Adachi1939

Please Stop Your Revisionism

I have noticed that you have changed the causalities for the Defence of Sihang Warehouse on Japan's side. Please stop your revisionism. Japan lost around 200 and had around 100 wounded during that battle. It is a known fact that you can not cover up. Please be faithful to the source and stop this politicising of history. In case you weren't clear and still disagree with the causalities please watch this video as well because it literally says Japan lost more than China during the Defence of Sihang Warehouse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxpG19OTmns 203.221.62.213 (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for addressing your concerns. Firstly, historical revisionism is not inherently wrong. Historians should strive to reanalyze events with various primary and secondary materials, and if evidence is satisfactory, they may reach a new conclusion.

The video you linked provides no citations for the figures purported, it is academically worthless. It makes incredibly amateurish mistakes such as stating the IJA 3rd Division was the participating force on the Japanese side when it was in fact not an IJA operation at all but an IJN operation conducted by a much smaller force within the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force. While the video lacks citations, it is blatantly clear no Japanese sources were consulted in the making of that historical work of fiction.

Rather than levy baseless accusations of politicizing history, I suggest familiarizing yourself with the sources I provided which back up the casualty figures. Chinese-language discussions on this event have already reached the same conclusion in regards to the casualties as my revisions, as seen here: https://ppfocus.com/hk/0/hi66ca0e2.html It is really not a political matter as Chinese, Japanese, and westerns alike making use of proper sources have mutually reached the same conclusion. YouTube videos with no bibliography, no matter how high their production value may appear, as well as memoirs of dubious authenticity, do not constitute a "known fact that can not be covered up."

While I get a strange sense of satisfaction in receiving negative responses from victims of historical propaganda to my corrections to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article, your hostile remarks and unjustified revisions have the potential to cause serious damage to historiography on the Second Sino-Japanese War if continued elsewhere, so please reconsider your actions.

-Adachi Adachi1939 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If you say no Japanese sources were consulted then what about Chinese sources in your changes. At the same time Japanese sources supplied are biased towards Japan since Japan couldn't handle the shame and defeat they had from China. They are unreliable as they are also not truthful either. Instead of fighting I suggest putting two causalities one original and one the Japanese estimates. Then this whole situation would be left untouched. Unless you still disagree, you will clash heads with many others who will say the same as the original causalities for Japan. This a compromise that will make everyone happy 203.221.62.213 (talk) 11:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

It is of my opinion that the two sides of the conflict should be constructed using sources from their respective sides. I would not base strength or casualties on the Chinese side on Japanese sources and vice versa. Both have proven to be unreliable in their depictions of the opposing force, for example the Japanese combat records erroneously reported the Chinese holdouts at Sihang Warehouse numbered 800 men and Chinese sources falsely reported the IJA 3rd Division was involved.

The sources I extracted the casualty figures from have been proven as reliable. They were not devised as public reports, but rather internal documents from the IJN intended for analysis of the conflict. The same publication which lists the sole death during the Sihang Warehouse lists hundreds more dead during the earlier days of fighting in Shanghai, making absolutely zero effort to conceal the degree of losses suffered in the conflict.

It should be understood that while Japan suffered considerable losses in Shanghai and was ultimately defeated in the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese emerged as the clear victor in Shanghai. With the loss of Shanghai followed by their capital, and not to mention the crippling of some of their most modernized and well-trained military units, the only one humiliated in 1937 was China.

