Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War/Archive 1

"White Army propaganda poster depicting evil Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers...')"
That is not a proper use of an established Racist, Antisemitic, Poster. --Ludvikus 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a proper illustration of anti-Bolshevik propaganda whose goal was to show that Bolshevism was "imposed unto Russians by Jews, Red Latvian Riflemen and Chinese bayonets. `'Míkka 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A Propaganda poster is not a scholarly source.
 * A poster is an illustration, not "source" The cover for She Loves You is not "scholarly source either. `'Míkka 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Poster does not tell us anything about the role of the Chinese in the Russian Revolution.
 * It says about participation. `'Míkka 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that there were Chinese in the revolution - by itself - does not justify a Wikipedia article.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But their role does. `'Míkka 06:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And who decides on their "role", you Mikka? And your reference is a 'White" propaganda poster with Trotsky in it? --Ludvikus 12:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I decide. And my references are plenty, given in the text. `'Míkka 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

On the picture there are some men who look like Chinese but they can be anything from Buryats, Mongols, Kalmyks, Tuvanians, Altai-men, Kyrgizs, Kazakhs, Chukchas, or Crimean Tatars. Temur 03:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"imposed unto Russians by Jews, Red Latvian Riflemen and Chinese bayonets"

 * Mikka Where do you get that quote from?
 * Mikka I see the Sailors, but I'm not sure if they are Latvian. I see Riflemen who look like they are Chinese. But how do you get Jews out of the poster, Mikka? --Ludvikus 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

While your thinking about the above, I've deleted the Poster as totally inappropriate in the article as it stands now. The usage of racist Propaganda posters to discuss the scholarship on the role of Chinese in the Russian Revolution is totally inappropriate. Unless, of course, you wish this article to show the Racism used by the "Whites" against the "Reds"? --Ludvikus 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Irpen has reverted Twice my deletion, giving "Blaning" as reason. I do not know what that is. And he has not made any arguments whatsoever in support of his position. --Ludvikus 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a typo, I meant to say blanking. The poster is notable and appropriate for an article. We are not using it to rally for some agenda (propaganda usage) but to illustrate the phenomenon. There is nothing racist in using the posted in Wikipedia in that way. --Irpen 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is how, in part, WP defines "Banking": "Blanking is one of the most common forms of vandalism - however, it is also one of the actions most commonly misdiagnosed as vandalism, and editors should be careful that they do not accuse editors of it unjustly." I think the deletion of an inappropriate racist Propaganda Poster (in my opinion) does not involve Blanking. You clearly are accusing me of that unjustly. --Ludvikus 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The only one who expressed a desire to keep the Propaganda Poster is User:Irpen. --Ludvikus 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The image is in the article for a long time and none of the users saw in out of place. The only one who expressed a desire to remove the poster is Ludvikus. --Irpen 04:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What if someone who has the skills removes the offensive/irrelevant parts, and uploads only the small part of the corner of the poster that shows the Chinese soldiers? The caption could read "part of a white army propaganda poster depicting Chinese soldiers".  Does the article have to have the entire anti-Semitic image?  Also, how do you know that they are actually Chinese?  Since its unsourced, isn't that original research? Ostap 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I understand the situation, the Poster was put up by User:Mikka only because he sees Chinese in it and it is an alleged product of the Russian Revolution. But you are right, we do not really have an exact reference for this item; it's purpose in the Article is nowhere explained. And the Poster is offensive: the actual killers of White Russians are the non-white people, the Chinese; the Russian Revolution was completely imposed on the Russians by foreigner, including Jews. That is how this article on the Chinese in the Russian Revolution now stands. --Ludvikus 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I see your point. The image is not only offensive, but also inaccurate, misleading, and it doesn't actually say anything about the role of the Chinese soldiers or assert their notability. In my opinion the image is neither necessary nor worth having.  Ostap 06:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also checked it out at Wiki Commons & there's no authentication, or date of publishing, given. It could even be a fake, though it's quite convincing! --Ludvikus 06:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote of a discussion on my Talk page: ":I take it your objection can be summed up as: you are objecting to having any of the poster, on the grounds that it is not only offensive, but also inaccurate, misleading, and it doesn't actually say anything about the role of the Chinese soldiers or assert their notability. Is this your reasoning? Ostap 06:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. I couldn't have put it better. Someone finally gets the point! --Ludvikus 06:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I do find your argument convincing. The only thing I could say to try and compromise would be to have the image properly labeled as what it is and your other concerns addressed in the article, though I am not sure how one could actually go about completing these tasks. Perhaps it is better to just not have the poster.  You do have good points.  Cheers, Ostap 06:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)"

- Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So I'm reverting again - against User:Irpen's 3rd Reversion. --Ludvikus 13:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unknown involvement of Chinese in Russian Revolution
--Richard Unsigned, anonymous, Trolling comments of unregistered Users should not be allowed here, in deletion discussions. --Ludvikus 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the possible involvement of Chinese military units in the Russian Revolution - only learned about it from this page. I find it quite interesting. I suggest that the article be expanded and properly cited rather than deleted. If the article must be deleted, its concept should at least be incorporated into another article about the Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.159.218 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not a trolling comment. Read it again, it was a serious comment.  Please assume good faith.
 * This is not a "deletion discussion". That would take place over at WP:AFD.  Besides, even anons should have the right to express an opinion at AFD.  AFD is not a vote.
 * It was my comment. I forgot to login before editing and I didn't think it was worth the effort to sign the post since this wasn't an AFD.
 * --Richard 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume Good Faith on your part, Richard. However, the comment above was unsigned - the WP computer added that observation. The comment is made by someone who did Not sign their name, like I'm not doing now: --00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC). But doing now: --Ludvikus 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was unsigned. I explained above that I forgot to sign it. Happens to me every once in a while. But being unsigned doesn't automatically make a comment trolling or inappropriate. --Richard 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. So now we know. It's you. No problem. Don't get excited. I respect your view as a fello WP. Peace. Hope the incident helps you remember to sign. --Ludvikus 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, and perhaps you will remember to assume good faith rather than being too quick to use the word "troll".
 * In any event, after reading the AFD debate, I've changed my mind. I suspect that there is an encyclopedic topic here but this article smacks too much of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to be kept.  --Richard 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And here is the other kind of primary source which is used here as a reference: ' The Soviet passed a resolution expressing "firm confidence that the Soviet Government will succeed in getting peace and so in opening a wide road to the construction of a proletarian state." A note was passed up to Kamenev who, glancing at it, announced that the newly elected representative of the Chinese workmen in Moscow wished to speak. This was Chitaya Kuni, a solid little Chinaman with a big head, in black leather coat and breeches. I had often seen him before, and wondered who he was. He was received with great cordiality and made a quiet, rather shy speech in which he told them he was learning from them how to introduce socialism in China, and more compliments of the same sort. Reinstein replied, telling how at an American labour congress some years back the Americans shut the door in the face of a representative of a union of foreign workmen. "Such," he said, "was the feeling in America at the time when Gompers was supreme, but that time has passed." Still, as I listened to Reinstein, I wondered in how many other countries besides Russia, a representative of foreign labour would be thus welcomed. The reason has probably little to do with the good-heartedness of the Russians. Owing to the general unification of wages Mr. Kuni could not represent the competition of cheap labour. I talked to the Chinaman afterwards. He is president of the Chinese Soviet. He told me they had just about a thousand Chinese workmen in Moscow, and therefore had a right to representation in the government of the town. I asked about the Chinese in the Red Army, and he said there were two or three thousand, not more.'
 * This kind of reference usage is original research prohibited on WP.
 * The source is Arthur Ransome, a children's fiction writer

(though he also was a reporter on the RR, & close to Trosky).
 * It's for scholars and historians to evaluate this kind of reference as to its reliability.
 * --Ludvikus 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As an American, I find this article, though in need of expansion, to be of great educational interest. I had been completely unaware that any Chinese had played any role in the Bolshevik Revolution, and Wikipedia is serving its educational function well by offering this information to the world-wide public for free. It is just as legitimate a subject for Wikipedia as the role of the Hessians, the French or the Iroquois in the American Revolution or the role of the Americans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War. Writtenright 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

4th Reversion to Trotsky poster
Wikipedia Rules prohibit more than three (3) Reversions. Nevertheless, an editor, User Mikkai has just Reverted for a Fourth time - and Restored the Trotsy Poster which I deleted three times, and argued for deletion on the Talk page first, and not received substantial opposition to such deletion. --Ludvikus 03:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"illustrates propaganda" vs. "used as propaganda"
14 October 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (6,114 bytes) (Rv. Please settle on talk before removing this very telling image.    I'm hoping Ludvikus will eventually see that it *illustrates* propaganda, as opposed to being *used as* propaganda.)
 * The latest Reversion is by User:Bishonen: he restored the Propaganda Poster of Lenin.
 * He makes an excellent distinction (the above).
 * However, he fails to see that at the moment it is being improperly "used as propaganda."
 * The Poster is not discussed in the article.
 * It is not Sourced or Referenced exactly - it may be a pretty good hoax.
 * It does not "illustrate propaganda" - the article is not about that. The article is about the Chinese in the Revolution. There is nothing - at this stage of the article's life - which is benefited by the poster. Quite the contrary, it merely portrays the Chinese as the killers in the Russian Revolution.
 * I wish User:Bishonen would have explained how the Poster illustrates Propaganda before he had Reverted.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the well-referenced sentence "This fact was well known[2] and even exploited by anti-Bolshevik propaganda[3]"? Bishonen | talk 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC).

