User talk:Adachi1939

Hello, Adachi1939, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Red Director (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Defense of Sihang Warehouse. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!

Please, when working on pages do not use baseless accusations of vandalism against editors without first having a concrete understanding of what vandalism is and how to approach suspected vandalism.

Hello, I'm Kapitan318. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Defense of Sihang Warehouse, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Some of the sources are genuinely not in compliance with the changes that you made in your revision. I reverted those as the evidence does not wholly support the edits you have made. If you can find additional sources that provides more data please include them in the relevant areas and revise edits.

Examples of the evidence not being entirely relevant to the changes made would be the inclusion of reports that were for the week prior to the event in question and the inclusion of organizational charts that demonstrated only the structural organization of certain kinds of units, but does not discern if any specific unit was tasked solely to the operation.

A similar lack of evidence for the corroboration of the change in the commanding officer is also confusing as no evidence for Haji Kitaro being to top commander for the operation is present or cited. Kapitan318 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please thoroughly read the citations I provided. Citation 1 (JACAR ref. C14120644700) states the Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion reinforced with the Yokosuka 2nd Independent Company was the force involved in the attack on Sihang Warehouse. Lieutenant-Commander Haji Kitaro was the commander of the Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion. Although it is common knowledge, Citation 3 (支那事変尽忠録第三卷) also confirms this. There are not any other battalions listed for the operation. Unless a Japanese source for the involvement of a different unit can be provided, the changes will stay. The IJA 3rd Division was not the force involved in the operation. This is a fabrication from Chinese sources without any Japanese sources to back it. I understand it may be hard to come to terms with the Chinese sources being so different from the reality, but it is a common tendency in this field unfortunately. If the Japanese casualties were higher they would be included in 支那事変尽忠録第三卷 as well as Citation 2, but they are not. The entire article should probably be rewritten at some point to remove the exaggerated Chinese claims in combat as well but I don't have the time to do it especially given people are so happy to revert my research/work without actually reading the sources. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of the commander and the SNLF, the IJA was the primary and commanding force for the Battle of Shanghai and by extension all operations conducted in the area. I am not saying that the 10th Battalion was not participating in the battle and the operations in the area, but there is no conclusive evidence that they were the only forces involved. If anything you should be adding them in addition to the 3rd Division, which was present in the battle, rather than removing the entry of the 3rd and their commander General Iwane Matsui. Kapitan318 (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree the IJA was the overall primary and commanding force in the Battle of Shanghai, I disagree with listing IJA 3rd Division and Matsui Iwane as the commander. Firstly, the Shanghai SNLF 10th Battalion was subordinate to the Shanghai SNLF commanded by Rear Admiral Okochi Denshichi, which itself was placed under Vice Admiral Hasegawa Kiyoshi's 3rd Fleet. Although the 3rd Fleet and other naval forces worked with Matsui's 3rd Division, listing them as directly exercising command over the naval forces during the Defense of Sihang Warehouse is rather misleading. We are still lacking Japanese sources which can certify IJA forces having any direct command let alone boots on the ground for the defense of Sihang Warehouse. So as it stands it was a purely naval operation led by Haji Kitaro's 10th Battalion, but indeed he was not the most senior naval officer in the area.

Secondly, the Chinese commander is listed as Xie Jinyuan who was the 524th Regiment's commander, not the 88th Division's commander. If we were to change the Japanese commander to Matsui or perhaps Okochi, I believe it would be logical to change the Chinese commander to the 88th Division's commander as well. However it could be argued that such a change removes attention from Xie Jinyuan, undoubtedly one of the key figures in the defense. Adachi1939 (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue at hand is that your sources that are provided do not provide significant evidence that suggests otherwise. These documents merely indicate that some personnel were involved in the operation, but that in no way means that they were the sole forces involved in the operation. The act of removing the 3rd division is based on a whim given that you have not found a source directly pertaining to them.

For the commanders it would be best if you did not just go ahead and throw in names you come across without finding a good cross reference that proves they were the officer in charge. Xie Jinyuan was listed as the commander since he was the officer in charge for the belligerent.

