the commander of the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force.
For what its worth, the Chinese language version of this article already lists similar information to what my own research has concluded. The main force involved on the Japanese side was the Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion, headed by Haji Kitaro. The Chinese language version also agrees the IJA 3rd Division was not involved.
Overall I am satisfied with my edits as I believe my sources have satisfied the burden of proof. If there is further contention to made, I kindly ask that someone provide a Japanese source confirming the IJA 3rd Division was present in the Assault on Sihang Warehouse. The combat section should also be rewritten but the Japanese sources do not provide a great deal of detail as an operation that resulted in a mere 1 death and 41 wounded was likely not deemed to be worth studying much at the time. Adachi1939 (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Adachi1939 You talk about Chinese wartime propaganda. When the sources you use for Japanese casualties are also Japanese Wartime propaganda. Two American Researchers I have spoken to that both Japan and China exaggerated the number of deaths of the Japanese Army during this battle. Japan didn't officially publish official true numbers considering it would be a humiliation for them. At the same time Japan wasn't successful in taking Sihang and it's quite illogical for Japan to lose only one death. At the same illogical when Chen Shusheng suicided bombed into the Japanese with grenades strap to his body. He would have killed many. This is common sense. Even with or without sources 1 killed would be ridiculously illogical. At the same time being able to actually go to the place the museum did emphasize 200 deaths on the Japanese side. Additionally on Baidu, I found this source that talked about the deaths on the Japanese side. cited next to the number of Japanese casualties on the Baidu page for Sihang: [12] Written by Rong Weimu; edited by Bu Ping and Wang Jianlang. The History of the Chinese Anti-Japanese War Volume 2 Wartime Military [M]. Beijing: Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2019.11. Page 89. Now I am allowing your numbers to be placed but it is also unfair that you don't even count the Chinese estimates either. 120.21.1.75 (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>the sources you use for Japanese casualties are also Japanese Wartime propaganda
They are military reports and were not intended for the general public. The only areas disputed in them are when the actual casualty figures do not align with fictionalized Chinese claims that hold no basis in reality.
>Two American Researchers I have spoken to that both Japan and China exaggerated the number of deaths of the Japanese Army during this battle. Japan didn't officially publish official true numbers considering it would be a humiliation for them.
The Imperial Japanese Army was not involved in the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. For these two researchers to not know this major detail, evidently they are not individuals who should address the subject. The Imperial Japanese Navy, which was involved, released casualty figures in reports and three volumes of books detailing the careers and final moments of each sailor killed during the Battle of Shanghai including the attack on Sihang Warehouse. This notion of Japan not publishing official numbers out of "humiliation" is categorically false and was already disproven by sources in the article.
>At the same illogical when Chen Shusheng suicided bombed into the Japanese with grenades strap to his body. He would have killed many. This is common sense. Even with or without sources 1 killed would be ridiculously illogical.
This event is not substantiated by Chinese nor Japanese sources. The physical construction of the Sihang Warehouse makes it unlikely this event ever occurred. Do we talk about historicial propaganda fairy tales here or actual history?
As previously said, to alter the actual Japanese dead and wounded you need to provide more concrete sources. Chinese sources which rely on oral testimonies can not supersede an actual Japanese combat report. If you wish to alter the figure I need to see the names of at least 1 KIA individual (aside from WO Tanaka actually covered) as these dead sailors don't just exist out of thin air. If you are able to do this your research has no basis and your changes are not welcomed on the article. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont care about what the true number is but why are you such a rude asshole about it 70.108.8.200 (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a big fan of people that taint history. Adachi1939 (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IJA 9th Division[edit]