White Russian poster []
That's one of the two sources of the Poster. It is claimed to be of Trotsy at the age of 39, in 1919. --Ludvikus 19:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the title of the Poster at this Internet Archive: "1919: Civil War poster: White Russian anti-Semitism (39)" --Ludvikus 19:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's the List of Images at the Archive: . --Ludvikus 19:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[[Image:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_(39)_t1919b.jpg]]

 * Editor User:Irpen has just succeeded in having the image with its Original source name deleted. The original image image is labeled White Russian anti-Semitism. Why User:Irpen wishes - and succeeded - in having these two facts censored is incomprehensible to me. --Ludvikus 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the title of the poster. Look at that archive list: those are descriptions, not titles. Or do you think there's one called "September 16 1916: Order for the expulsion of Trotsky from France"? Or "Mug shot from Russian secret police files" ? Ludvikus, now that you've failed to get any support for removing the poster, are you actively trying to make it look ridiculuos by that caption you call a title? Please desist. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC).
 * You're splitting-hairs. If you want to say they are description, good. These are the description given by the outside source. Why do you wish to whitewash this poster of its White Russian anti-Semitic roots given to it by the original source and have your own, inaccurate, distorting, propaganda, anti-Chinese, usage? --Ludvikus 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of asking me to stop, why don't you guys explain - not to me - but how this poster "illustrates" anything but Racism against Jews and the Chinese? If you guys - User:Irpen and User:Bishonen - love this poster so much, why don't you write an Artcle about it Chinese stuges of Jewish monster? Or even an article on White Russian propaganda posters? But the article here is supposed to be about the role that "Chinese" played in the Russian Revolution. I have absolutely no idea how you can justify a anti-Chinese Racist picture, which was designed to show that Russian were not being killed by other Russians, but by Huns, Tartars, Jews, and other less-human people? Do you not understand that that was - and to those who know their history, still is - the subtext meaning of the poster? You both admit that it's propaganda. Then don't you guys know how propaganda works? Why don't you at least make some effort to justify your poster in the body of the article? Right now you are doing exactly what the White Russian Antisemites have done: using the image like so: "Look here, the enemy is a monster, inhuman, a Jew & Chinamen"! Are you guys really blind that that's the status of the article right now?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus, I have already asked you to please use Preview before you post, instead of posting in installments. As of this present moment, you have been editing your latest post for forty minutes and posted little corrections fourteen times. (I don't know how many more times you have in you.) Do you realize how many edit conflicts people get when trying to respond to you? It makes it exhausting to discuss anything with you, even apart from your idiosyncratic argumentation technique and personal attacks. Could you please show some consideration for other posters, and edit normally? Bishonen | talk 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC).

English
The English grammar in this article needs to be improved. The lack of use of the word "the" shows that it was probably written by a non-native writer of English. That is fine, but someone does need to fix these instances for it to meet WP standards. Badagnani 01:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of photo without consensus
Why was the photo just removed? Diff If the individuals with long thin mustaches are not Chinese, what are they? Were there Mongolian, Korean, or Vietnamese soldiers also filling such roles in the Red Army at that time? Badagnani 05:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * === Mongolian, Korean, or Vietnamese ===
 * Hey, why did you leave out the Japanese?
 * Anyway, "it does not matter." Because, "all these people are orientals, and Chinese is a generic term for them all."
 * But why do you want the Poster in? What does the poster do in the article anyway? Can you please explain that? --Ludvikus 07:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It does matter. Chinese is chinese, it is not a generic term for orientals, except may be in the streets when shouted by angry racists. Temur 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We're engaged in analyizing a 1919 "White Russian" propaganda poster aimed at ignorant, poor, uneducated Russian peasants who only had a single sense of un-Christian "wild" people from the East of Asia - the hordes of Gingus Khan. We are talking about a Racist poster which made no distinction among "oriental" people. We are not talking about a scholarly tome here. Why you make such fine distinction regarding an ethnic slur expressed by the poster is incomprehesible. The poster is of "oriental" people vwho are supposed to be less human than the Christian Eurasians of Europe and West Asia. The point of the poster is to show Who is killing us ("whites") - it says: it those "yellow" people. And in that regard, "Chinese" is a mere euphomism for them.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment seems quite well reasoned. In looking through the propaganda, it was implied that the "Chinese" soldiers were merciless/ruthless/willing to kill peasants or priests at the drop of a hat without compunction. Glossing over such propaganda isn't something we do at WP, to assuage anyone's national or cultural interest; we examine them dispassionately. If we did, we wouldn't even include articles such as Der Stürmer. Badagnani 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. So you agree (for precisely these reasons) that this kind of poster does not belong in the article, right? --Ludvikus 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't agree that the poster does not belong in the article, for reasons I stated earlier. From the evidence, the soldiers depicted were most likely intended by the artist to depict "Chinese" soldiers. Russians' perception of the poster at the time is entirely up to them. Badagnani 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I left out the Japanese because the Japanese, at that time, were not traditionally allies of the Russians, and would be unlikely to be working for the Russian Red Army. There was a war called the Russo-Japanese War which had taken place just a few years earlier--didn't you know that? Also, I don't believe the Japanese, who had modernized themselves in the 19th century, retained such long mustaches such as are typically used in caricatures of Chinese (or, at least, were used as such in the silent films of the first decades of the 20th century, such as Fu Manchu). Badagnani 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another editor, named Temur, wrote earlier, "On the picture there are some men who look like Chinese but they can be anything from Buryats, Mongols, Kalmyks, Tuvanians, Altai-men, Kyrgizs, Kazakhs, Chukchas, or Crimean Tatars." However, if it is true that the White Russians had as a primary part of their propaganda the (racist) claim that under the Reds Russia would be taken over by "foreign elements" Chinese, Jews, etc., then they probably are Chinese. The skullcaps and long mustaches seem more typically Chinese to me than indicative of those other Central Asian ethnic groups. In my opinion, the poster is historically important, and interesting in this context. Badagnani 07:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The British Library Russian Civil War posters page contains several posters containing images and text intended to frighten Russians with stories of Chinese and Latvian bolsheviks shooting peasants and priests. There isn't any mention of other Central Asian tribes. I think it's safe to assume the riflemen depicted in the poster were intended by the artist to represent Chinese. Badagnani 07:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the other editors may benefit by your observation. I've only added links to them. Thanks for your Cut & Paste of the above from my talk page. Cheers. --Ludvikus 07:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A compromise proposal
Let me start by saying I hate the current revision of this article. It's a mess and there's no logical flow. It's just a mess of almost unrelated facts only connected by the words "Chinese" and "Russian revolution".

However, that having been said, the above discussion suggests that there is, in fact, an encyclopedic topic here. Namely, Racism in White Russian propaganda or something like that. It seems unlikely to me that the Chinese played any significant role in the Russian revolution. The numbers mentioned in the article seem really small to me and there's little documentation that the Chinese influenced the revolution in any significant way. A few Chinese here and there may have participated in revolutionary activities but that's a footnote in history.

