Talk:Battle of Shanghai

Strategic victory?

It seems, in Wikipedia, all battles that the IJA won have an extra result as "Chinese strategic victory" ahaha I wonder how can all defeats of the chinese can be strategic victories? lol xD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.174.190.23 (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

A Chinese strategic victory? Based on an inadequate citation? I agree that it's really a stretch in the case of this particular battle. --Yaush (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?

I came across a book called The Sino-Japanese War, 1937-41 : from Marco Polo Bridge to Pearl Harbor by Frank Dorn whose description of the Battle of Shanghai is very similar. --TheAznSensation 06:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this still a concern? I have a copy of Dorn's book. If someone can point me at the section of the article that is allegedly in violation of copyright, I can do a comparison and see. --Yaush (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bazi Bridge and Yao's Regiment

The first shot of the Battle fo Shanghai was fired over Bazi Bridge (八字桥). We should note this. Also, Yang Ziqing's battalion (姚子青营) which distinguished itself at the Bloodbath at Baoshan (宝山血战) should be mentioned. Notable commanders should be noted, Weng Guohua (翁国华) for example. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I plan to expand this article by a lot. I am almost finished with the background info on the Chinese side. The background section as of now is around three times longer than the battle itself, so of course more stuff is to be added!BlueShirts 18:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources?

This article gives no sources, especially regarding Chiang's causes ("trading space for time," diplomatic, etc.) for provoking the Battle of Shanghai. Are these reasons commonly agreed upon by historians? Konekoniku 00:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I wrote a great majority of the chinese background and so far I've derived the bulk of them from two sources. One is Nationalist China At War 1937-1945 published by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1982. Another source is a doctoral dissertation on the Shanghai-Nanking Campaign from the National Taiwan University. I'll add the inline references when I get a chance to the future. BlueShirts 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! The article looks awesome. Konekoniku 09:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Order of Battle comes from :

Sources:

Hsu Long-hsuen and Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) 2nd Ed. ,1971. Translated by Wen Ha-hsiung , Chung Wu Publishing; 33, 140th Lane, Tung-hwa Street, Taipei, Taiwan Republic of China.

Sino-Japanese Air War 1937-45 http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/sino-japanese.htm

IJA in China orbat, 1937 to 1945 http://www.china-defense.com/forum/index.p...?showtopic=2726

Monograph 144 Chapter II http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/monos/144/144chap2.html#Shanghai%20Incident

Japanese tank unit names from: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/Chinese_Tank_Forces_and_Battles_before_1945_ed.htm

Taki’s IMPERIAL JAPANESE ARMY PAGE

http://www3.plala.or.jp/takihome/

Forum: Pacific War 1941-1945, discussion about Shanghai Defense force Aug. 11 1937 http://f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/6197.htm

http://f16.parsimony.net/forum27947/messages/6230.htm

Asiaticus 08:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos

Needed

I've some photos that I will upload as soon as I'm able to. Every good article needs good pictures. ;) -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 18:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I got some too! They are here. BlueShirts 18:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll find ones that I have that you haven't already uploaded. BTW, would you considering uploading these to the Wikimedia Commons instead? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 19:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

I object to the use of this picture due to the fact there is considerable evidence pointing to the possibility it may not be genuine. this website provides some interesting insight as to the true nature of said photograph.Regarded as Japanese propaganda by many I found it hard to believe in at first,but upon seeing a french documentary on the History Channel entitled "China Yellow,China Blue" in which footage of the baby being put on the tracks was shown,I am convinced this photograph,and perhaps others,are doctored. Could anyone try to confirm my information?

Yes the picture with the baby in the rail track was "doctored", the photographer was just taking photos for the Time Magazine, however he found a mother with her baby, so he borrowed the baby and placed him in the railtrack for adding some "effect". The reason why the baby was crying wasnt because of the injuries, but was crying after his mother.

This photo wasn't docotred its in my history textbook.CHSGHSF 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Photographer has always doctored their image to use as propaganda or as a message towards the world. The raising flag of Iwo Jima is a good example, it boasted the U.S military morale. Hanchi

With this is mind,shouldn't we perhaps make it clear that one picture, which was included in this article,was used as a propaganda tool?Otherwise people will continue to think that baby was indeed an orphan who lost his mother in the bombings of the railway station. Ishikawa Minoru 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not just that, but this is an article on the Battle of Shanghai which uses a picture of a baby purportedly orphaned in Nanking. I've deleted it. It's stupid and inflammatory. The Japanese did some horrible things in the war, we don't need to lie about extra things they did just to get a reaction. Bakarocket 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

its so obvious that you would take the japanese side LOL, since you are japanese from your username, therefore, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE PRO JAPANESE BIAS BEAUSE YOU ARE ONE LOL, AND ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK ON SINO JAPANESE MATTERS UNLESS YOU ARE NEUTRAL......RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cf. WP:AGF. — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We have an entire article on the photograph that will dispel most of the (however well-intentioned) misinformation above. In short:

A) It stays. In English sources it's probably the single most WP:NOTABLE aspect of the entire battle: it's one of the most famous photographs in photography.

B) It doesn't need much caveating. It was a baby in Shanghai South Railway Station; there is footage (which actually appears in the Battle of Shanghai sequences of The Battle of China) of the baby being moved from one side of the tracks to the other: it was being moved away from the dead, dying, and wounded, including its dead mother.