There are no primary Japanese sources saying the IJA 9th Division was involved in the assault on the Sihang Warehouse. The operation was conducted by elements of the Shanghai Special NAVAL Landing Force. If edits are made to include the IJA 9th Division, they will be swiftly reverted on the grounds that the editor is clueless about history or at the very least a victim of Chinese propaganda. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since some are still not familiar with the unit history of the IJA 3rd Division and other IJA Divisions involved in the Shanghai Campaign, I will summarize their operations here during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. As we can see from the records below, there was no mention of their involvement in attacking Sihang Warehouse as the IJA Divisions were not deployed into urban Shanghai at this point but rather villages on the outskirts.
The following summaries are from “Shina Jihen Gaiho Dai 39 Go 10 Gatsu 1 ~ Shina JIihen Gaiho Dai 69 Go 10 Gatsu 31” (Outlined Report of China Incident, No.39 through 69, October 1-31, JP: 支那事変概報第３９号　１０月１日～支那事変概報第６９号　１０月３１日（４）) number 4 and 5 which have the references codes C14120674800 and C14120674900 on the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records and are currently held by the National Institute of Defense in Japan. These were originally top secret records meant for the Imperial Japanese Navy to keep track of the war situation with both their forces and their army counterparts.
Army operation in the Shanghai area
October 26, 1937
Captured Miaohang and Dachang Villages in the early morning
(JP: 早朝廟行鎮大場鎮ヲ占領)
ref.C14120674800, frame 45
October 27, 1937
  1. The Tanigawa Force captured the Kianwang Race Course at 0600 hours and Kiangwan Village at 0800 hours, and was placed under the command of the 101st Division and is in the midst of mopping up the surrounding area
  2. The 9th, 3rd, and 101st Division’s vanguard forces crossed the Shanghai–Nanking Railway between 0900 and 1000 hours and advanced to the area shown in the attached figure (attached figure shows divisions deployed south of railway towards bank of Suzhou Creek)
  3. The 13th Division has captured the left flank of Xinluzhai
(JP:（イ）谷川支隊ハ〇六〇〇江湾競馬場〇八〇〇江湾鎮ヲ占領101Dノ指揮下二入リ付近ヲ掃討中（ロ）9D、3D、101Dノ先頭部隊ハ〇九〇〇乃至一〇〇〇時ノ間ニ於テ滬寧鉄道ヲ超越附図ノ線ニ進出（ハ）13Dハ左翼新陸宅ヲ占領セリ)
ref.C14120674900 frames 2-3
October 28, 1937
  1. The 13th Division captured Lujiaqiao
  2. The main force of the 11th Division advanced west, closing in roughly 2km east of Nanxiang
  3. The 3rd and 9th Divisions reached the north bank of Suzhou Creek and have engaged enemies on the opposing southern riverbank
  4. The 101st Division is massing in the north region of Chapei and the Tanigawa Force in the Kianwang Area
(JP:（イ）13D陸家橋占領（ロ）11Dノ主力方面ハ西進シ南羽ノ東約二粁ニ迫ル（ハ）3D、9Dハ蘇州河北岸二達シ同河南岸ノ敵ト相対シアリ（ニ）101Dハ閘北北地方区ニ、谷川支隊ハ江湾方面ニ集結シアリ)
ref.C14120674900, frames 10-11
October 29, 1937
The 3rd and 9th Divisions are at the north bank of the Suzhou Creek preparing to cross, no large changes to the situation otherwise
(JP: 3D、9DハSoochow河北岸ニアリテ渡河準備中ナリ其他大ナル変化ナシ)
ref.C14120674900, frame 17
October 30, 1937
  1. The main force of the Expeditionary Army (3rd and 9th Divisions) continues to make rapid preparations for a crossing of Suzhou Creek