However, the argument that the White Russians were playing the "fear of the Asians" card in their propaganda sounds credible to me. If this could be backed up by reliable sources, I think this topic should be the basis for an article that should be written and, in that context, the White Russian propaganda poster would be a good way of illustrating the kind of racist fear-mongering that is described by various editors in their comments above. --Richard 20:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be an oversimplification, and doesn't address the sources presented in the article, which do show a role the Chinese played in the revolution. As such, this is encyclopedic. The Tuvans (such as Subutai) also played a role in Genghis Khan's conquests of Asia and Europe, and the French helped with the American Revolution (see France in the American Revolutionary War), and these items are also of similar interest. Badagnani 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Spend some time looking closely that the sources - or improper and irrelevant sources I should say that we've been given - these include, 1) Propanga poster, 2) Trotsky (A neutral? primary source for original research), 3) Stalin biography - I wonder why it would inform us of the alleged significant role the Chinese played. --Ludvikus 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more and varied sources than the ones youa re mentioning here. Badagnani 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your conclusatory observation is extremely unhelpful. Why don't you give us an exact quote and reference? Do some real work, please. We can all observe that there's a list of alleged sources. --Ludvikus 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article presents more than the sources you mention--quite a few, actually. Badagnani 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent observation (in my opinion) on your part, Editor Richard. As a matter of fact, I thought of making the same kind of demographic observation, but my memory of the numbers involved is not as precise as I would like them to be. The numbers of alleged Chinese appears to be 1,000, 1,500, ... but no more than 2,500. Whereas the population of the Russian Empire was somewhere in the neighborhood of 130,000,000 (to the best of my recollection. So the role of the Chinese was clearly miniscule.
 * But I think you are missing the point, or gist of the debate. The other editors have been trying to establish that the Chinese played a significant role in the Russian Revolution. Accordingly, I believe it would didplease them tremendously to have the article turn into a presentation of the "White Russian" racist propaganda campaign. But as Wikipedians, we are required to assume Good Faith. I hope the other editors accept your recommendation. I certain do. Cheers. --Ludvikus 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This could be solved with a single sentence or two summarizing that while Chinese did take part as hired mercenaries, etc., their numbers were very small in comparison to the number of fighters in the army. The same was true of the French soldiers in the American Revolution, yet they helped win that war for the Americans. Badagnani 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is though that there are no solid references, just Original Research and the use of Primary Sources. --Ludvikus 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the analogy is not appropriate. The French monarchy provided substantial financial and military support to the American revolutionaries. The Marquis de Lafayette and the French navy were, in fact, instrumental in helping the American colonials defeat the British. I think it was the French navy that bottled up the English fleet which thus enabled the colonials to win at Yorktown. This is why Lafayette is memorialized in many cities in the U.S. Can you name one Chinese who was so memorialized in the Soviet era?


 * The article claims "The total number of Chinese in the Red Army is estimated in tens of thousands.[8]"
 * Really? If this is true, then it is possible that Chinese did play a minor though arguably significant role in the Russian Revolution.  Can someone check the source?  I can't read Russian.  Also, are these Chinese from China or just Asians from the eastern part of the Russian Empire?
 * re: "Really"? Are you telling me that I am spreading lies? `'Míkka 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * re: "are these Chinese from China" The article (based on a reliable, printed and duly cited modernsecondary sources, - a note specifically for insinuating Ludvikus) says "migrant workers". See section  below (it will be deleted soon, since this long quote may be treated as copyright violation) `'Míkka 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article also says "Chinese were one of several foreign contingents dubbed in Soviet historiography as "internationalist detachments" ("отряды интернационалистов", )."
 * OK. Let's assume this is true.  Then this article should be about the Chinese "internationalist detachment".  There is no information about that unit in this article.
 * this article is about exactly what the title say. When I find suffcient info about Chhinese battalion of Iona Yakir or about chineze bodyguard detachments of Lenin and Trotsky or about Chinese Cheka detachments in Kiev, or about Chinese troops fighting Kuban Cossacks, I will most surely write the corresponding articles `'Míkka 23:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We should apply the criterion of notability to facts as well as to people, corporations and works of art and literature. It may be true that several thousand or even tens of thousands of Chinese participated in the Russian Revolution.  Presumably so did many other nationalities in the Russian Empire.  What is notable or significant about the participation of the Chinese?  Did their presence shift the tide to win an important battle?  Did any of them rise to the leadership of a local or regional Soviet?  To the Supreme Soviet?  Or occupy any important government post?
 * Explained below: because they were foreigners. `'Míkka 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of all, what I hate about this article is that it does not tell a cohesive story. I doubt that anyone is saying Chinese instigated the Russian Revolution.  For that matter, it seems highly unlikely that the Chinese Emperor instigated or supported the Bolsheviks.  See this link for evidence to support the proposition that, if anything, China was concerned with limiting the spread of the revolution from Russia to China.
 * The article is not about China taking part in russian revo. The article about poor simple Chinese who happened to be it this place and time. Yes I failed to write a cohesive story. I am not a historian. But this is not the reason for deletion of the article. It is not my guilt that no one else gives a shit to improve the text. I did what I could. And this hostility to my sincere effort to cover a missing topic is appaling. The atmosphere of cooperation in wikipedia becomes thinner with years. It is very easy to show yourself off as a smartie by kicking my ass. It is much harder to do some real work. `'Míkka 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there were some Chinese in Russia in 1917 and some participated in the revolution. So what?  Why is it encyclopedic to mention these facts?  Just because something is true doesn't make it encyclopedic.
 * Dangerously destructive way of thinking. It is so stupid, I would not even comment on this. `'Míkka 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an article that asserts "While there were many Chinese anarchists, there were no converts to Marxism prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917." The phrase "no converts to Marxism prior to 1917" strikes me as an extreme statement but it does suggest that there was no significant participation of Chinese anarchists or intellectuals in the Bolshevik movement.
 * There were no Chinese anarchists in Russia. You are talking about China. `'Míkka 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's another book that talks about the introduction of Marxism to the Chinese intelligentsia. Read pp. 20-22.  The book asserts that Marxism made no significant impact on Chinese socialist thought until 1918. 22&source=web&ots=VheNoGJF0V&sig=VfyBD9upI6fCTEJ9MrVOPM4UOds#PPA21,M1
 * Irrelevant to the topic in question. `'Míkka 23:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Nuff said?
 * --Richard 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuff said to show your desire to ban certain pieces of history from wikipedia. `'Míkka 23:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked off (for easy readability) what I consider your extremely valuble contribution to our discussion. I was hoping someone else would make kind of reasoned and eloquent argument. Thank you from me. --Ludvikus 21:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Eskimos in Russian Revolution
OK. These were people who lived in Siberia and Scandinavia. I don't know if anyone wrote an article about them. But can anyone please find a disparaging poster about them - hopefully from around 1919? If we can find at least one statement about an Eskimo who did something on the side of the Reds, then we could start this stub.
 * That's how the current article was put together. --Ludvikus 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There were probably some northern Siberian tribes participating in the Russian Revolution, but as yet there don't seem to be a large number of sources discussing this. The term "Eskimo" refers specifically to North American Inuit as opposed to Asian ones, so that's not the best term to use. Latvians, Chinese, and Jews, however, seem to have discussed a great deal of by the White Russians and, in consulting the sources, there is some verifiable truth to the participation of these groups. Badagnani 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But did anyone other than the White Russians make this claim? The groups that you mentioned participated.  Did they come from outside the Russian Empire to join the revolution?  Or were they simply non-Russian participants in a revolutin in the Russian Empire?  Why is their participation remarkable, notable or encyclopedic other than as a footnote to the article on the Russian Revolution?


 * --Richard 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of repeating myself (!), for the same reason as discussed in the article France in the American Revolutionary War. I didn't write this article so I do not know if the Chinese were Russian citizens or from mainland China, though I would assume the latter. Badagnani 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, you'd better go over there (Eskimo) and make the necessary corrections because (and I quote):
 * "Eskimos or esquimaux are aboriginal people who inhabit the circumpolar region, excluding Scandinavia and most of Russia, but including the easternmost portions of Siberia." [Emphasis added] Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is sometimes wrong. In this case, it's wrong. "Eskimo" is a word of North American origin and properly refers to Inuit in North America (although the Inuit in eastern Siberia are closely related). Badagnani 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why "Chinese" in "Russian Revolution" is notable topic
This has already been explained in this talk page, but due to extreme verbosity of my opponent it drowned in noise.