It—the photographer didn't know its gender or learn its name—may have been posed, but every aspect that makes it an effective photograph is true. [Reduced the size of above ranting in the interest of politeness.] — LlywelynII 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Nanjing" Baby Pic

Why is there a picture of a baby purportedly orphaned in Nanjing in an article about Shanghai? I've deleted it, again, because I don't understand why it's there. Put it in the Nanjing article, not in Shanghai. Easy to understand? Shanghai != Nanjing.-- Bakarocket 11:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm under the impression this picture was taken by H.S. Wong at the Shanghai South Station right after the Japanese bombed it in the summer of 1937, which means this picture is where it belongs. My only objection is the fact readers are not told the aforementioned photographer purposedly put the baby on the tracks in order to fuel anti-Japanese sentiments in the US. -- Ishikawa Minoru 13:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about any propaganda use of this, and I've only seen mention of that in here as "a program I once saw". To prove this is propaganda would require sourcing it. The fact that the file name of the photo is NanjingXXX.gif kid of made me suspect it was from Nanjing, but hey, whatever. I posted a comment on the page of the user who added it back in without comment after the original delete.-- Bakarocket 18:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The photo appeared in Oct.4 1937 of Life Magazine, showing a shanghai station after japanese bombing. It's not from Nanjing, so I dont know what's up with the file name. As for reprints I know it's in LIFE at War and in 100 Photographs That Changed The World (both from LIFE). Of course it was used for propaganda value, just like the aforementioned flag raising on Iwo Jima. Blueshirts 18:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My guess is the picture was named thus due to the fact some proponents of the "Massacre theory" have come to include Shanghai and the battle that took place there, in the geographical scope and timeframe of the Nanking Incident, in order to make up for the raging contradition between their opinions and the population of Nanking when the Japanese took the city, i.e, since there were only 200,000 people in Nanking, the IJA couldn't have killed 300,000 people. -- Ishikawa Minoru 19:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the nanking numbers debate to another page, I think the picture was named so since it was procured from a website about the massacre, it's the most parsimonious answer. Blueshirts 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If this is from Life at War as a picture in Shanghai, then it has to remain (with a filename change), and I apologize for deleting it so quickly. The problem is that no search I've done comes up with it's source. Every single website sources it from here. "Baby on tracks Nanjing" and "Baby on track Shanghai" both return the same results because everyone is using the same source pic. I think this should stay out until it can be properly sourced, and Life Magazine's website hasn't been any help so far.-- Bakarocket 03:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The site this came from doesn't even say where this was taken. Where is the source that says this was taken by Life magazine in Shanghai? The onyl website that doesn't use the same file name as wikipedia with the picture is Princeton University's, and it has the picture on a series of photos abotu Nanjing, with no description beside the photo. The only logical conclusion is that this is a photo of Nanjing considering that every source except Wiki says that it is Nanjing. Even Wiki indirectly says that it is Nanjing. I'm putting a warning under the pic in the article. It must be sourced, Blueshirts, and nothing I can find shows that you are correct. Please tell me the issue number this appeared it. -- Bakarocket 03:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit of the decription of the photo stinks. Can someone else reword that to show that there is doubt about the veracity of the photo? According to 100 Photos that Changed the World there are problems with some of the photos. If it really is of Shanghai, it should stay regardless because it's a good picture of the destruction the city suffered, but if the baby was just dropped in by the photographer, it should be noted. -- Bakarocket 04:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I have Life magazine's "LIFE at War" and the caption says on Aug. 28th the Shanghai south station was bombed, killing two hundred people (p.26). If you still have doubts go check it out yourself.Blueshirts 04:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, that's awesome. You know as well as I do that many people say things without actually having the sources. And I wasn't denying the truth of the picture, I was just saying it's pretty suspicious when it's named differently than it should be, you have to admit that. Look above at what I wrote, I just wanted to see the source is all. As to the pic, according to our own wiki on 100 photos that changed the world, some of the pictures are noted as possibly being staged. The pic should stay for sure, but we should check the other source for confirmation. I might just buy the book because it looks good anyway. -- Bakarocket 11:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Considering the fact that Ishikawa Minoru is ain fact a japanese nippon, its so obvious hes not to be trusted in these matters LOL, with a japanese user name, whos side you think hed take? of course he says nanking is fake because HE IS JAPANESE!!RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cf. WP:AGF. — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Baby photo revisited

To respond to the above comments, the baby photo used in this article is in fact from Shanghai, but it is a known propaganda shot, staged by Chinese-American photographer Xiaoting Wang (sp?). Feel free to replace it with another picture demonstrating the heart-breaking aftermath of the bombing. But this one is staged. I have removed it.