  2. On the northern frontline the Taiwan Army’s right flank has advanced to Zhuzhai on the south bank of Liuhe River
  3. The 11th Division’s main force continues to close in on Nanxiang, with their left force currently attacking enemies in Jiangqiao
(JP:（イ）派遣軍主力方面（3D,9D）ハ蘇州河ノ渉河河準備ヲ急ギツツアリ（ロ）北方戦線台湾軍ノ右翼ハ瀏河ノ南岸朱宅ニ進出ス（ハ）11Dノ主力方面ハ遂次南翔ニ迫リツツアリソノ左翼隊ハ江橋ノ敵ヲ攻撃中)
ref.C14120674900, frame 22
October 31, 1937
The 3rd Division carried out their crossing of Suzhou Crook from 1200 hours to 1600 hours, with approximately two battalions advancing to Bijiyaye on the southeast bank
(JP: 3Dハ一二〇〇ヨリ蘇州河渡河ヲ敢行シ一六〇〇迄ニ約二ヶ大隊薛家野東南岸ニ進出)
ref.C14120674900, frame 28
I am tagging you @KresyRise so you can understand why the IJA divisions were not involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse. Adachi1939 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wahreit I am tagging you here so you can get up to date with the IJA's activities during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and why I am undoing your recent revisions. I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but we must focus on it conveying historically verifiable details in a neutral matter. Participation of IJA forces in the Defense of Sihang Warehouse has been already been disproven. This was a battle fought solely by the Imperial Japanese Navy on the Japanese side. Japanese language and Chinese language versions of the same Wikipedia article also agree with this fact. I have translated the original records of the IJA's movements which you can read above.
In addition, there are issues with the sources you used to assert the IJA 3rd Division's participation. "Niderost, Eric (2007). "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse". Warfare History Network." does not list citations, it can not be used as an academic source. "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing. p. 117. ISBN 978-1-922539-20-5." has been thoroughly discussed already on this talk page. In short, he did not provide a reliable source within his work when asserting the claim of the IJA 3rd Division's participation. "Jowett, Philip S.; Andrew, Stephen (2002). The Japanese army 1931 - 45. 1: 1931 - 42. Men-at-arms. Oxford: Osprey. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-1-84176-353-8." only provides a figure for division strengths and like the other two does not serve as a source for the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in the assault on Sihang Warehouse.
Regards,
Adachi Adachi1939 (talk) 06:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Spqrrome I am undoing your edits for the same reasons as @Wahreit
Your addition of the IJA 3rd Division's participation in the battle is ahistorical in nature and has been discussed thoroughly on this talk page. I would also appreciate if you could elaborate on this statement "Removed statements with inaccurate sources. Article had been compromised by a user with a clear agenda of misrepresenting facts and presenting statements not verified by the supporting citations." Which sources are inaccurate? I have pointed out inaccurate sources that failed to support the IJA 3rd Division's participation in the battle, but are there other inaccurate sources of my own?
Regards,
Adachi Adachi1939 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article Restored[edit]

