Talk:Battle of Shanghai

'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)

uma defeat

Had to Be live Dosolve (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2025 (UTC)