You can see someone carrying the baby over *to* the tracks at 24:08 in the film Why We Fight: The Battle of China. Watch video here. See this photo also. Again, I have no doubt that the baby was found in an equally miserable condition somewhere in the bombed-out station, but the photograph is known to have been staged and it lowers the integrity of Wikipedia as much to have this photo on here as it lowers the integrity of Reuters to publish doctored photos of smoke over Beirut. Bueller 007 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal. The photo was taken from archives.gov 1 and archives.gov does not indicate that the photo was staged or faked. I watched The Battle of China at 24:08. Firstly, we don't see the man actually placing the baby on the tracks; secondly, we don't even know if the baby the man was carrying was even the same baby on the tracks; thirdly, your rationale for removal is completely original research given the fact that the photo was taken from archives.gov, where it does not indicate the photo was staged. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Far from original research. Photos 1-3Photos 4-5. Read the captions from the original source. Quite clearly the baby was FOUND elsewhere and moved over to the tracks. What you see in "Battle of China" is scenes 1-3. The Wang photo being used on this page was clearly taken some time before photo 4. (Either that or he was a total scumbag and he asked the man and child to get out of his shot.) Obviously this is NOT the position where the baby was found. Perhaps I was hasty to delete it as "staged" (the person carrying him was not necessarily staging the photograph, although I do find it suspect that he decided to place the child so close to the ledge and near a cloud of rubble smoke despite much safer locations being only feet away), but this photo used by itself is totally misleading, as it implies that this was the location and condition in which the child was originally found. In fact, he had been found elsewhere, set there, and then the photo was intentionally taken in the short span of time between the "rescue worker" leaving frame and the man and the boy entering frame. Misleading photos used to promote a political cause are the very definition of propaganda. Bueller 007 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the caption under the photo reads "A terrified baby in Shanghai's South Station after a Japanese bombing" - this in fact reflects what the U.S. National Archives says of the photo, and it does not conflict with the possibility that somebody placed him there. Earlier you talked about the "integrity" of Wikipedia - well, how about reflecting what a very reliable source says, and questioning sources from Japanese revisionists who think that Japan was all-benevolent in WW2 and that atrocities did not happen because some shadows in some photos don't look right to them? How do we know that this supposed "evidence" by revisionists is not fake itself? Even if we are to use the two photos which you just linked, the current caption is correct. The caption in Photo 1 actually says that a young Chinese man picked up the baby which was left half hidden under the wreckage, and the caption in Photo 4 says that the young Chinese man left the baby there to help other victims, and then a man comes to take the baby to a first aid station (implying that the man with the hat in Photo 4 is taking the baby to get first aid). How does the current caption in this article mislead any information? Do you want the caption to state that the baby was actually left half hidden in a wreckage? Do want it to state that the baby received first aid? Regardless, it was a baby in a Shanghai train station after a Japanese bombing - the caption says nothing of the baby's state before or after he was sitting there in that photo. More importantly, the current photo caption quite simply reflects its source, the U.S. National Archives. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ. The source in question is LOOK Magazine. The reporters were actually *on the scene*. Are you really going to regress into semi-racist ad hominem drivel based on the person who POSTS the original source? That's pretty weak.

"How does the current caption in this article mislead any information?" Imagine I post a picture of 1950's Nanjing and say "Nanjing after the attack by Japanese forces". The caption is 100% accurate. 100% true. BUT MISLEADING AS HELL. If you're not giving the full story, you are intentionally misleading people. That's called "propagandizing".

"Do you want the caption to state that the baby was actually left half hidden in a wreckage?" YES. You're finally starting to understand. Bravo. If you wish to keep the picture, a good caption would be "Shanghai's South Station after a Japanese bombing run: A terrified baby found under a pile of wreckage and placed on a platform by a rescue worker". That would be a much more accurate portrayal of the young child's story. Unless you would prefer to hide this information for some reason. Bueller 007 19:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is misleading. Like I've said multiple times, the caption reflects what the U.S. National Archives says. Hell, to me, the baby that the man was carrying and the man that's sitting on the platform don't even look like the same baby. I'll even insert a footnote to provide a source for the caption reading of the photo. I'm not trying to hide anything - the photo was taken directly from the U.S. National Archives, and the caption reflects what the U.S. National Archives says. You can't be more direct than that. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a reason why people have to testify to the "whole truth" in addition to "the truth and nothing but the truth." Not saying that this child was found elsewhere violates the "whole truth", and there's no reason to keep this information from anyone except to mislead them into thinking that the photographer just happened upon the child in this condition. I've added the caption I recommended above. Bueller 007 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So I've got a question about those two URLs you provided - how do we know they are reliable sources? It looks like they are posted from a Japanese forum. How do we know they are authentic and not fake photos that were cropped together? How can we trust that someone didn't photoshop in the captions and the LOOK magazine indexing at the bottom? Can we find these photos hosted on a more reliable site? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again ad hominem claim for which you have no substantiation. Your thinly-veiled contempt and racism aside, just because it's Japanese doesn't mean it's dishonest.

The majority of photos on the Nanjing page come from Chinese sources, i.e. http://www.nj1937.org/english/default.asp. Can I claim that these are all untrustworthy and delete them as well?

The LOOK article is still copyrighted. On the internet, you're not going to find a more reliable source than something underground. Bueller 007 19:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm questioning the source because it is hosted by a forum, which is not exactly the most reliable source around. And especially since this is a controversial issue involving Japan, a Japanese forum makes it even less reliable. But note that I have not reverted your addition to the photo caption. Asking whether or not we can really trust that source is perfectly legitimate. We can trust a reputable establishment to provide a reliable source, but since this is just a forum, how do we know that someone didn't just photoshopped in the captions and the LOOK magazine indexing? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 00:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand how the original caption is misleading or in anyway imply the photo was "faked"? Japanese planes bombed the station. Rescue workers rushed to the scene. Pulled out a baby under the wreckage. Placed him on the safety of the platform. Went to help other victims. Photographer snapped the shot. Rescue workers came back and placed the baby on the stretcher. OMG, the picture must be is staged lolololuluz!!! Blueshirts 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

bueller007 AKA a japanese pretending to be a foreinger, since its obvious from your user page that YOU LOVE JAPAN, its also obvious you would have a pro japanese stance, therefore, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO TALK ON SINO JAPANESE MATTERS BECAUSE SINCE YOU LOVE JAPAN YOU ARE NOT NEUTRAL. RestoreTheEmpireSociety (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SRSLY? I'm not qualified either then, since I LOVE CHINA and obviously have a pro-Chinese stance... Shit... let me go erase all my edits... Миборовский (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Kindly remember to ASSUME GOOD FAITH. And also that all caps just makes you look bad. — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, we have an entire article on the photograph that will dispel most of the (however well-intentioned) misinformation above. In short:

A) It stays. In English sources it's probably the single most WP:NOTABLE aspect of the entire battle: it's one of the most famous photographs in photography.