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)[reply]

Factual accuracy and neutrality[edit]

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)[reply]

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 {{rfc}} Adachi1939 (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request for Comment - Issue with irrelevant/fictitious citations[edit]

As previously mentioned in the Talk:Defense of Sihang Warehouse#Factual accuracy and neutrality, @KresyRise has added a number of claims with citations that are either irrelevant or do not support what they have written. I had added tags to dispute these questionable citations but they were promptly removed by the user. There is also an issue with the user asserting western sources support the Chinese account of events without providing citations of such (perhaps they are confusing English-language sources using Chinese primary and secondary sources as "western sources"), and removing passages from the Japanese account of events. In an effort to avoid further edit-warring, I would like a comment from a third party on what measures should be taken.

Thank You, Adachi1939 Adachi1939 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Adachi1939 First, this isn't structured as an RfC should be, so I'm going to just treat this as a request for a WP:3O. Second, I think improving the sources, and providing attribution is probably good. But it's possible that both you and Kresy could be wrong here. Which goes to my third point, I'm a bit concerned by your username and the topic you're editing here. (For the unaware reader, Adachi is the name of Japanese war criminal, and 1939 was a bad year in world history). In the interest of trying to create a neutral encyclopedia, the solution to fighting Chinese propaganda is not Japanese propaganda. Presenting both accounts without comment or derision is what needs to happen here, but I'm not seeing that you or Kresy are doing that. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for the quick response! Sorry about the incorrect structure for the RfC. I am not very familiar with Wikipedia, just interested in history. I am not concerned with being wrong or right, only with what sources say. Of course sources have biases so I am hoping alternate sides can be presented and disputable claims from both sides brought into question. Up until a few months ago, Chinese sources were almost exclusively used for the Sihang Warehouse article, leading to a very one sided presentation of the conflict.
Ideally we need to find some neutral sources from western observers which can shed more light on the conflict. I tried looking through US diplomatic records but their retelling of the events were very plain, and did not mention casualties. Perhaps British records may exist and offer more insight.
In regards to my name, that is simply my name. Many Japanese/Japanese diaspora share surnames with Japanese war criminals. It is not meant to show admiration for war criminals.
Best Regards,
Adachi1939 Adachi1939 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Summoned by Yapperbot. I skimmed the article and I think in general there are some issues with non-encyclopedic tone--not quite sure how to describe it but it seems like telling a story about it rather than just stating what happens. I also took a look at some of the past discussion on the talk page here. I think that it would be helpful to look at WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYCARE. Unlike in history classes, at Wikipedia secondary sources are preferred to primary sources. We want to see what the scholarly consensus on the battle was, not determine for ourselves what happened (doing so would fall under WP:OR and is not permitted). That's the advice I have based on the general issues here; if it's not helpful please provide a more specific question to receive a more specific answer. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I have cleaned up my sections using primary sources a bit. Unfortunately because the event is so insignificant according to Japanese sources, there are not many secondary Japanese-language sources for it. From what I have read so far English-language secondary source books rely heavily on period newspaper reports and Chinese-language sources while overlooking Japanese sources. I have done my best to remove interpretations of primary sources and simply include the Japanese records translated as verbatim.
I agree there are parts of the article that perhaps feel too narrative in nature as well. I hope someone more familiar with the Chinese accounts of the event is interested in contributing in the article as well to clean it up a bit. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a several issues with the Japanese Account of Events sections, which do not line up with the scholarly consensus of the battle.

First is the assertion that only the Imperial Navy was involved in the assault, despite Western, Chinese and Japanese scholars and accounts indicating the assault was consisted of the 3rd Division and supporting elements of the Imperial Army (and some Japanese marines too) (Sattaroshi, Harmsen, Robinson, Xie, Yuanliang, etc.).

Second is the claim that Japanese cleared the Warehouse within ninety minutes, which is in direct contradiction with the scholarly consesus that the battle lasted more than three days (which is backed up by nearly all sources provided). The claim that the battle was over in relative ease in the early morning is a direct contradiction to the various eyewitnesses and photographs depicting combat in daytime within Sihang Warehouse (some from Robinson's photo collection).

Third, the claim that Japanese used heavy artillery against Chinese defenders does not match the scholarly consensus of how the Japanese army refrained from using heavy artillery due to the presence of the Settlement in the area (backed by Robinson, Harmsen and Xie).

Finally, Japanese casualty reports do not line up with the Chinese battalion roster, which accounted for 420 troops present and 387 evacuated (including wounded), which would mean that a maximum of 33 Chinese were killed in action, not 80.

In addition with these issues, there is also the dubious origin of the sources used in the account, which mostly come from the same Japanese archive with untranslated documents without footnotes, context or references, and does not cite a larger or more diverse range of sources.

There is also the section editor's insistence that there is a lack of secondary sources for the Japanese side of the battle, which is both untrue and kind of a dubious claim too.

While a Japanese perspective on the event is appreciated, a whole section dealing with a minority opinion in direct contradiction to the scholarly consensus of the article (that a battle did in fact take place that lasted several days with heavy fighting in the warehouse) creates several issues, especially since most sources cited in the section stem from a single archive of dubious quality.

I request that some other editors comment on this issue too, especially given the rather disruptive manner the editor responsible for this section has been trying to get this point across (edit-warring, talk page battlegrounds, etc.).

Thanks.