Let's continue this discussion on the talk page for the article so that we can get more people to check and verify information, rather than just making changes based on insignificant information.

The sources you have given have been, unfortunately, inconclusive in giving accurate information about the incident itself. Most of the information you have been putting down are assumptions based on information, and while you can certainly have those assumptions, the policy is to post verifiable and factual evidence.

For more information, please reference the following pages.

Wikipedia:Common knowledge

WP:TRUTH

WP:RSPRIMARY Kapitan318 (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse Kapitan318 (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally please consider the policy for articles on this webpage: Wikipedia:No original research Kapitan318 (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unfortunately in a sad state of affairs and cannot be mended without original research being conducted. There are very few secondary sources available for the subject in Japanese. The most notable that comes to mind would be Senshi Sosho, which I could use although it's just a less thorough analysis of the same sources I'm using. I will continue this in further detail on the article's talk section as requested. Obviously there is a large gap in knowledge between the English speaking world vs Chinese and Japanese language sources that needs to be corrected. Adachi1939 (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Defense of Sihang Warehouse. Thank you. Kapitan318 (talk) 01:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit-warring and ownership approach to the article Defense of Sihang Warehouse, and failure to show a collaborative approach to other editors with whom you have disagreements. Your determination to control the content of the article has at times gone to the extent of reverting even edits which make obviously valid corrections of formatting and grammar, in order to restore your version of the article. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Presumably you are unfamiliar with the Defense of Sihang Warehouse and current Japanese and Chinese language research surrounding it. There has been a persistent effort to entirely negate Japanese sources used to retell this event and preserve a fictitious narrative largely stemming from a propagandistic account crafted by Yang Ruifu, an NRA officer who escaped from the battle. I would request that if you are to take this action against me, please do the same to others insistent on their historical negationism.

Regards,

Adachi aka Butcher of the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article Adachi1939 (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing because your very first edit following the end of yur last block was to resume the very same edit war which led to that block. I suggest that you read the edit-warring policy carefully. If you do, you will see that believing that your own edits are right and other editors are wrong is no justification for edit-earring. Also, what I am or am not "unfamiliar" with is irrelevant: the block is because you have persistently edited in ways which are contrary to Wikipedia policies, not because I agree or disagree with the changes you have made in your editing. Naturally, this block is for a significantly longer time than the last one, as a short block failed to persuade you to change your ways. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Defense_of_Sihang_Warehouse#Article_Restored in which I explain my reasoning for editing the article. It is not a matter of ME being right, it the sources I selected being "right" by containing historically verifiable information. I explain this in greater detail on the talk page. I am happy to discuss it further detail. User KresyRise edit-warring and replacing Japanese sources with historically unverifiable Chinese accounts which contain no evidence to support the claims other than "I saw [X] happen." I do not want to edit war for this article, I want to promote good discourse on researching the event but other editors, particularly KresyRise have routinely ignored my contributions to the talk page and made massive edits which negate historical events at the consideration of nobody. If I am to be blocked, at the very least KresyRise needs to be as well.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Adachi1939 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Overall, with my contributions to the talk page and an effort to encourage discussion around the event as well as providing very detailed reasoning behind my changes while others have failed to do so, it is unreasonable that I have been blocked.

Decline reason:

Your edits and your subsequent comments make clear that the block was justified. Also revoking talk page access: editor extended the battleground. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Debunking KresyRise's claims on the Sihang Warehouse.