B) It doesn't need much caveating. It was a baby in Shanghai South Railway Station; there is footage of the baby being moved from one side of the tracks to the other: it was being moved away from the dead, dying, and wounded, including its dead mother.

It—the photographer didn't know its gender or learn its name—may have been posed, but every aspect that makes it an effective photograph is true. This is nothing like a "staged shot" where a healthy baby was introduced and pinched while its mother sits happily nearby: it is warzone photography, one of the most notable aspects of the battle, and its non-inclusion would reflect badly on this article's coverage. [Reduced the size of some ranting above in the interest of politeness.] — LlywelynII 18:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Air war questions and nitpicks

The article says that 91 planes were more than half the Chinese air force. Would that be the entire air force or just the "Central Army" air force? AFAIK Two-Guang Clique had a large air force of more than 60 planes (can't supply source, though). Also, I think there needs to be mention of the attack on the Japanese flagship Izumo and how they messed it up and bombed the city instead. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the entire air force also counts guangxi-guangdong clique planes, but I'd say yes. Guangxi clique joined the Shanghai front in mid september I think. BlueShirts 07:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Feng Yuxiang's role

I read somewhere (always somewhere, never can remember where exactly) that Feng Yuxiang was given a command in this battle but he messed it up big and had to be relegated to a "ceremonial" role. Fact or fiction? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Feng was given the command of 3rd Warzone and then transferred to North China. BlueShirts 07:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

When and when? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure when Feng was made the 3rd Warzone commander, but I'd imagine it's in early august when China was divided into warzones. Feng got transferred in mid-september. BlueShirts 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

K, thanks. I'll look around. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Got it:

8-6:南京軍事會議，於軍事委員會內分置六部，黃紹竑等分任部長。 (Doesn't specify Feng Yuxiang though)

9-11:軍事委員會劃津浦線為第六戰區，任馮玉祥為司令長官，轄宋哲元等部。

-- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 08:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The 3rd War zone was estalibhsed in August 20th, with Feng as the commander. Chiang Kai-shek replaced him on september 11th. BlueShirts 08:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign concessions

Seeing how the international settlement was an extremely large part of the city I'm surprised this isn't covered more? Wouldn't it be a rather major consideration militarily alone and not just diplomatic (actually, I'm looking for maps) - I'd imagine military commanders would have thoughts of how to get troops from one street to another without crossing into Anglo-American territory, for example. Or how best to use the Japanese advantage of having concessions inside Shanghai itself.

Of course I'm not sure if it was such a huge issue but it sounds like it is. It's supposedly one of the ROC's core cities and yet foreign-controlled (I think I saw a show on television which seemed to portray the Chinese-controlled part of Shanghai as a miniscule portion compared to the concessions). I'd imagine that organising a defense of the city wasn't so straightforward. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 21:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As an illustration of my inquiry [1] I found a map of Shanghai's concessions. It seemed that anything that was valuable to the Nationalist government seemed to be nested in the concessions (although probably the greater metropolitan area remains unaccounted for)... Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The foreign concession was in downtown Shanghai, where the Chinese made the initial offensive. All the other combat operations were in other outlying areas like Luodian, Liuhang, Dachang...etc, which were pretty far off from the downtown. As you can see the area from your map is really detailed, concentrated around a small section of the Huangpu river. However, the frontline that stretched from downtown Shanghai to Liuhe, a small northeast town, was some 40 km, not to mention the later combat that happened halfway between Shanghai and Nanjing. BlueShirts 01:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. I was wondering how it could be the core of economic activity even despite the concessions, with my initial thoughts being that either there was little to defend or it was highly defensible....I guess most of the areas valuable to the KMT lay outside the downtown area, then? I assume that though a lot of the front lay outside the downtown area, it was still quite urban? The existing material doesn't seem to make the historical geography clear, especially with military utility of existing Japanese possessions inside China. I'm trying to visualise it. I think we need a map, wonder if Yeu Ninje can help?Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I've got some maps but they have got copyright. I'll see if I can get this official ROC history book where there's no copyright I presume. It'd be great to have maps or templates like the chinese dynasty ones. BlueShirts 02:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Background

At the beginning of the article, it seems that the second and third paragraph more appropriately fall under the sub-heading "Background." - IstvanWolf 22:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stalingrad of the East = The Battle of Changde?

I just saw that on the main WWII article. What an understatement! The Battle of Shanghai surpass Battle of Changde in everyway! Does anybody know where they got the name from? TheAsianGURU 19:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean "misstatement"? — LlywelynII 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

what is this?

CNN. Photos document brutality in Shanghai

The photos, taken by a Swiss photographer near Shanghai in 1937, all depict the brutality of Chinese soldiers toward Japanese prisoners and Shanghai residents accused of helping the Japanese as they began their military conquest of China.