KresyRise (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, no need to make multiple RfCs. Give me a bit and I'll try to do some response and research on the article. I'm very busy right now, if I don't back to you by next week, leave me message. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time, it means a lot. KresyRise (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaptainEek,
I just wanted to follow up and ask if you had any progress with making research on the article. Thanks! KresyRise (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, thank you for responding to my concerns. While I may disagree with many of your points for the reasons stated below, I nonetheless respect your willingness to engage in a dialogue with me and other editors of the article. Afterall, without cooperation, we cannot make a good article.
>There are a several issues with the Japanese Account of Events sections, which do not line up with the scholarly consensus of the battle.
>First is the assertion that only the Imperial Navy was involved in the assault, despite Western, Chinese and Japanese scholars and accounts indicating the assault was consisted of the 3rd Division and supporting elements of the Imperial Army (and some Japanese marines too) (Sattaroshi, Harmsen, Robinson, Xie, Yuanliang, etc.).
Hattori Satoshi, the sole Japanese scholar you mentioned, is cited in the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article for their essay "Japanese Operations from July to December 1937" in Peattie's "The Battle for China—Essays on the Military History of the Second Sino-Japanese War 1937-1945". However Hattori's essay makes no mention of the IJA 3rd Division being involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse or Sihang Warehouse at all for that matter.
Peter Harmsen does cover the Defense of Sihang Warehouse in his work "Stalingrad on the Yangtze", however like Hattori's work there is no mention of the IJA 3rd Division or any specific IJA unit for that matter mentioned in the assault on the warehouse.
Stephen Robinson does claim in his work "Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai" that the IJA 3rd Division was involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse but does not provide proper citations for the passages where he wrote such claims.
While Xie and Yuanliang may claim as such, the assertions in memoirs of former Chinese soldiers and an uncited claim by a western historian are not remotely close to a "scholarly consensus". There is a large discrepancy with the materials you have cited to support your claims and what the materials in fact say.
>Second is the claim that Japanese cleared the Warehouse within ninety minutes, which is in direct contradiction with the scholarly consesus that the battle lasted more than three days (which is backed up by nearly all sources provided). The claim that the battle was over in relative ease in the early morning is a direct contradiction to the various eyewitnesses and photographs depicting combat in daytime within Sihang Warehouse (some from Robinson's photo collection).
The Japanese account of events does not attest the event lasted a mere ninety minutes, but that the final charge into the building took ten minutes on October 31 after storming the building at 0300 hours. It should be noted the Chinese had already largely withdrawn by then. Skirmishing around the warehouse took place during the Imperial Japanese Navy's advance on Chapei from October 27 to 31, 1937. The photos which you reference are press photos most likely taken during skirmishes or posed after the building was taken. Those that depict the daylight assault from Robinson's collection are mislabelled as army photos but in fact depict the Imperial Japanese Navy. Both western and Chinese accounts you have cited agree the warehouse fell to Japanese forces in the early hours of the 31st, not in daylight, so there is not really even a point to contest here. Once again I am seeing a contradiction between your statements and the sources you cite as evidence.
>Third, the claim that Japanese used heavy artillery against Chinese defenders does not match the scholarly consensus of how the Japanese army refrained from using heavy artillery due to the presence of the Settlement in the area (backed by Robinson, Harmsen and Xie).
Please refer to the sources you have cited. Harmsen and Robinson both have numerous passages in their books regarding the Japanese use of artillery on Sihang Warehouse, which themselves draw on newspapers and firsthand accounts of Chinese soldiers.
For example:
Harmsen, page 432
"As night settled over ruined Zhabei, the Japanese moved their artillery even closer to the warehouse. This time the plan was to keep shelling the building until its defenders were dead or gone. Observers across the creek, watching the batteries serve up miniature barrages so close to the target, noted that the sound of the gun firing and the sound of the shell bursting merged into one prolonged “cra-ack!” After each barrage, a Japanese searchlight would move around the wall to inspect the damage."
Robinson, pages 179-180
"After sunset the Japanese bombarded Sihang Warehouse with greater intensity than during the day. Four Japanese 75-mm guns fired a steady rain of shells presumably in an attempt to smash a hole in the northern side of the structure to
allow their soldiers to charge inside."
>Finally, Japanese casualty reports do not line up with the Chinese battalion roster, which accounted for 420 troops present and 387 evacuated (including wounded), which would mean that a maximum of 33 Chinese were killed in action, not 80.
Western sources such as the New York Times also purported higher death tolls. This area is certainly a point of contention and should have all viewpoints offered. The Japanese claim of 80 is simply their report, not presented as concrete fact in the article.