The notabilitry is simple: Chinese were extraneous element. We are not talking about 1-2 chinese (big deal). We are talking about thousands. Please keep in mind that in the early days the Red Army did not count in millions. Chinese were noted both by Whites and by Reds, albeit for different reasons.
 * Whites noted them because they argued that Bolshevism is something foreign for Russia.
 * Bolsheviks noted Chinese, together with Hungarians, Serbs, etc., because they wanted to stress the international support of Russian Revolution. There are quite a few topics to be covered in this respect. For example Americans in Soviet Russia, which I intend to write despite all this derisive Esqimo hystery here. `'Míkka 22:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Also all these wise discussions of ignoramuses are amusing. There are literally hundreds of references about Chinese in Red Army. Yet you are trying to "prove" that there is nothing to speak about. Ludvikus keeps repeating "no solid sources, only priomary references". This selective blindness is not amusing, it borders with intentional distortion of facts. `'Míkka 22:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The intervention of the West in supporting the White Russians is very encyclopedic. I would be surprised if there wasn't an article on it already.  If there isn't, I would very much welcome the creation of such an article.


 * I have really tried to find articles by Googling "Chinese" "Russian Revolution" and "Chinese" "Red Army" "Bolshevik Revolution" and I have come up with practically nothing except the links that I posted above.
 * You have poor skils in using google, colleague. How, do you think, I have found all these numerous references, given both in the article and in the talk page? `'Míkka


 * I did come up with this interesting article, though...
 * http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1632.html


 * Makes me wonder if there isn't some confusion between Chinese and Koreans in all this.
 * Nope. See another my racist anti-Semitic work, Deportation of Koreans in the Soviet Union. Any volunteers to nominate this poorly written piece of nonnotable history for deletion as well? `'Míkka 23:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reminds me of a joke which, although funny, isn't really appropriate for an article talk page. Look on my Talk Page under "Chinese, Japanese - what's the difference?"


 * --Richard 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You would not be breaking new ground on appropriateness. Editor Mikkai did that a long time ago - and continues to this moment - with that irrelevant racist poster. So tell us, what is the difference between Chinese and Japanese? I don't think Mikkai sources, only "White Russians," would make that "fine" distinction. --Ludvikus 23:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One more remark of this kind and you will be reported for persistent character assassination. I am a tolerable person, but this stopless trolling starts really bugging me. `'Míkka 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese, Japanese - what's the difference?
This is a joke...

So there's a Jewish person and a Chinese person sitting on a train. The Chinese guy notices that the Jewish guy is giving him a dirty look but it's a long train ride so he eventually falls asleep. While he's dozing, the Jewish guy gets up and kicks him in the shin. The Chinese guy wakes up and yells "What the hell was that for?". The Jewish guy says, "That was for Pearl Harbor!" The Chinese guy says "Pearl Harbor? That was the Japanese!  I'm Chinese!" The Jewish guy says "Chinese, Japanese, what's the difference?"

Well, eventually the Jewish guy falls asleep. The Chinese guy is still sore at him and stays awake. Then the Chinese guy gets up and kicks the Jewish guy in the shin. The Jewish guy wakes up and yells "What the hell was that for?". The Chinese guy says, "That was for the Titanic!" The Jewish guy says "The Titanic? The Titanic was sunk by an iceberg!" The Chinse guy says "Iceberg, Goldberg, what's the difference?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I heard that Joke a while ago. But your version is better developed. --Ludvikus 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are waiting. There are at least two Wikipedians who have bothered to examine your sources, moi and User:Richardshusr. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Result of AfD
The result was keep, after significant discussion and debate, but without a clear consensus, as notable, sourced, and encyclopedic. Bearian 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Peng Ming
This Article has the distinction of originating with editor Mikka ( April 2006? 18 May 2007 - I'll recheck that ) quite some time ago. And he keeps defending it as well sourced. Now here's his first source: Peng Ming <!-- "oops, unfinished ref. I will finish it when I get back to my sources. - Mikka." Can anyone please tell us who Peng Ming is, beside someone whose name appears Chinese? Was he Lenin's bodyguard on November 8, 1917 (I'm kidding about the body guard part)? --Ludvikus 23:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * STOP KIDDING. This topic is not joke. Can someone explain Ludvikus that his behavior is uncivilized? `'Míkka 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Your keeping that hateful Racist poster - and without any ability to show the tiniest justification for it - is much, much, more offensive than your complaint about my writing here as "uncivilized." I want you to to show us exactly how any of your references justify that Racist poster. --Ludvikus 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This racist poster is example of racist posters, just like in articles Golliwogg, Nigger, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Eternal Jew, Propaganda, Action T4... Shall I continue? `'Míkka 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Participation of Chinese in the Russian Revolution was noted from the very beginning. They served as bodyguards of Bolshevik functionaries, including Vladimir Lenin That opening statement - of yours - has been vigirously defended by you by reference to Peng Ming? Who's he? --Ludvikus 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not begin with your first reference, as you promissed to do a while ago? Who is Peng Ming? --Ludvikus 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Go away, troll. `'Míkka 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first reference is Peng Ming. Your name is hidden on the page. You promised to give us that reference. How am I a Troll by asking you to fulfil your own voluntary commitment? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Go away, troll. `'Míkka 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This last comment makes me strongly doubt the veracity of everything heretofore posted by this user, to whom I had formerly given the benefit of the doubt. There was no reason for such a comment, which was directed toward a user who had asked a quite reasonable question. Badagnani 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you care to read this section from the beginning? `'Míkka 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is your opening sentence which you've vigilently defended with a reference to Peng Ming:
 * Go away, troll. `'Míkka 00:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Stalin and His Hangmen
OK. Let's move to the Second reference: Chinese served in the Cheka , Can you please WP editor give us the page number which supports the allegation that "Chinese served in the Cheka?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Go away, troll. Are you accusing me that I fabricated the citation? You have read too much of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. `'Míkka 00:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a very un-Wikipedian way to speak to another editor. Please state that you will no longer use this sort of language here, or I will report you. Badagnani 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice turning of tables here. I am under an assault of a troll who failed to make the article deleted, and you are going to "report" me. Go ahead. `'Míkka 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of anything. I just want to verify your source. That's exactly what all scholars do. --Ludvikus 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not answering your questions until I see apologies for uncivilized behanvior. `'Míkka 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fell free to vandalize
I am no longer taking part in this bickering. Feel free to butcher the article for a while. `'Míkka 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, I will apologize for Ludvikus comments. Lets do this civily, with no accusations.  Could you clear up the issue regarding the sources given?  Asking about the first citation and for a page number for the other one seems reasonable. He is not accusing you of fabricating the first citation, rather asking what exactly it is.  I agree with him that, pending clarification, it should be removed.  Its not that I don't believe you, its just that as it stands, the statement is not properly sourced. Also, could you find a source that says that those are indeed Chinese in the poster? Thanks, Ostap 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Now User:Irpen has taken upon himself to revert the article to User:Mikka version. But Irpen has not participated in the coversation here. --Ludvikus 01:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ostap, I believe Mikka's comment is made in and unnecessary harsh tone but I share his sentiment. Having observed Ludvikus' contribution to several articles and their talk pages, I must say that we are dealing with an extremely aggressive and poorly behaving user. --Irpen 01:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, he is passionate, but he has a point about the source. It is not clear what the source is.  I think all he wants is to have the source cleard up. Ostap 01:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the other talk pages he contributed to and decide for yourself what motivates him. His just being "passionate" is an understatement and is still not enough on excuse for his vicious editing style. --Irpen 01:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While this discussion - and accusation - is going on, User:Irpen has Reverted my edit, exhauting my limit of Three Reversions, and accused me of WP;Blanking. So that's the issue now - am I, or am I not "Blaning"? --Ludvikus 01:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I certainly don't defend his style. But his claims here are, I think, reasonable. The source given simply says "Peng Ming" and nothing else.  Until the actual source is given, isn't it within policy to remove this statment? Ostap 01:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, true, policy requires sourcing every non-trivial fact that may reasonably be challenged. However, immediate removal of unsoursed info is usually enforced strictly only in WP:BLP related issues. This is not an FA, not even a GA. So, this rather underdeveloped article may be considered "under construction", like the most of Wikipedia. If you are in rush to note that lack of source's completeness, you may want to tag the statement with a fact tag. You may just as well give Mikka a reasonable amount of time to complete the citation as is. One of the best Wikipedia contributors, he gives no reason to doubt his edits. I would only tag as fact something which is both unsoursed and contentious, but I leave it up to you. --Irpen 01:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I will try to find more information on new slightly anti-Ukrainian article Poryck Massacre‎. It needs to be expanded.  Goodbye Chinese in Russian Revolution. Ostap 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Blanking
While this discussion - and accusation - is going on, User:Irpen has Reverted my edit, exhauting my limit of Three Reversions, and accused me of WP;Blanking. So that's the issue now - am I, or am I not "Blaning"? --Ludvikus 01:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ludvikus, you should reread the policy on revert warring. 3RR is not an entitlement and if you are repeatedly revert-warring even staying technically under 3RR you may find yourself blocked. --Irpen 01:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) What you say about giving Mikka more time is unsound. He made it clear that he will not answer my request by calling me a Troll.
 * 2) Regarding what you say here is also incomprehensible. You have not given Any reason in support of Mikka's position - but Reverting while accusing me of Blanking.
 * 3) What you say about being Blocked is also incomprehensible. My record on Reversions here speaks for itself. When Mikka exhausted - or was about to do so - his quota of 3 Reversions you simply stepped in to fill his shoes.
 * 4) The proper thing for you to do is to supply the missing Source - or at least permit me to remove the unreferenced claims made in the article. Remember that it is WP policy to be Bold. If anything, you yourself should remove the material which was defended by Mikka only by calling me a troll. --Ludvikus 01:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) I also don't think it is proper for you to try to cloud the issue here by distracting editors with the irrelevancy of how I "behaved" on other articles. If you have a problem with me elsewhere, you should take it up there - not here. --Ludvikus 01:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Everybody, please cool it and stop revert warring. I propose to you the WP:BRD model.  I think it is a worthwhile way to keep cool and civil.