We should mention this --210.231.15.201 (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath section

The aftermath section to me looks like nothing more than lavish praise to the Chinese defenders at Shanghai. The article mentions nothing of the effects of the battle for Japan, other than that it carved a path to Nanjing in a previous section. Despite the valiant efforts of the Chinese army, this battle was still a Japanese victory. I think a part needs to be added about Japanese gains and if there was a resistance movement afterwards, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.92.166 (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody who was reading this article (even if they didn't get the information from the 'infor box') would mistakenly believed that the Chinese somehow "fought off" the Japanese Imperial Army. The aftermath section was created way back in June of 2006. And yes, you are the ONLY person who thinks that it's a "Lavish praise to the Chinese defenders." For starter, the Japanese calls it an "Incident" (even till this day, Check out the Japanese Wikipedia yourself) and the Imperial Army was "just responding/counter attacking" "the attack" of the Chinese National Army......Well, on the other hand, I don't blame them. If they can say FDR planned the whole thing and enshrined 14 Class-A war criminals (hit me up if you need the list) at Yasukuni, what's in a little name calling?! Give me a break~ TheAsianGURU (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Video

Documentary film recording the Chinese army fighting against the Japanese invasion of Shanghai.

Questions:(1):Which section is best for this video? (2): Can editors use this video as a source? Arilang ^talk 09:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ōyama Incident

According to Shanghai Ceasefire Agreement (see. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Incident) Chinese were forbidden to garrison any troops in Shanghai or its vicinity, apart from police force inside the city. Who exactly were these Chinese Peace Preservation Corps garrisoned and armed inside the airport? It seems that their presence there was illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.137.6 (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Chinese Peace Preservation Corps were, as their title suggests, strictly speaking not a military force, but a police force under the law. Today's Japanese Self-Defense Force is our modern counterpart: it looks like an army, it acts like an army, but it is strictly speaking a civilian service. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Chinese Forces Number of Tanks

There should be a representation of the Vickers 6-Ton tanks covered in this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_Chinese_armoured_forces_(1927%E2%80%9345) For example "The 1st Battalion in Shanghai had 32 Vickers Amphibious tanks and some Vickers 6-ton tanks, and the 2nd Battalion also in Shanghai had 20 Vickers 6-ton tanks, 4 Carden Loyd tankettes and carriers." The non-inclusion of these numbers makes it seem like the Chinese at Shanghai had no armor support, which is innacurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.221.224.61 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Bombing

Chinese

I can't find it now but, for researchers looking at this page, there was a letter printed in an Australian newspaper from a boy in Shanghai back to his family detailing his first-hand account of the accidental Republican bombing of the International Settlement. Falls under avoid-primary-sources and we've already got that incident covered, but still a powerful passage if you can find it.

Japanese

Now, a wartime propaganda film is obviously a biased source. It is, in fact, something like the quintessence of biased sourcing.

That said, if The Battle of China’s account of punitive Japanese bombing of the undefended civilian population of Shanghai after the Republican army's retreat was a complete lie, that's worth noting. If it's true, it's even more necessary to include it. Right now, there is next to nothing about Japanese aerial bombardment; absolutely nothing about strikes against civilian targets; and absolutely no link to our article on or Japan's policy of terror bombing. Not sure if it was an over-enthusiastic editor or simple oversight, but it needs to be addressed in greater detail. — LlywelynII 19:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Shanghai. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cgsc.edu/CARL/nafziger/937JIAF.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110321233313/http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/china_armour.html to http://www.dutcheastindies.webs.com/china_armour.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I am wrong

Sorry,I make some mistake in this page.--Tr56tr (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

These contents need to be rewritten into a paragraph

|casualties1 = ~250,000<ref name="ww2db.com">[http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=85 WW II Database: The Second Battle of Shanghai] Retrieved 20 May 2016</ref> |casualties2 = 59,493+ (combat casualties excluding death caused by disease)<ref>{{cite book|title=南京戦史|publisher=Asagumo Shimbunsha|language=Japanese|pp=306–307|year=1966}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=[[Senshi Sōsho]] (戦史叢書)|publisher=Asagumo Shimbunsha|language=Japanese|volume=2|year=1966}}</ref> 98,417 killed and wounded<ref>戴峰、周明《淞滬會戰-1937年中日813戰役始末》，台北市：知兵堂出版，2013年，P194。</ref>

Need a paragraph to record the details. PS:Don't delete the paragraph without reference recently, I found that it has too much impact on this page.--Witotiwo (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bloody Saturday, Shanghai.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox photo change

The new infobox photo is a borrowing from the Dutch Wikipedia article for the Battle of Shanghai if anyone's wondering. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Can we get some maps for the Battle of Shanghai?