However, in an effort to be fair, I will allow you to alter the Japanese casualty figure if you can provide a source with at least one name for the some 200 Japanese (excluding Warrant Officer Tanaka who is already covered in my figure of 1) alleged to have been killed during their Assault on Sihang Warehouse. Deaths during the first year of the Second Sino-Japanese War were meticulously recorded, so there should be ample evidence if you are correct. Adachi1939 (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I am still waiting for you to provide a source with at least one name for the some 200 Japanese (excluding Warrant Officer Tanaka who is already covered) alleged to have been killed during the Assault on Sihang Warehouse. As long as you fail to provide this information I will remove your unproven changes to the article. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Two American Researchers I have spoken to that both Japan and China exaggerated the number of deaths of the Japanese Army during this battle. Japan didn't officially publish official true numbers considering it would be a humiliation for them. At the same time Japan wasn't successful in taking Sihang and it's quite illogical for Japan to lose only one death. At the same illogical when Chen Shusheng suicided bombed into the Japanese with grenades strap to his body. He would have killed many. This is common sense. Even with or without sources 1 killed would be ridiculously illogical. At the same time being able to actually go to the place the museum did emphasize 200 deaths on the Japanese side. Additionally on Baidu, I found this source that talked about the deaths on the Japanese side. cited next to the number of Japanese casualties on the Baidu page for Sihang: [12] Written by Rong Weimu; edited by Bu Ping and Wang Jianlang. The History of the Chinese Anti-Japanese War Volume 2 Wartime Military [M]. Beijing: Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2019.11. Page 89. Now I am allowing your numbers to be placed but it is also unfair that you don't even count the Chinese estimates either. 203.221.62.213 (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

>the sources you use for Japanese casualties are also Japanese Wartime propaganda

They are military reports and were not intended for the general public. The only areas disputed in them are when the actual casualty figures do not align with fictionalized Chinese claims that hold no basis in reality.

>Two American Researchers I have spoken to that both Japan and China exaggerated the number of deaths of the Japanese Army during this battle. Japan didn't officially publish official true numbers considering it would be a humiliation for them.

The Imperial Japanese Army was not involved in the Defense of Sihang Warehouse. For these two researchers to not know this major detail, evidently they are not individuals who should address the subject. The Imperial Japanese Navy, which was involved, released casualty figures in reports and three volumes of books detailing the careers and final moments of each sailor killed during the Battle of Shanghai including the attack on Sihang Warehouse. This notion of Japan not publishing official numbers out of "humiliation" is categorically false and was already disproven by sources in the article.

>At the same illogical when Chen Shusheng suicided bombed into the Japanese with grenades strap to his body. He would have killed many. This is common sense. Even with or without sources 1 killed would be ridiculously illogical.

This event is not substantiated by Chinese nor Japanese sources. The physical construction of the Sihang Warehouse makes it unlikely this event ever occurred. Do we talk about historicial propaganda fairy tales here or actual history?

As previously said, to alter the actual Japanese dead and wounded you need to provide more concrete sources. Chinese sources which rely on oral testimonies can not supersede an actual Japanese combat report. If you wish to alter the figure I need to see the names of at least 1 KIA individual (aside from WO Tanaka actually covered) as these dead sailors don't just exist out of thin air. If you are able to do this your research has no basis and your changes are not welcomed on the article. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Goichi Oie

Kudos for your work of Goichi Oie. I have a question: in all my sources (and for a long time in the article itself), his surname is rendered "Oya". I presume that there was a change in the romanization scheme? (Google romanized it as "Oya") Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you as well for all the fixes to the article. 大家 is a bit of a difficult surname, the common reading is typically Oya or Oie, and there's also a bunch of others like Ooka and Taike/Daike.

Hush's Naval Database and Nishida's database both list the reading as Oie (Ōie) Goichi.

These sites are not always 100% accurate when it comes to readings so it's possible it could be wrong. Oie's original service record should have the proper reading for his name listed. I might just have to go digging for it the next time I'm at the archives in Tokyo. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Defense of Sihang Warehouse. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

All of these were removed for one or more of the sources not supporting the content. I would appreciate if you retracted or apologized this false statement. Thank you. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Defense of Sihang Warehouse. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Qiushufang (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have been doing that for 2+ years and receive basically zero helpful input. Thanks though. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Notification of editing restriction

This message serves as a notification that you are now subject to additional editing restrictions imposed by the Wikipedia community as the result of an AN discussion. You are hereby topic-banned indefinitely from pages relating to World War II, broadly construed. Furthermore, you are also subject to a two-way interaction ban with Wahreit. qedk (t 愛 c) 23:02, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action and letting me know. Adachi1939 (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2026 (UTC)