 * That was the nice guy approach. Now, here's the "no more Mr. Nice Guy" approach.  Keep up the revert warring and I will protect the page.  Then, nobody will be happy.
 * --Richard 03:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep on threathening and you will not be happy either. Police is hated by everyone everywhere. `'Míkka 03:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, "threatening"? What's threatening?? --Ludvikus 03:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was threatening to enforce Wikipedia policy against edit-warring. Better to discuss than to edit war.
 * --Richard 05:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointless and irrelevant statement about Marxism in China
Mikka,

You deleted this sentence.


 * Despite the fact that Marxism was only a nascent movement in China at the beginning of the 20th century, there are reports of Chinese who were involved in the Russian Revolution.

Can you explain why?

My thinking in writing the sentence is that the reader needs to understand why the topic is encyclopedic. That sentence was a first step towards putting some context around the "set of tangentially related facts" in the article.

I'm still trying to figure out how and why the Chinese got to Russia. Was there a tradition of Chinese mercenaries in Russia and other countries? If so, it's news to me. Doesn't seem like they were ideologically motivated so what's the story?

While we're doing analogies, Americans fought on the Republican side of the Spanish Civil War. They were ideologically motivated.

Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 04:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

My text clearely answers your question. Please read it carefully: it is a very short one. (BTW this was mystery for me as well. Soviet historiography carefully avoided the fact that they were but apolitical mercenaries, hired from migrant workers, at least in the beginning. ) `'Míkka 04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... I understand the answer. I'm not fully convinced (per the comment by Benjwong below) but I guess it's all we have to go on for now.


 * As for the "pointless and irrelevant statement about Marxism in China", I agree that it is kind of off the point. The real point is that the Chinese were, for the most part, not ideologically motivated.


 * --Richard 05:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Improvement
Thanks to Richardshusr, the article is much improved and I think the issues (which I still have) are better focused. At least now we have clearer references to identify our questions. Thank you, Richard. --Ludvikus 04:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Actually, I think Mikkalai has done a lot of the heavy lifting with me helping a little bit where I could.  I think he finally accepted some of our criticism and set to work addressing it resulting in a much improved article.


 * I wouldn't say this is a great article but I think it's a lot better than when it was tagged as a speedy deletion candidate. At least, there's a logical flow now and we have some idea of what the point is.  I'm at least convinced that the presence of Chinese in the Russian Revolution is worthwhile but mostly in the context of the charge by the White Russians and other non-Bolsheviks that the Bolsheviks relied on foreign mercenaries.  The NY Times article about Dmitri Gavronsky opened my eyes that this was not just White Russian propaganda.


 * My inability to read Russian or Chinese limits by ability to analyze the sources and contribute to the content.
 * --Richard 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article discusses a battalion of (Chinese) troops allegedly used for "executions. Now a battalion, as I understand it, consists of between 500-1,000 troops. Is the a "large" number of Chinese? Are these "many" Chinese? --Ludvikus 06:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm also frustrated by the difficulty of pinning down a more precise range of numbers. Gavronsky mentions a battalion of Chinese.  Elsewhere, a "Chinese regiment" is mentioned.  According to Arthur Ransome, Chitaya Kuni says "not more than 2000 to 3000 Chinese troops in the Red Army".  Elsewhere it is reported "tens of thousands".  The source for this last claim is in Russian which I unfortunately cannot read.
 * I am willing to believe 2000 to 3000 Chinese troops. "Tens of thousands" is hard to believe because such a number would have been large enough to warrant more attention by historians.  I mean, how big was the Red Army at this time anyway?  50,000?  100,000?  Tens of thousands of Chinese would have been too evident to ignore.  Gavronsky, who was opposed to the Bolsheviks, would surely have commented on the presence of that many Chinese in the Red Army.
 * --Richard 14:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Large numbers"
This expression is used twice. It is not being quoted. So how is this justified? This often is a POV usage. I have no reason to believe that it is not here. Certainly, the "White Russians" wanted that believed, for propaganda reasons. So I do not see how its justified - and I cannot tell what reference applies to it. Is it #4? But there is a reference request in between. That makes me think that both usages are un-referenced. --Ludvikus 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Many"
"Many" is probematic for the same reasons. --Ludvikus 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Numerous"

 * 1) "Numerous" is another one of the POV words. One should always ask oneself if some else can come along and just as easily negate it and say, "No, the quantity was not numerous." In this article, where its very encyclopedic value is questioned, it should not be the opinion of the WP editor which justifies his Point-of-View that the article merits inclusion on Wikipedia because the number of Chinese in the Russian Revolution was "numerous."
 * 2) On the other hand, it's perfectly OK if a source/reference is Quoted as using this word. But then what if the source is a Primary Source such as Trotsky? He too was engaged in Propaganda. He is not an Authority on the Russian Revolution precisely because he was a Participant in it.
 * 3) Since we are not supposed to do Original Research, we should not be the ones deciding such things as to whether the Russian Revolution involved Numerous Chinese in it.
 * 4) As this stage of the Article it is sufficient to say something like, "... diverse X..." instead of, "...numerous x...".
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Need some explaination
Please, I am still baffled by how a group of people (Chinese) held down by the unequal treaties especially during the height of the Li-Lobanov Treaty is now all of a sudden empowered to get this much involvement into the Russian Revolution. The more I read up, the less sense this makes. Participation as slave laborers maybe well known. Participation in the red army??? Benjwong 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What some other editors are saying is not about China. It is about a population of Chinese within the Russian Empire who apparently or allegedly joined the Bolshevik cause against the White Russian forces. --Ludvikus 05:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim is that these were migrant workers (similar to Chinese railroad workers in the U.S.) who happened to be caught in the turmoil of the Russian Revolution/Civil War and decided to (or were forced to) fight as mercenary soldiers. There doesn't seem to be a lot written about them except for the reports that such soldiers existed and operated as units rather than than being dispersed into the Russian units.
 * I am unconvinced about the linkage between the migrant workers, prisoners and Chinese in the Russian Revolution. It sounds plausible and is probably true but there is no English source that asserts this so it's possible that it could be OR and WP:SYNTH.  More sources in English (or translated from the Russian) would help the credibility here.
 * --Richard 13:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Location doesn't seem right
There are historically only a few places in China/Russian borderline territory that has a significant Chinese population to even pull off groups in the "tens of thousands". Not one of these locations has been mentioned in the article? Benjwong 05:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I read in the article is that its at least about the Chinese in, or about, Moscow. The other sources are in Russian. So you have to read the Russian to figure out what's going on with this article. But I would like to know more about the Chinese slave  labor. No one has written about that. That sounds most interesting to me. Can you inform us of the Chinese slave labor? --Ludvikus 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the article encyclopedic?