>There is also the section editor's insistence that there is a lack of secondary sources for the Japanese side of the battle, which is both untrue and kind of a dubious claim too.
I will kindly ask that you please provide some examples of Japanese secondary sources for the article. I am happy to diversify the sources for the article. The only source from a Japanese scholar you have presented for the article so far was in fact irrelevant as it did not detail the Defense of Sihang Warehouse.
Thank you,
Adachi Adachi1939 (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of your claims seem to hinge upon the assumption that the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force was the only unit involved, however what's really troubling me is the presence of armor in the battle which directly contradicts with what you say. Sources mentions the use of tankettes during the battle and most notably, the account of Chen Shusheng's suicide attack says that it was done so in opposition to armor. However none of the SNLF units present at the Battle of Shanghai had armor as a part of their formations, the only mention I can find is the establishment of a SNLF tank company in the December of 1937, post dating the battle. It would seem to me that this strongly indicates involvement from the IJA. 70.108.8.200 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly an area that should be thoroughly analyzed and discussed.
First let's take a look at what Japanese reports say. For a background, the Shanghai SNLF had an armored company since its official creation in June 1932, which was initially comprised of armored vehicles and later strengthened with the inclusion of Carden Loyd tankettes (referred to as light tanks by the IJN) and Type 89 tanks.
According to ref.C14120596400 (a document which is already cited in the article for strength figures), frame 7, on the Japan Center for Asian Historical Records, the Shanghai SNLF had three medium tanks, four light tanks, and 11 armored cars by August 13, 1937. Ref. C14120644700, frame 6 shows the units involved in the advance on Chapei and assault on Sihang Warehouse as well as other events during the Battle of Shanghai. The Shanghai SNLF's Armored Company is noted as present in the battle, including the advance on Chapei but is noticeably not listed for the assault on Sihang Warehouse. So this rules out Shanghai SNLF tanks participating in the assault although they would have at least been closely in the area.
The other possibility of tanks comes from IJA forces, namely the IJA 5th Tank Battalion. Frames 37-40 of ref. C01004555800 show the deployment of the 5th Tank Battalion in the Shanghai area in 1937 but there is no mention of them being assigned to assist the Shanghai SNLF, only their own Army forces. Frames 61-62 of the document show where the IJA 5th Tank Battalion operated, with their area being distinctly away from Sihang Warehouse and Chapei as well as urban Shanghai in general. This does not completely rule out the possibility of smaller armor such as tankettes from other IJA units being involved, but unfortunately the wind is quickly blown out of this theory's wings by an analysis of IJA unit movements at the time clearly showing no involvement in the assault on Sihang Warehouse.
This leaves analyzing Chinese and Western sources. I have not gone through every newspaper at the time, but from my reading so far I have not encountered any western accounts of tanks being used in the assault.
Yang's account in "八百孤军血战四日记" does indeed mention tanks such as this passage for October 29th stating "At 12:00 noon, 4 or 5 Japanese tanks patrolled along Guangfu Road, Guoqing Road and the area north of the Sixing Warehouse, at major traffic intersections." (CN:午12 时，日本坦克4、5 辆，沿光复路、国庆路及四行仓库以北地带，各主要交通路口，往来梭巡。). However I have been unable to locate passages from his work directly mentioning their destruction or engaging in the assault on the warehouse itself. If any Chinese speakers with access to the book are interested in helping with this, it would be greatly appreciated. The article ""Lost Battalion" Men Promoted" in November 1, 1937's issue of The Columbus Ledger is said to have the initial claims from Xie on the damage they did to the Japanese, but it is behind a paywall on archival sites unfortunately.
Moving onwards we have later postwar accounts, such as those that mention Chen Shusheng diving onto the tanks. There is a lot of debate in Chinese circles on the veracity of such claims, why was he not mentioned in period newspapers but only appeared forty years after the fact? With Japanese military reports not showing armor in the area it makes such accounts very disputable.
At the end of the day, my best hope is that we can gather as much material from both sides to try to piece together the most cohesive accounts for both sides. With exaggerations and embellishments made by either side (the claims of 80 Chinese bodies found by the Japanese for example) I think it will be impossible for both accounts to completely line up but the best we can do is try to shed light on each side. Adachi1939 (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the policy on original research. The article should be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the battle not your own synthesis. 138.234.221.104 (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am well aware of this policy, but there are not sufficient secondary sources for the Japanese account of events in on Sihang Warehouse. If I wrote my own article on a website about Sihang Warehouse making it secondary source, could that be used as a citation instead or is it a conflict of interest? Adachi1939 (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to publish it in a reliable source, not self-published, but then I think yes? I'm not entirely sure. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially biased edits[edit]

