Talk:Defense of Sihang Warehouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Defense of Sihang Warehouse article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Defense of Sihang Warehouse is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 30, 2006.

Article Milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 7, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
Current Status: Featured article

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Roof Picture

This is in regards to: [1]. I've actually got a few questions about this. Is it Really on the roof? I don't know anything about chinese warehouse building, especially since all the roofs I've known are of modern construction, but it seems that those guys are on cobble stones with a lip of a sidewalk nearby. It appears there looks like a building that looks like other pictures of the Sihang warehouse in the background, which doesn't mean anything, but it might mean the picture is not on the roof but nearby. Given that all the surrounding buildings (which mentioned in the article were occupied by the IJA, and that those 'occupied buildings' were higher than the warehouse (as the picture implies) it'd be a poor choice (tactically, not for a picture) for soldiers to be prone when the IJA occupies higher building floors across the street, And given that the article states that the roof was heavily fortified (2 HMGs, etc.) I don't think it'd be easy to accomplish that with IJA on higher building floors a few score meters ways away. Continuing, barbed wire positions on the roof? It wouldn't be unheard of, especially since the IJA was trying to scale the building using ladders. -- What I suppose i'm saying, is unless cited, I can't reasonably believe that is a shot of soldiers on the roof. I'd suggest rather "Picture taken of NRA troops in a fortified position during the defense of Sihang Warehouse." Chapparal 08:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Will look into this. -- Миборо в ский 19:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The unspoken part

If I judge this correctly, the amazing part of this is not merely the success of the defence itself, but the method in which the foreign concessions distanced themselves. "Hey look, our hosts are fighting a war of resistance, let's not lift a finger to help them in any way!" Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's doubtful that the ang moh kwei thought of themselves as "guests". They "leased" their concessions and enjoy extraterritoriality on them. (Not sure if these were repealed during the Republic.) Anyway, if one studies modern Chinese history, it's rather apparent that the Brit, Yank, Bolshi leaders of the time were all pretty two-faced. Lend Lease was a joke, Brits sat on their butts, and Bolshis of course supplied both the commies and the nationalists and let them duke it out after the war. IMHO Germany was the most faithful, but even they withdrew their help in mid 1938. We signed one of the only two non-Versailles treaties that were "equal", and look! Well that's how it is, weak guys get pushed around. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The unequal treaties were all voided in 1941 or 1943 I believe. And yes, China got pretty much the short end of the stick all the time. BlueShirts 01:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question about the intro

The intro looks good, but I think the sentence The successful defense [...] proving that when properly led and motivated, even a small group of Chinese troops could overcome a much greater Japanese force is rather misleading. The main force of Chiang Kai-shek's army, including the 88th division which the lost battalion belonged to, had already fought the Japanese to a standstill valiantly until its lines crumpled after continuously delayed order to retreat. Thus I think right now the intro sentence implies that the defense was the "only" instance of Chinese fortitude and resourcefulness during the battle and that is patently incorrect. The defense of the warehouse itself was militarily rather insignificant, and it did not really "cover" the retreat of the Chinese troops eastward. The bulk of the Chinese troops have already retired from Shanghai and were on route to take part in the defense of Nanking. The main purpose of the lost battalion was to let the international delegates of the Nine-Powers Treaty, in session in Brussels, to know that the Chinese were still fighting. BlueShirts 23:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I've gone back and read it, it does give that impression. What would you suggest we change it to? My brain's not working right after studying for the AP Bio and Chem tests next week... :S -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 09:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technically "over-strength"

Okay, the part where it mentions that the battalion was "technically over-strength" but in actuality "under-strength" - can someone explain that? Is this related to having 800 troops in one battalion (a number made up when Yang Huimin asked for a list of names) and thus this technicality occurred during the battle, or was there something "on paper, but not in practice" that occurred before the battle? Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Overstrength as it was officially listed as an overstrength battalion. A battalion is about 600 men. As the 88th was a triangular division, (sorry, more military jargon, but there's a diagram here), it means that the battalion is formed of 3 companies + misc units (signal, comm, medical, artillery etc). An overstrength battalion is formed of (usually) 4 or more companies, which is the case here. So it's "supposed" to have approx 800 people in 4 companies. However due to battle losses, slow reinforcement, etc, the real strength of the battalion at the time of battle was around 400+, which is why it's actually understrength. Now how do I explain all that in a concise sentence... :X -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 09:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Article title translations in lead

I find that having the article title translations, such as (Traditional Chinese: 四行倉庫保衛戰; Simplified Chinese: 四行仓库保卫战; pinyin: Sìháng Cāngkù Bǎowèi Zhàn), in the lead really kills the readability of the first few lines of text. Ideally, we want the lead to be as clear and concise as possible and having the translations clutters the flow without any real benefit. The interwiki links are available if I need to know what the event is called in another language, and for the vast majority of people reading the article these translations merely get in the way when they're put in the lead. I'd like to see the translations removed. Just something to think about. --NormanEinstein 06:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhabei District

Was there a Zhabei District during the ROC era? — Insta ntnood 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -- Миборовский 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

When was the Zhabei District established? — Insta ntnood 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

See [2] and [3]. It seems that certain elements date back to 1675. But, "上海开埠以后，新闸、老闸北面也开始发展，闸北之名开始出现。" so it wasn't until the Treaty ports were opened that Zhabei developed into a city area. Then "辛亥革命后，闸北即成立闸北市政厅。" so it was some time after 1911 that it was formally made into a district. -- Миборовский 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

市政廳 may not equal 区. I've replaced Zhabei District with Zhabei. — Insta ntnood 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellany

Sihang Warehouse seems to be known as J.S.S. in some older literature.
The address is 22 Retrocession Road (光复路) in Zhabei District, Shanghai. That's a small road, so find North Tibet Road (西藏北路) and where it crosses Suzhou Creek. It's quite close to the Shanghai (North) Railway Station.
The lyrics to the propaganda song is hidden in one of the oldest revisions of the article, but you can find it too at User:Miborovsky/Propaganda.

-- Миборовский 16:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the lyrics, it should be mentioned that on your page you say "Not gonna provide translations as they can't do justice to the highly emotional nature of these songs". Maybe true, but very frustrating for English-speakers! If anyone is willing to translate them, then do please say so! 217.33.74.20 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best. Commercial. Ever.

Something somewhat related: http://www.im.tv/vlog/personal.asp?memid=200483&fid=383998 I like KFC a bit more now :) -- Миборо в ский 00:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

lol that really is the best commercial ever. BlueShirts 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What are those thing supposed to be? Legs of some sort of animal (presumably chicken)?Mr.WaeseL 16:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Since it's a KFC commercial it's probably chicken, LOL. It's a pun on the name of the... chicken. A rather sacrilegious commercial, but it's good they still remember it. -- Миборо в ский 19:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I just Figured that I'd let the person who contributes to this entry know that there is more vandalism on the page: in large blue letters at the top it says "cunt". I tried to fix it but I could not locate it. Have a Good One!

24.248.188.125 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)R

[edit] Defense or Defence

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/f/Talk%7EDefense_of_Sihang_Warehouse_68c3.html"