 * If the article consists of scattered reports collected by user Mikka regarding Chinese in the Russian Revolution, then it is not only not encyclopedic, but also constitutes original research, even though some might find it interesting.
 * Nah. I would give this line of argument up.  It is sort of a minor point of interest but it is true that the Bolsheviks were criticised for their use of Lettish and Chinese mercenaries.  As I've written before, the charge seems to be that the Bolsheviks were not relying solely on Russians to accomplish their military objectives.  Of course, the countercharge from the Bolsheviks must have been that the Western imperial powers were backing the Whites.  Nonetheless, even Trotsky referred to this charge of using Lettish and Chinese mercenaries, although in a sarcastic tone.  --Richard 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There must be some source which found it useful to focus on the Chinese in their role as Russian revolutionaries - otherwise we might as well write articles on all the 130 or so Russian ethnic groups which lived within the Russian Empire at the time of the Russian Revolution. It has still not been shown that the article merits such distinction. I suspect that the terms, "large numbers" and "many" are designed to persuade us into believing that the Chinese merit a special place in Wikipedia because of their alleged numerousity.
 * It is still unclear whether the Chinese were revolutionaries or mercenaries. More sources would definitely help here.  There is one source who refers in passing to Chitaya Kuni, the representative of 1000 workers in Moscow.  Chitaya Kuni is reported to have estimated Chinese in the Red Army to be "not more than two or three thousand".  What is unclear is whether these Chinese are represented by Chitaya Kuni or someone else.  Or whether they are in the Red Army of their own free will or under coercion.  A Google search yielded no hits about Chitaya Kuni.  It would be good to find out more about him.
 * --Richard 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, there still is no justification it placing a propaganda poster which depicts apparent Chinese as participents in the Russian Revolution. That is, at best, another scattered fact collected by user Mikka. But at worst, it is used precisely for the propaganda purpose for which it was designed - propaganda: "Look, there were Chinese, not Whites, in the Revolution. The Poster serves no other purpose. When a scholarly book is published, it generally comes with a dust cover whose purpose is to sell the book by making it beautiful, or provocative, or whatever it takes to sell it. That is not the purpose here, on Wikipedia. Any image is supposed to inform us, or illustrate the subject otherwise discussed in the text. The propaganda poster does the exact opposite - it is designed to fill in the missing gap - what is missing in the wording of the text is seductively given to us through the image - of Chinamen shooting/executing a White (Russian).
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with the poster because it is meant to illustrate the point that the White Russians used the presence of Chinese among Bolshevik troops as part of their anti-Bolshevik propaganda. I will say that this seems to be a bit of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH here.  It would be better to have a source that discusses anti-Bolshevik propaganda in general and these posters in particular.  However, it doesn't seem to stretch credibility much to make the assertion that this is a White Russian poster which is portraying Chinese under Trotsky's control in a negative light.  (even if it is OR and SYNTH)
 * --Richard 14:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a tremendous improvement. Unfortunately, though, we know very little about this poster. And I could only get hold of the English source (not the 2nd Russian one). Our WP editors have not even been faithful to the description there given. For example, the Poster is described as "White Russian" not "White Army" (a recent defined distinction by Wikipedians). It is also described as antisemitic. What justifies this whitewashing (pun intended)? --Ludvikus 14:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the distinction between "White Russian" and "White Army"?
 * Also, I understand that the poster is antisemitic in the way it portrays Trotsky but what does that have to do with this article?
 * --Richard 15:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

White Russian propaganda poster
Are all the soldiers Chinese? It occurs to me that two of the soldiers are dressed differently. Their clothes don't look Chinese to me. Perhaps these were intended to depict Lettish mercenaries?

--Richard 06:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The two are the so-called "revolutionary sailors" of the Baltic Fleet, a topic that also warrants a separate article. `'Míkka 07:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So only the two sailors are "Whites" and all the rest are "Chinese"?
 * And will the Trosky Monster with Chinamen Propaganda Poster go into such an article also? --Ludvikus 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and Chinese in the Russian Civil War
Do we have here one or two separate articles collected together under one WP contrived article?
 * Since the Chinese apparently did not play a notable role in the Russian Revolution, perhaps we could expand the article by collecting events regarding the Chinese over a period of time larger than 1917? That's the basis of sustaining this article in my opinion. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Russian Revolution 1917

What role did the Chinese play in the Russian Revolution?
 * Partial answer:

Мысль о построении социализма не особенно будоражила умы желтолицых пролетариев. Показательны воспоминания бойца Ли Фуцина, позже служившего в охране Ленина. Весной 1917 года, когда толпы голодных кули бродили по украинским степям, Ли с товарищами встретил русского, по фамилии Иванов. Он сказал: "Товарищи, чтобы остаться в живых, надо организоваться и начать бить царские войска.    У них в пакгаузах есть и хлеб, и одежда". К этому времени Ли "уже понимал немного по-русски, и он почувствовал,    что Иванов прав". Русско-китайский отряд "стал совершать налеты на гарнизоны, громить склады", пустил под откос поезд с боеприпасами. "Позднее Ли Фуцин понял, что отрядом руководят большевики".
 * Russian Civil War 1918-1920
 * Dmitri Gavronsky, a member of the Russian Constituent Assembly reports on July 13, 1918, on a battalian of Chinese troops (a battalion is usually 500-1,000 men). He (or the NYT) says "The latter are always used for executions."
 * What further role did the Chinese play in the Russian Civil war? At least one - they were the subject of a White Russian propaganda poster in 1919.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't read Russian. could you translate?
 * It is Gavronsky who says that the Chinese are always used for executions. My interpretation is that their role was not limited to executions but that they were used for executions especially when Russians would flinch at executing a fellow countryman.  The poster shows a Chinese soldier pointing a gun at a prisoner who is bound.  Perhaps the White Russians were hinting at the executions of Russians by Chinese.  (Now that's really going out on a limb and is clearly OR but I'm just sharing my thoughts with you.)
 * --Richard 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get it. The point is that many Russians on the Bolshevik side still feared to shoot a priest.  The Chinese had no such compunctions.  See the poster referred to in this source: http://www.bl.uk/pdf/russposters.pdf Yes, it's White Russian propaganda but it seems credible to me.
 * --Richard 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But what's the relevance of poster credibility here? We're not at all writing about the Poster, or are we? --Ludvikus 14:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've looked before at that 47 page List of posters at the British Library. How does that help. It's among the references. But what specific poster listed are we discussing? --Ludvikus 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The posters in question are mentioned in Reference 8 in the article. Search the document for "Chinese".
 * The relevance of poster credibility is that "where there's smoke, there's fire". Propaganda is not made up of total fabrication.  That's not credible.  Instead, it is made up of half-truths.  Why make a poster depicting Chinese in Russia in 1917 if that was as unlikely as having Africans in Russia?  I believe that there were some Chinese in the Red Army and some of them executed priests.  Were there a lot of Chinese?  Were there many Chinese executions of priests?  That cannot be proven by the posters.  All that can be proven is that the White Russians thought that this line of argument would resonate with the Russian people so they designed posters around the theme.
 * --Richard 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I'm interjecting:
 * Yes. I understand you completely. This is the place to iron out our views, which are behind what we write.


 * What I appreciate very much about your expressions on this Talk page is that you've stated quite clearly, and susinctly I might add, as to what constitutes Original Research at WP. The sources given are useful, in my opinion, merely as "seeds," for example, in creating an article about the depiction of the Chinese in that Poster as a Russian Civil War poster. But I think that both you and I have not yet concluded that so far this article in itself is anything but Original Research. Sure its got "seeds" for other, distinct, articles. For example, we could be writing about Dmitri Gavronsky - regarding him, I meant that it's not completely clear to me whether that "always" remark was not added by the NYT reporter - and that would make Mikka's argument stronger (the NYT being a more independent source/reference). I've actually printed that NYT article and read it completely as well.
 * Unfortunately, over the years, the Cyrilic alphabet has weakened in my consciousness to the point were my reading of it has become at best rather painful. Accordingly, it makes our task much more difficult. It is unfortunate that the editor(s) who apparently seem to read the Russian Cyrilic text are not helping us in comprehending what these Russian sources are saying exactly - or even translitering some sections of that (where my aid/assistance would be only slightly improved since my home language is actually Polish).
 * That said, I thank you, WP Editor Richard for being the wonderful mediating voice on this disputed Page. --Ludvikus 14:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the editor will simply type in the text (scanning the page for comparison), one can cut and paste into babelfish.altavista.com and get a good basic translation into English. It's not difficult. Badagnani 17:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Chinese role in the Russian Revolution / Civil War
I am not convinced yet that the Chinese played a significant role in this conflict. However, I am convinced by the numerous sources that they were there and that they were significant enough to be mentioned by contemporaries such as Arthur Ransome and Dmitri Gavronsky. Clearly, the Bolshevik use of Letts and Chinese was noted by the anti-Bolsheviks and used as part of their anti-Bolshevik propaganda. This propaganda bothered Trotsky enough that he referred to it sarcastically.

One could draw an analogy to the African-American soldiers in the American Civil War. They didn't contribute decisively but the fact that they fought was noted in history (although ignored by Americans for many decades).