Same with other articles dealing with the Chinese front of WWII. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

'Asia's Stalingrad'

This name appears to be a misnomer, as while a second source that seems to support it has been added, it is a source that makes explicit reference to the book by Peter Harmsen, and includes quoted material from the author himself, and it seems especially problematic with the line "he acknowledges that this is merely a metaphor". I would have no issue using either the term 'Stalingrad on the Yangtze' or 'Asia's Stalingrad' if we can produce a source that shows the battle being referred to by anyone other than the singular author who adopted that title for his book, but neither Google Scholar nor JSTOR seem to verify the claim of the term being used. Loafiewa (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I see the series of additions and reversions on this point. I thought I might add my perspective in the hope it will help avoid back-and-forth. This kind of historical analogy or metaphor is not very useful, I would recommend we NOT include it unless a compelling reason exists, for example, sustained usage in discourse or the popular imagination. The proposed 'Stalingrad' additions fall far short of this. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sihang Warehouse

Hello @Qiushufang I see you redid my revision after @Wahreit pointed them out to you. Is there any sort of bar for whether or not a source is deemed too irreptuable to use a citation? I would think a web article with zero citations is not suitable for a source on Wikipedia? Am I incorrect? Also Robinson's work has major flaws such as providing an entirely fictionalized order of battle for the Japanese side. I don't think it is reasonable to use it as a source, at least for the Japanese side given its lack of credibility. It quite literally conflicts with all known Japanese primary sources and the official history of the IJN in the Second Sino-Japanese War authored by Japan's Ministry of Defense War History Study Room. The English-language academic essay by Hattori Satoshi in The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945 also disproves the IJA's involvement in this battle. Given that reputable Japanese secondary sources clearly states the participating forces on the Japanese side was the IJN Special Naval Landing Forces and not the IJA 3rd Division, is it fine to remove the part of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement and correct it with this source? This is a rather frustrating case where most of the English-language sources are extremely unreliable and little coverage in Japanese exists beyond primary sources but I want to work to correct this subsection to offered a more balanced coverage of both viewpoints as was accomplished on the main article. Adachi1939 (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Please use the secondary sources, preferably in English, wherever you can find them, and where not, provide translations in the footnotes so that those who cannot read the language can discuss them. Please aware that you cannot introduce interpretation of primary sources, as the part I undid seemed to do in the last sentence and possibly elsewhere. I cannot read Japanese or Chinese very well. I am skeptical that the primary source itself talked about boastfulness, and the use of "nonetheless" seems to be editorializing. Use of primary source is not by itself is not entirely out of bounds on wiki but when every single one is a primary source in a non-English language, extra care must be taken that they are not being mis-used. I frankly don't have have any expertise in this topic, but some of your editing seems questionable. Ex. Here you removed only the part with "non-academic" sources, but the entire rest of the paragraph is entirely unsourced, so it is even less reliable. At Defense of Sihang Warehouse you introduced original research] at one point. You seem to be engaged in debating over articles that were never very well sourced to begin with so it's difficult to say who is in the right or what source is proper. Qiushufang (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate your detailed answer. I have made some changes with translations in the footnotes. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. Adachi1939 (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

appreciate your perspective, @Qiushufang. @Adachi1939, if you are committed to a "balanced coverage" as you claim, then it isn't up to you to gatekeep the usage of secondary sources because you deem them "wrong" or "non-academic." as it stands, there is currently no solid ground to disprove the involvement of the 3rd IJA division, as it is not only stephen robinson who claims this, and earlier versions of the main article state the same (we can discuss this further on the sihang warehouse main page). furthermore, as qiushufang can testify, there are many issues plaguing the defense of sihang warehouse page, including but not limited to original research, undue weight and the quality of the sources used. Wahreit (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

>"as it stands, there is currently no solid ground to disprove the involvement of the 3rd IJA division"

There already is in fact overwhelming evidence to disprove this fact. One is "The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945" (ISBN: 0804792070). This work contains an essay "Japanese Operations from July to December 1937" by historians Hattori Satoshi with the help of fellow historian Edward Drea. A look into the citations for this work will show the authors used original Japanese reports and memoirs as the basis for this work. Pages 174-175 cover late October in the Shanghai Campaign and provides clear evidence 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.

Translation of Japanese primary sources also disprove the IJA 3rd Division's (and other IJA units) involvement. I have already provided this info months ago and tagged you but you have ignored it.

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

For your assertion of the IJA 3rd Division being involved, both Japanese and American historians as well as period unit diaries have to be wrong. The evidence weighs much heavier towards the lack of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement, as the only source you've provided so far is Robinson's which has been thoroughly discussed as not providing proper citations for the IJA 3rd Division's involvement and Niderost's Chinese Alamo which does not provide sources at all. Your insistence on arguing in favor of these sources which cannot back up their claims even after I have explained this multiple times shows you do not respect me nor my time.

>"not only stephen robinson who claims this"

Please provide some claims aside from him and Niderost then. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

adachi, it would be best for everyone if you complied with @Drmies @JBW and @Phil Bridger's instructions and kept your grievances to just the content. if you cannot articulate your problems without getting upset, confrontational, or downright violating wikipedia's guidelines, then there is no productive outcome for anyone here. Wahreit (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Calling administrators/moderators every try I point out very real flaws with your edits and sources is not going to solve the problem. How difficult is it to just say "I was wrong about the IJA 3rd Division being at Sihang Warehouse" and move on? You are wasting precious time in your life asserting something that is simply false. Your behavior is part of the issue which is why I am calling you out on it. You've been shown why you are wrong time and time again for months now and just ignore it and try to push your fictionalized view of history. I'm sure you are an otherwise fine person but that doesn't give you a free pass to spread misinformation on one of the most viewed platforms for knowledge. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

because the 3rd division's presence at sihang warehouse is established in consensus, and just because this fact doesn't line up with your interpretations of the battle's reality does not make their presence in the battle suddenly false. for anyone reading this thread, i will post a detailed explanation down below and on the sihang warehouse main article. @Adachi1939, before you reply again, it would be best for you to distance yourself from the content first and not take this so personally. it can't be healthy being this angry over a wikipedia page. Wahreit (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The 3rd division at Sihang Warehouse and delivering facts

context for above: for anyone who wants a tl;dr of the situation above, 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). in doing so, he has deleted all prior mention of the 3rd division on the main sihang warehouse 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 in the check the article history, and has a habit of aggressively confronting anyone who disagrees with him, which is visible on his talk page, the sihang warehouse talk page, and now this one. 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.