The recent edits by Adachi1939, which replaced the original order of battle for the Japanese and casualty estimates for Chinese and Japanese troops with his own edits, don't seem to be done in good faith.

Deleting the entire section detailing the IJA movements and replacing it with contents from an untranslated Japanese naval report doesn't seem to evoke good faith, even if one considers Adachi's claimed issues with the citations as valid.

In addition, the placement of Cao Juren's quote on behalf Adachi1939 in the intro also seems biased. While it can be agreed that certain accounts of the battle in the contemporary newspapers were exaggerated (for example the number of Chinese troops in the warehouse), the fact that Adachi put the quote immediately after the Japanese perspective out of context doesn't seem to evoke neutrality. It also seems odd that Adachi also uses contemporary newspapers to inflate Chinese casualty numbers (the "Western Claim" that 200 Chinese were killed despite these being early estimations based on Xie's exaggerated 800 number), but doesn't do the same for the Japanese perspective.

This is not an invitation for an argument, I am simply calling for a greater respect for the historiography of the article and for Adachi1939 to stop deleting entire sections that contradict his point of view.

Overall, this topic is just to request a more neutral and consistent edit philosophy. Thanks. KresyRise (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the recent edits, I removed Cao Juren's quote as it was irrelevant to the article (did not deal specifically with Sihang Warehouse), and its positioning/context within the article seems to imply Chinese records are of less credibility than Japanese records, something that doesn't evoke neutrality. In addition, the original "Western Claim" of 200 Chinese soldiers killed are cherry-picked from sensationalist newspapers provided in Robinson's work, and not actual Western Claims. I revised the number to accurately reflect Robinson's work, as Robinson himself puts the number between 10 and 50, and insinuates the number is around 33; the newspaper claims are already in the aftermath section, and shouldn't be characterized as actual "Western Claims," as it is a 1937 New York Times article. KresyRise (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is curious you have regarded edits of mine as potentially biased while continuing to reframe China's claim of Japanese casualties as the "Western claim" as well. Please provide an ISBN and/or Chinese title for this work cited " 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" so I can verify it. I checked the other citation for Japanese casualties "Robinson, Stephen (2022). Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai. Exisle Publishing. p. 117" and the page number is incorrect. At least on page 189 there is the mention of Japanese casualty claims but there are no western claims included, just Chinese assertions. This is bordering on another fictitious reference.
I will be reframing the box to state what the source actually says and adding an additional Chinese figure.
I'm not sure how Cao Juren's quote is irrelevant, he was physically there in the warehouse and interviewed defenders. I may repurpose the quote further down the article for the Chinese events. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This fandango seems more like hyper skepticism because people don't want to accept a renewed study of Sihang Warehouse. As far as I am concerned, Adachi1939 has provided adequate sources and substantial claims to justify a comprehensive review of the article. While I do agree that Japanese sources should be taken with a grain of salt as well as any others, they are worth considering and, in line with many similar documents, likely accurate, at least moreso than common Chinese/Western sources that contain similarly inflated statistics... Overall, I would like to support this call for civil discussion, but it seems moreso that Adachi1939's motives are being attacked/unreasonably questioned because of the dogmatic nature of historical revisionism. Trouscht (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not Adachi1939 providing Japanese sources, but his habit of constantly deleting the Chinese perspective of the battle. I do support more detailed Japanese perspectives, which I integrated into my edits, but I find issue with his constant habit of removing Chinese sources and any Western secondary sources that back them up. KresyRise (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse&oldid=1220836535"