--Richard 14:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. So where are the Chinese, of China, Russia, or some other former Soviet Union on this issue? Is Wikipedia to play the role of exposing the neglected protagonists of history? Remember, the issue is not whether we think the Chinese played a role in the events in Russia - but whether there is enough non-primary source material to justify an encyclopedic article. You seem now to be backtracking from your earlier view. --Ludvikus 15:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch. You got me here, also.  This is a curious situation.  It is a historical fact that Chinese were involved in the Russian Revolution/Civil War and that people at the time cared (White Russians, Dmitri Gavronsky).  However, no one seems to care any more.  So... does this merit inclusion in Wikipedia?  Something that was once notable but isn't that notable any more?
 * The AFD discussion was inconclusive ("Keep" due to lack of consensus to delete). The current revision of the article is much better than the one that was nominated for deletion so I suspect we have to accept that this article is to be considered encyclopedic for now.  --Richard 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Trotsky and Gavronsky are Primary Sources - you, of all people - I think understands the distinction. --Ludvikus 15:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And so is that damnbed poster - a Primary Source. --Ludvikus 15:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So far, we've got nothing but Original Research! --Ludvikus 15:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got to go - "But I'll be back." Or, "I shall return." (famous not-so-last words). --Ludvikus 15:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, heh. You're partly right.  The sources are only good enough to establish the fact that the Chinese were present in the Red Army in 1917.  That seems to be factual based on Ransome, Gavronsky and Trotsky.  That the White Russians used this fact in their propaganda is also a fact.  It is also a fact that Trotsky found it worth mentioning the anti-Bolshevik charge that they used Lettish and Chinese troops.  Note that he doesn't deny it but deprecates the charge in the sarcastic tone of the sentence.  I read him to be saying "Yeah, right.  Like that really made a difference in why we won.  We won because our cause was just not because we had Letts and Chinese troops."
 * However, any evaluation of the importance of their role based solely on these sources is OR. We need a good secondary source to provide an analysis of the importance of their role.  Even the comment that Trotsky "sarcastically" referred to White Russian propaganda about the Bolshevik use of Letts and Finns is OR on my part.  It seems clear to me that Trotsky was being sarcastic but that was my interpretation.  It would be better if we could find a reliable source to say it.
 * --Richard 15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm back - but only for a moment - to say that so far I agree with you 100%. So if I'm crazy so must you be. But let me be positive - if your ratioal so am I. Peace, Richard, and "Let the Force Be With You." --Ludvikus 18:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Trotsky, in his quote in the Introduction to "Between Red and White," seems to be sarcastically quoting from the Second International on the subject of using foreign soldiers to take Russian cities. It's disingenuous to fail to mention this context in the article, and cite the text as if Trotsky were not presenting a quote from a Second International proclamation. Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1922/red-white/intro.htm (do a search for "Did we not"). Badagnani 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's why I inserted the word "sarcastically" into the text. Unfortunately, I don't have enough knowledge of Soviet history to understand what the context of Trotsky's comments was.  If you think the quote is insufficiently explained and characterized, then please fix it.  Just remember that this article is about the Chinese and not about Trotsky and the Second International, so let's try to keep any mention of that polemic as short and concise as possible and only to the extent that it illuminates what Trotsky is saying about the Letts and the Chinese.  Maybe a footnote is the best place to discuss it.--Richard 19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is, the Red Army could very well have used these foreign troops--and Trotsky could have known that--and yet referred to the text sarcastically because he thought it was being blown out of proportion. Badagnani 19:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, I agree 100% That was my interpretation.  IMO, Trotsky seems to be saying "These guys (of the Second International) keep harping on our use of Lettish and Chinese troops but that wasn't really such a great sin and, in any case, it wasn't why we won."  However, that doesn't seem to be the tone he is using when he discusses the use of Chinese troops to disperse the Russian Constitutent Assembly.  At the end of the day, he just mentions the Chinese troops in passing and it is very hard to base much on his writings in "Red and White".  I am inclined to keep any assertions based on this source very tentative rather than asserting much more than Trotsky acknowledging that the troops were used in the situations mentioned.
 * I have to confess that I had a hard time understanding what Trotsky was saying in the intro and so, if anyone has a different interpretation, I'd love to hear it.
 * --Richard 19:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very good assessment. Badagnani 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Did we not hold Petrograd and Moscow by the aid of 'Lettish, Chinese, German and Bashkir regiments?' It's clear as day what Trotsky is saying: It is the reactionary press which that the two cities were held by these four ethnic groups.
 * Trotsky's 1st reference to the Chinese is by way of single quotes, which are a paraphrase of what the "reactionary press of the whole world" has been saying "for the last four years." He asks a rhetorical question - in that question the ethnic groups who are mentioned by Trosky are really those described by said reactionary press:
 * That shows, at least in this opening, that Trosky himself is saying nothing but subtly denying the allegation; to call the press reactionary is to deny its veracity.


 * So if anytyhing, we have this: that the Chinese were one of four ethnic groups whom the the reactionary press falsely claimed that had held (by force apparently) the two cities of Petrograd and Moscow.
 * Thus our source is doing the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do - it denies the role of the Chinese in the Russian Civil War.
 * Or, the Chinese played a phantom role of being propaganda protagonists who were given credit when in fact it was the Russian peasants and worker who were the true victorious agents in the Russian Civil War; I'm filling in the implicit text by the common knowledge that Trostky was the head of the Soviet forces in the Russian Civil War. Of course, iimplicit here, is the fact, once again I have to say this, that Trotsky is a primary source. Nevertheless, if we use him, then we have the inconvenient fact that the Chinese played no role in this scenario.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a fallacious argument because Trotsky does not outright deny the presence of these ethnic groups in the forces (as I stated earlier, and as other sources seem to show); instead, he seems to be stating that their presence has been blown out of proportion. Badagnani 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Badagnani. I read the text in question a couple of times and tried to figure out what Trotsky was saying and the best I could come up with was Badagnani's interpretation.  Nonetheless, I agree with Ludvikus that trying to interpret what Trotsky wrote is engaging in OR using primary sources.  We need to look at what the secondary sources say.  --Richard 00:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Trotsky, in the first mention of the Chinese admits Nothing about them (the Chinese) - nada! He only tells us what the position is of the "reactionary press". A bit latter (page 3 if you print it) we gives credit to the "workers" for the establishment of the "domination" of Petrograd and Moscow against the "railway strike" which was "guided" by the Mensheviks and the "Socialist-Revolutionary bureaucracy." --Ludvikus 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * However, you did state just above that Trotsky's statement shows that none of these ethnic groups participated in the Red Army. It does not do that either. Badagnani 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ludvikus that Trotsky admits nothing. However, he does not deny it either and, if he thought it was important to do so, he surely had the opportunity to phrase things differently.  What Badagnani and I are saying is that he is dismissing the charge as unimportant rather than untrue.  Nonetheless, it is OR unless we can find a reliable source that makes this same assertion.
 * A compromise would be to remove "Red and White" as a source for the "Petrograd and Moscow" assertion while leaving it as a source for the "dispersal of the Russian Constituent Assembly".
 * --Richard 00:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But what about Great Russia? Have they really forgotten the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly with the aid of Lettish and Chinese regiments? Has it not been proved long ago that, although not rooted anywhere, with the aid of armed forces from 'outside' (!!!), we, nevertheless, scattered to the winds the most solid democratic governments, no matter how deep rooted? Why, gentlemen, this is the very argument with which you started! It is precisely on this ground that you foretold the collapse of the Soviets within a few weeks! Trotsky style is complex. But careful attention tells us how to unravel it. that the Constituent Assembly was "dispersed" allegedly "with the aid of Lettish and Chinese regiments." We have, therefore, two leads here: (1) research the history of the "Constituent Assembly" to see what scholars have discovered as to the role that the regiments of these two ethnic groups played in dispersing its convening; and (2) there were press stories at the time about this alleged dispersal, but Trotsky implies that we shouldn't believe anything it has to say.
 * No! Trotsky says more. Re call all these accusers/critics (my words), particularly the Press which reported on these events, including the Chinese (which we are singling out "reactionaqry scum." It's the kind of laguage Marx had used. It is meant as an extreme disparagement regarding anything that they have to say. It means you cannot believe anything they say. So it is not that Trotsky is not denying them (as technically he is not). He say that they are not worthy even of a "no." That's how I read Trotsky (and of course, it creates a terrible problem for us in our effort to use him as a factual source here).
 * But Trotsky does mention the Chinese again, like so:
 * It is the (completely unrealiable) reactionary press which is the source of the story
 * But, if you look at the poster, you can see that Trotsky is a Red Monster with a Pentagram (Devil's Star) around his neck - that means to me (I'm joking - or am I?) that the reactionary press has succeeded in infiltrating Wikipedia!!! --Ludvikus 01:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in Russian Revolution and Chinese in the Russian Revolution
Both of the above articles redirect here but we don't need both of them. Ludvikus suggested that we delete Chinese in Russian Revolution on the grounds that it was broken English. I agreed and deleted it but Mikka undeleted it, leaving a terse and strongly worded injunction against doing things like that.

