Wahreit

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on the Battle of Shanghai article. Alexysun (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

And other related articles. Alexysun (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

the adachi guy challenge

Based on your efforts to edit the Sihang Warehouse article, is it safe for me to assume you believe Robinson's claims that the IJA 3rd Division was involved in the battle for the warehouse and the Japanese suffered 200 troops KIA in the ensuing battle?

If so, I propose a fun zero stakes challenge to you. Please find:

I) a source that conclusively proves the IJA 3rd Division or any IJA Unit for that matter was involved. A primary Japanese language source is preferred but you are welcome to use whatever.

II) the name and unit of at least one of the 200 supposed KIA troops excluding IJN Warrant Officer Tanaka who has already been confirmed.

I wish you luck good sir. Adachi1939 (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

if you want a proper dialogue, this is not a very mature way to open it, so i'm going to ignore your last part, but i will answer the first question. Yes, I have a copy of Stephen Robinson's book. furthermore, I don't really see anyone "debunking" robinson on the sihang warehouse page, and even there was a valid argument there that wouldn't mean much because wikipedia is a volunteer site, not a scholarly source. Robinson is an accomplished historian with several books to his name and two degrees, I'll trust his credentials over a wikipedia talk page. Wahreit (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the reply. I will take that as a no for the adachi guy challenge. It would have been a good way for you to explore more sources and see why you are wrong.

I already covered the issues with Robinson's book on talk page for the Defense of Sihang Warehouse months ago.

>Stephen Robinson does claim in his work "Eight Hundred Heroes: China's lost battalion and the fall of Shanghai" that the IJA 3rd Division was involved in the assault on Sihang Warehouse but does not provide proper citations for the passages where he wrote such claims.

Robinson even cites Niderost's article "Chinese Alamo: Last Stand at Sihang Warehouse" for some claims which is quite literally has no citations. Sorry but no "accomplished historian" is going to so easily write an entirely wrong force engaging in a battle and cite an article with no sources. Degrees become irrelevant when you throw basics of academia out the window. Even a high schooler should know not to cite a random secondary source article with no sources of its own for a book report.

As it stands there are some serious issues with the sources you deem as credible. Adachi1939 (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

not at all. for one, it isn't just robinson's work who claims the 3rd division was involved, and two, your personal issues with the book do not disqualify its usage as a secondary source. in addition, it isn't my opinion that the 3rd division was involved, earlier versions of the sihang warehouse article indicate the same. it isn't up to you to determine the whether or not others can use certain sources, because as you indicated in the name of this topic, you are a "guy," just another editor. your opinion is obviously valued, but it holds no weight over anyone elses. Wahreit (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)