Talk:Battle of Hengyang

Entry Needs Considerable Clean Up

This articles lacks serious references for most of its main points. Most points cited have no reference sources cited. It is also written in a fairly jingoistic way ( which would be cleaned up if reference sources were cited). Numbers given are completely wrong... "15 Elite Divisions given to Stillwell?" The numbers are also wrong. Chinese strength was much more than that cited here and the Japanese forces cited are not completely accurate. I do not know if I have the time to pull together the Japanese sources to cite the forces involved from their side, but someone needs to clean this up. The Battle of Hengyang is an important historical event that the world should know... and that the Chinese should know. It should not be left for self-serving cartoonish accounts as this entry. --207.216.86.67 (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Canadaman1--207.216.86.67 (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. One year has passed and I see no discussion about cleanup. Some specifics about issues:

“Defense of Hengyang” --> Chinese perspective

“Yokoyama…did not expect his approach on Hengyang to turn out to be such a humiliation to the Japanese empire.” --> unsourced, subjective

“the only thing Stilwell did inside China was the destruction of Guilin's airfield and removal of its outer bridge…ignoring the spirit and morale of the Chinese people and giving up Guilin early on. However, during this time, the Chinese army staged a tenacious resistance against the invading Japanese army. Completely outnumbered and outgunned and with supplies almost used up, the Chinese soldiers were at the brink of complete disaster. But in spite of these extremely grim conditions, they continued to carry on the fight. This was the Defense of Hengyang….” --> Jingoistic, nationalistic

“In the middle of July, the Japanese troops no longer used ladders to climb up the cliffs. Instead, they used the piles of their corpses as ramps to scale the cliffs. According to an NRA veteran, the bodies had piled up so much that he could not see through the firing port of his bunker. He had to shoot the corpses to pieces in order to see through….” --> Unsourced, appears to be propaganda

An overall tone of “brave yet overwhelmed Chinese with high morale” vs. “evil Japanese humiliated by the brave Chinese (despite the fact it was a Japanese victory)”. It appears to have been translated more or less wholesale from a biased Chinese source.

I hasten to add that I deplore the Japanese actions in China in the 1930s and 1940s. They were the undoubted, unprovoked aggressors and there is absolutely no excuse for their war crimes or brutality. Let's just tell it straight. Not only is NPOV a Wikipedia policy and requirement, it's also a much stronger and more credible story. NuclearWinner (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As of October 2022 the NPOV issue is better (still some parts needed change), but I believe that this article is taken out of a documentary, and I that parts of the article needs to be rewritten completely. There are also too many quotes and not enough secondary sources. Fallen Legends (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Update

Based on the discussions from 2013 to 2014, I decided to delete all the parts that were not referenced. This problem has existed for too long.--Witotiwo (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

About YouTube ref

The youtube video is not a trusted reference. A lot of the content in this article is written according to the YouTube video. This should not happen because there will be serious verification and copyright issues. There are even suspicions for publicity of specific programs.--117.19.194.75 (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

What YouTube video? There is no reference to any YouTube videos. Please stop removing masses of content from the article without providing evidence to what the issue is. And you would need to explain it on this page before removing large chunks of text. S. Salim (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

《国殇1937—1945年中日战争正面战场纪实》 第三十七集：鬼哭神号守衡阳 www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVCdhYzszoM --117.19.194.75 (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you concerns are, please stop effectively blanking the entire article. El_C 15:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Revisions and adding citations

I’ve recently read the entry on “Defense of Hengyang” in Wikipedia, and realize that it needs a complete rewrite. The Hengyang Battle was one of the most savage and important battles of World War II in China and deserves serious treatment in Wikipedia, yet is little known to the world because material available in English is very limited. I belong to a group of researchers in China and Taiwan who have produced several major books and articles about the battle in Chinese. For a start I will revise the existing text and citations but I’d finally want to write an entry “Battle of Hengyang” for Wikipedia to replace the “Defense of Hengyang” entry. Sgrmfox (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Soft move, no comments within the period since the nom. Another move request can take place at any time without prejudice. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Defense of Hengyang → Battle of Hengyang – As explained in my previous talk, I am in the process of making major changes to this article to add material from more recent scholarship and include references. The old name is not NPOV as pointed out by a previous reviewer. The new name conforms to the title of other battles so I don’t think this should be controversial but I am new to editing Wikipedia so I want to be sure I get it right. Sgrmfox (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.