the issues with the claims above:

first is the assertation that Satoshi's essay in Drea's book, the Battle for China disproves the involvement of the 3rd division in the battle of sihang warehouse. this is false. nowhere does satoshi or drea explicitly disprove the participation of the 3rd division. it is true that sihang warehouse is not touched on in the chapter, but considering this chapter is a macro-meso analysis of the entire yangtze 1937 campaign, and not an in-depth analysis of all events in the battle of shanghai like peter harmsen's work (which does detail the battle of sihang warehouse), this is understandable. this is not however, a legitimate counter to the sources above; just because satoshi doesn't mention sihang warehouse doesn't automatically disqualify the involvment of the 3rd division: omission does not constitute a legitimate rebuttal. what is stated however, is that the 3rd division was engaged at combat at suzhou creek, something backed up by the sources from Shina Jihen Gaiho Dai, which also indicate the Japanese 3rd division approaching and fighting across the creek.

now for context, the sihang warehouse is also located on the suzhou creek, meaning per those "classified japanese records," the 3rd division and the sihang warehouse were sitting on the exact same axis of attack. furthermore, this map from adachi's own source indicates the location of the 3rd division relative to the sihang warehouse:

https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/listPhoto?LANG=default&REFCODE=C14120674900

copy paste the link and go to page 13: the 3rd division is indicated by "3D" at the lower right of the map near the suzhou creek, whilst the Sihang Warehouse is located just east around the bend in the creek. the distance between the two is less than half a mile.

the distance between the 3rd division's center of mass and the sihang warehouse, when laid over a map of shanghai, is less than half a mile. this means that the 3rd division during the days of the battle was located, per adachi's own sources, a ten minute walk west of the warehouse, which is exactly where the weight of the japanese attack force came from according to the most sources: the western side.

finally, this entire section has required taking adachi's claims at full face value, something one should be cautious about given the problematic scenes we have witnessed for the past week.

if anything @Adachi1939, robinson and niderost's works are your best supporters, as they are amongst the few legitimate sources that actually state the involvement of the imperial japanese marine forces (which you claim to be the sole attackers of sihang warehouse). now the two are not mutually exclusive: stephen robinson and niderost indicate the participation of ija and ijn forces, but as it stands there is no real reason to completely remove all mentions of the 3rd division on this page or the sihang warehouse page.

furthermore, it's not on anyone to prove the involvement of the 3rd division here because that is not our role as wikipedia editors; we are not supposed to provide our own independent interpretations and original research as @Qiushufang has caught you doing multiple times on the sihang warehouse page, we are supposed to deliver the research in a fair and accurate manner as the sources detail. and the sources, from what is visible, establish a clear consensus: the imperial japanese army was involved, and it was the 3rd division who was most involved in the fighting. we will be fixing this as per Wikipedia:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

for those of you who managed to read this to the bottom, i apologize 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, i'm all ears. Wahreit (talk) 19:05, 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)

Another followup on this, there are a now a plethora of English sources added to the western account of events on the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article that attest the participants were indeed members of the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces

Please see: Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse#Western_Account_of_Events Adachi1939 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

this doesn't mean much.

english primary sources that state snlf were involved, but none explicitly disprove the involvement of the 3rd division. of course japanese marines attacked the warehouse, no one really disputes that. but the involvement of ija and ijn are not mutually exclusive, and we have yet to see an actual legitimate argument from your end or really, anyone that explicitly states the ija were not involved.

>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 sihang warehouse 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."

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) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You fundamentally do not understand how reliable secondary sources are authored. Just like on Wikipedia, when statements are made, references need to be provided to back them up. 5/6 sources you provided failed to do this or were irrelevant. It is essentially no different than you just making up the IJA 3rd Division was there with no source at all.

We have Japanese primary sources authored by the IJN themselves explicitly saying:

-The takeover of Zhabei and subsequent capture of Sihang Warehouse was done by IJN SNLF

-The participating forces at the Warehouse were the Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion (Haji Corps), Yokosuka 2nd Independent Company (Kobayashi/Hayasaka Corps), 8th and 9th Companies, and part of the Kure 1st SNLF.

-We have stories published by the IJN commemorating the involvement of individual troops from the 10th Battalion, Yokosuka 2nd Independent Company, and the Kure 1st SNLF in the Battle for Sihang Warehouse.

-The IJA 3rd Division and other IJA divisions had moved to the edge of the Suzhou River outside of Shanghai proper and were fighting to cross it. Their activities in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation that occured simultaneously to the Battle of Sihang Warehouse are detailed.

These points alone should be enough for this to be a closed case. Attempting to overrule what the Japanese military themselves reported with some secondary sources that don't cite their own sources is ridiculous.

Furthermore we have Japanese newspaper reports and books stating the "Haji Corps" along with the "Kobayashi Corps" or "Hayasaka Corps" took the building.