I am posting this here because I have been what I feel unfairly blocked and am unable to post elsewhere. [...] Adachi1939 (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate content deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies @JBW In case you didn't know, I find this user's name to be rather suspect: Adachi is likely war criminal Hatazō Adachi, and 1939 was not a good year in world history. Though I admit it could also refer to Masao Adachi, born 1939, but given the user's interest in the Sino-Japanese War, I find the former more likely. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I chose the name Adachi as it is my actual name. While it uses the same characters as Hatazo Adachi's surname, my family has no relation to him (and personally I'm not interested in IJA officers). Adachi1939 (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you choose 1939? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I like WW2 history and it is often regarded as the year WW2 began and was also when IMO some of the most interesting operations in the Second Sino-Japanese War occurred. My primary purpose on this site is to read about and contribute to WW2 history. Adachi1939 (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:CaptainEek, I can't add anything to this. I had a look at the time but found nothing. Adachi, you were not unfairly blocked, and you would do wise to edit, or continue editing, according to our guidelines. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I took the time while blocked to read up on Wikipedia's policies and understand why I was blocked and what I can do to follow guidelines better henceforth. Regardless if my edits were right or not I was being a jerk which I understand now. Adachi1939 (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you undid all my revisions to the Sihang Warehouse page that I did today. I ask that you respect both my right to make edits without disruption as well as Wikipedia's rules on original research, a point I raised in the edits you deleted. I am willing to compromise and accept a more detailed breakdown of Japanese Marine units from your behalf, which I integrated into my edits, but undoing all my edits (including some that were for simple mechanics) on the notion that they were "not supportive of content in the discussion," doesn't seem to be done in good faith. Please give me some space to make edits, or at the very least do not indiscriminately undo all my edits. KresyRise (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your citations do not support the information you have added. This not the first time you have asserted information using irrelevant citations. Are you familiar with the English language or fabricating history? Also, Japan did not have "Marine units" during the Second Sino-Japanese Conflict or World War II. The language you use suggests you are not familiar with the subject you are so insistent on altering. You can readd the original research tag to the Japanese account of events if you want, although simply copying Japanese documents into English does not necessarily fall under Wikipedia's original research policy. Adachi1939 (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KresyRise seeing as you have read my statement on JBW's talk page, would you care to explain your excessive and repeated use of fictitious referenceson the Defense of Sihang Warehouse Article? I apologize for offending you, but I was legitimately curious if you do not understand English as the English language sources you use aside from Robinson do not support your claims at all. Frankly there has been no discourse with you, simply I make a change and you complain about it and I follow up about why but you refuse to elaborate or discuss it further with me, and thus the cycle repeats. Your constant assertion of a disproven Japanese OOB that neither primary and secondary Japanese language sources nor both the Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia Articles supports is quite strange and considered to be historical fabrication. I am not meaning to insult you with that notion, I'm simply stating what your behavior is classified as and want an explanation behind it. I know you're active on here and watching everything I do, so please give me a response. Also btw despite the conclusion you've come to, I do not have anything personal against you. You are simply a username on the internet. I do not know anything about you beside a few contributions on this site, for all I know you are a splendid person, reliable sources just disagree with your contributions to the Sihang Warehouse article. It's not like I've never been wrong in the study of history or fell for an unreliable source.Adachi1939 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guy, I edit Wikipedia pages occasionally as a hobby. I just find it kind of annoying seeing you in my inbox and notifications every time I login. I'm not going to humor your attempts at creating drama over a single Wikipedia page, so if you want to pursue an ownership approach to the article, that's fine by me. Just quit spamming me, it's not that funny anymore. KresyRise (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should add reading to your hobby as well. Your last edit on the Sihang Warehouse Article is yet more proof that you do not actually read sources. I'm still waiting to hear back from you on why you decided to fill the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article with a bunch of claims that your citations didn't even support. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 2600:1700:115F:4000:D057:FF50:DDFC:F13C (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Adachi1939 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

are you okay?

hey partner, checking in to see if you're okay. while i don't know you, it seems from your activity and interactions with others on the battle of shanghai and sihang warehouse pages that you're very stressed out and upset. for two years actually, that can't be good for your health. from one guy to another, i want you to know you shouldn't take this personally, and that at the end of the day this is volunteer work, not an actual job with real consequences. in the chance that you don't respond to this with an angry tirade, you should check this page out. if there are trees where you are, i'd also recommend you go on a long hike in the outdoors or maybe try taking a break from here once in a while. remember, it's wikipedia. it's not that deep. have a great day :). Wahreit (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will congratulate you on being the most "trying" editor I have had the pleasure of dealing with in this some two years. I have actually on a few occasions this week had to stop and question whether or not you are just trolling me at this point given some of the gross misinterpations of sources and complete rejection of sources from the Japanese side. But thanks for checking in on me. Adachi1939 (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]