There are also contemporary Western news reports which explicitly state the participation of the "Special Naval Landing Party" with no mention of the IJA 3rd Division, along with no mention or any nicknames or codenames that could've been referring to the division. Western reports also include an English-language press release from the Japanese Navy which says the "Special Naval Landing Party" were the ones who occupied the building.

I think you need to take a step back and examine the overall balance of evidence on this one. We can argue about this for literally years on end but that won't change the documented movements of the Japanese side at Shanghai. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

RfC about the the IJA 3rd Division, Defense of the Sihang Warehouse, and the Battle of Shanghai

I would like to seek a third opinion regarding this subject matter. The user @Wahreit has been quite attached to the narrative of the IJA 3rd Division's involvement in this battle, asserting it with a number of low quality cherry-picked generally non-academic sources which often do not provide citations for their claims. As seen above and many times before I have tried to explain in detail why these sources do not hold up and conflict with more reliable sources. In spite of this they have been frequently overriding my edits and also trying to interpret Japanese sources which it seems they can't understand and are unwittingly asserting false claims with them. I have been trying to correct these incorrect changes but I want to avoid edit-warring.

This dispute is not limited to this page but also the Defense of Sihang Warehouse page as well, where the disputed matter is largely the same. As I see it, the Japanese sources clearly demonstrate this notion of the IJA 3rd Division's participation to be incorrect. Regardless of being primary sources, I don't see how there is room to assert this claim when the actual participating units are well documented in Japanese. I have been simply translating records and using zero synthesis to reach my conclusions. It is documented that the IJA 3rd Division was at the bank of Suzhou River trying to cross it when this happened. It is documented that the IJN's Special Naval Landing Forces were the ones involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. The only counterclaims @Wahreit has provided are western sources in which 5/6 did not even provide citations for their claims (and half had no citations at all!).

It would be great if someone else can offer their opinion, especially if they can read Japanese sources. I know the heavy use of primary and Japanese language sources is far from ideal on my side as well.

Best Regards, Adachi 2024/07/16 Adachi1939 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I was originally alerted to this argument by Wahreit. As I've stated elsewhere, the two are fighting over an article, and now here as well, that was never well established with secondary source references in the first place. Practically all of Defense of Sihang Warehouse's most important sections are based on primary sources. Many of the reference publication years are deceptively recent as they are merely translations or reprints of older material from direct participants or living people during the event. Moreover they are all closely tied to the event, as the perspectives are either one of two sides. I have advised to use secondary sources more often and to adhere to WP:PRIMARY, however according to Adachi, this is not feasible because of the lack of material. They have continued to add body material mostly referenced to primary sources and so this argument continues to be based on primary sources in already badly referenced articles, probably laced with original research. Qiushufang (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Prior to the deletion of unsourced content at Defense of Sihang Warehouse, much of the article was completely unsourced as well. Unless a secondary source is provided in English and core issues of the article are addressed, I do not see this issue ever being resolved, as it will always revolve around translation and interpretation claims. Again, practically none of the article is based on secondary sources while heavily relying on primary sources, which go against point 5 of WP:PRIMARY. Qiushufang (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Qiushufang is correct, the original article was not in the best quality. adding on to Qiushufang for the sake of context, judging by the talk page, there have been multiple editors trying to improve the article with secondary sources, most of them english. i also made one edit to put some info from harmsen and robinson's books a while back. the problem is, most of these edits are almost immediately reverted by Adachi1939 under the guise of fighting "propaganda" or "revisionism." while it's clear he's extremely passionate about the subject, his insistence on the superiority and sole usage of primary articles, habits of dipping into original research, and rather immature methods of communication has raised the eyebrows of many people. i'm in favor of a third opinion because this has bogged down into a deadlock, but just for the sake of context for anyone reading this, there are plenty of secondary sources out there that many wikipedians would like to put on the page without getting flamed. Wahreit (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Adachi1939, per wikipedia's politics, a request for comment should be a neutral and unbiased invitation for external perspectives, not as a means to accuse others of bad faith editing or to gather support for a feud. since i and @Qiushufang respect wikipedia's guidelines and community, we support this move to bring some balance into this conflict, but advise that you reciprocate that same respect to others. Wahreit (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Update: I added a summary of mostly secondary and a couple primary Japanese-language sources and their translations on the talk page for the Defense of SIhang Warehouse article. I have also opened a RfC on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the sources @Wahreit has been using to assert the IJA 3rd Division's involvement but am yet to hear any feedback as of writing.

The sources in my summary on the talk page conclude the participants on the Japanese side were indeed the Japanese Special Naval Landing Forces (mostly from the Shanghai SNLF) and the IJA 3rd Division while nearby, was actually outside the city preparing for/engaging in the Suzhou River Crossing Operation.

Given the English sources @Wahreit has used lack proper citations (such as a web article with zero citations) and/or directly conflict with all of these Japanese language sources, including ostensibly reliable secondary sources compiled by Japan's National Institute for Defense Studies, it is evident their sources have issues. However, Wahreit has so far rejected all evidence disproving his viewpoint so far with statements such as "you're acting like this is a clash in opinions, it is not. we're here to provide facts." Without a third party issuing a statement regarding the balance of evidence, it is unlikely we are going to reach a conclusion. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment No comment on the content itself, but this RfC seems improperly done. There is no neutral easy to follow question for participants to answer. I have to agree with the statement by Wahreit above regarding the RfC itself.

Awshort (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)