I was going to defend my deletion and question his undeletion but then I realized that he had a point. Besides being a unilateral deletion, the problem is that there were redirects that became red-linked by my deletion. My bad.

Nonetheless, Ludvikus also has a point. Why do we need both titles as redirects? If every article in Wikipedia did this, we'd have way too many artice/redirect entries.

Is there any opposition to deleting Chinese in Russian Revolution if the redlinks are fixed by pointing directly to this article?

--Richard 16:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was in a hurry, so I did not elaborate; I thought (and as I see now, correctly) you are smart enough to figure out the problem you created and will not repeat the mistake in the future.
 * Now, answering your question: why do we need? As a useful exercise, I would suggest you to review the deletion history. It has a section specifically aboiut redirects. (Since you are an admin, I suggest you to do this rather frequently, because I've found that our policies are quite fluent and some changes may catch you by surprize).
 * A short and to the point answer for this particular case is that deletion of redirects (even if all wikilinks are re-tergetted) will create red links in older verions or articles and talk pages, whcih you cannot repair. `'Míkka 17:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both "Chinese in Russian Revolution" and the current title are not in good, grammatical English. Aren't these titles thought through and presented to native English speakers before imposing them on the community? Badagnani 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not thrilled with the current title but there are only so many debates one can instigate or be involved in at once. Chinese in Russian Revolution is a bad title and that's why it was moved to Chinese in the Russian Revolution on its way to the current title.
 * However, just because this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean that only fluent, high-quality English writers are allowed to edit. The beauty of Wikipedia is that one editor can fix the errors of another.
 * As for what to do with these "bad" titles, the relevant guideline is Redirect which suggests that we should leave them in place. (Something new that I learned today) --Richard 17:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My question is still open. Badagnani 17:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer to your question is: No, they are not. That goes against the free-wheeling and spontaneous nature of Wikipedia.  Even native English speakers make mistakes like that.  In summary, there is no clearing-house for new titles.  Registered editors are encouraged to be bold and just create one but also to be flexible if the created article is moved, merged or nominated for deletion.
 * --Richard 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the opinion. Enjoy the new, non-grammatical title, which will encourage only the editor who created it to continue editing the article. Others, who are more committed to accuracy and attention to detail, will leave in disgust. The overblown discussion above, including refusal to fully explain sources when asked, seems calculated to do just that. Badagnani 17:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool down. I didn't say that bad titles can't be corrected or that good titles can't be improved on.  I just said that there is no pre-creation filter to ensure that only good titles are created.  I took a guess as to why based on what I understand Wikipedia to be about.  IMO, doing what you propose would slow down the process of article creation too much.  It just runs counter to the spirit of Wikipedia.  If you really can't stand this chaotic and disorganized approach, you may prefer Larry Sanger's Citizendium.
 * If you have a better title to propose, then feel free to do so. I personally think the current title is too long.  Chinese soldiers in the formation of the Soviet Union might be a better title.  But you might have a different suggestion.  Let's hear it and then let's all discuss the merits of the different proposals.
 * --Richard 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You did say the title cannot be changed, and your incitation to "bugger off" is highly inflammatory and un-Wikipedian! I simply asked that a title change be discussed and agreed upon by consensus before imposing it on the community. This is a minimum standard, and utterly Wikipedian. Your opinion is just that. Badagnani 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, read what I wrote again. You asked a factual question "Aren't these titles thought through and presented to native English speakers before imposing them on the community?".  I answered it with a factual answer: "No, they are not."  I then followed it up with an opinion as to why they are not.  If you disagree, you should take it up at Village pump (policy).  You may feel that I have given an incorrect justification of policy or you may feel the policy is wrong-headed.  That is your right.  But this isn't really the place to discuss the merits of the policy.  Note: I see there is room for misunderstanding here.  My response was intended to answer the question whether new titles were "thought through and presented to editors for review prior to article creation.  Changes of title can and should be discussed first via the WP:RM process.
 * As for the guideline regarding fixing of redirects, I obviously disagreed with it since I was the one who deleted Chinese in Russian Revolution earlier today. Well, I learned that the guideline is to leave those kinds of title in place.  Do you disagree with the guideline?  Then, engage in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect.  Until the guideline changes, we should follow it in most situations.  I don't care enough to try and change the guideline.  Maybe you do.  If so, go for it.
 * I did not mean to say the current title cannot be changed. I said the redirect should not be deleted per Redirect.  The current title is the third or fourth in a series.  I do agree that we should stop with the unilateral moves and have a discussion about the title before anybody changes it again.  I was happy with Chinese in the Russian Revolution and don't much care for Chinese in the Russian Revolution and Russian Civil War because it's too long and I definitely hate Chinese in the Russian Revolution and Chinese in the Russian Civil War because it's even longer.
 * --Richard 19:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That editor has changed the title of the article again, to an unidiomatic, ungrammatical English title, again with absolutely no discussion on his part. Edit here. Very bad! Badagnani 16:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote?
Does anyone have access to the Rayfield book? This quote, as presented in a footnote in the article, has a parenthetical phrase that is in English with poor grammar, leading me to question whether this is a direct quote, as presented in the article.

Badagnani 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please address this, thank you. Badagnani 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Iona Yakir not first to use Chinese mercenaries?
I inserted the sentence that Yakir was the first to use Chinese Mercenaries. Mikka took it out. I went back to check the source and discovered that it was a Wikipedia mirror of the Iona Yakir article. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy me.

Just to close this issue, can Mikka explain why we believe Yakir was not the first? If he wasn't, then who was?
 * I will not talk without references; that would be a magnet for trolls into endles bickering about my original research. `'Míkka

Also, what about the 500 bodyguards? Is that also false?
 * "he was always accompanied by 500 Chinese bodyguards" - Where is your critical thinking? `'Míkka 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

--Richard 19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the content is more or less stabilized, I will return when trolls go away. I have no desire to further waste my time. I think I sufficiently defended the article from destruction. I am mildly surprized that Russian editors have no desire to even flick a finger, despite vast abundance of Russian language sources. I have long ceased fighting alone with people who spread hatred to fellow wikipedians and militant ignorance. If I edit this article before October 27, I will eat my beard. `'Míkka 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No more discussion or insults of other editors. From now, we discuss only actual facts. That will be more productive and less wasteful of time. Badagnani 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War
I'm glad your in the (Editors') War. But remember, I think Richard is one of the Good Guys. He listens, and tries to keep the Peace, and is one of the most Rational Wikipedians I've met. So try to relax a bit. Don't use me as model - except as to persistence when your certain your right and you are convinced that persistence will lead to the Good in the Long Run. Cheers, fellow Wikipedian. --Ludvikus 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No more discussion or insults of other editors. From now, we discuss only actual facts. That will be more productive and less wasteful of time. Badagnani 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent recommendation. Count me in. --Ludvikus 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly
It appears that Trotsky is correct in disparaging the "reactionary press" - the alleged regiments of Lettish and Chinese troops which allegedly dispersed the Constituent Assembly are non-existent so far:. --Ludvikus 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian Constituent Assembly
Surprise !!! --Ludvikus 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please be less "funny," and clarify what you mean? Badagnani 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus believes that the fact that "Red Scare" sources charge that Lettish and Chinese troops were used by the Bolsheviks weakens the credibility of the charge. However, he overlooks the fact that the same charge was made by Dmitri Gavronsky and, according to Trotsky, the Second International.  It is not just the charge made by White Russians or the American "Red Scare" propagandists that gives the charge credibility.  It is the charge being made by both White Russians AND anti-Bolshevik socialists.  --Richard 04:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, Richard, on the 2nd International. Read Trotsky more carefully. He's only comparing them in style to the reactionary press. --Ludvikus 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, Dr. Dmitri Galvonski is not a valid source. He's not only a Primary Source but, as such also unreliable. He's Trotsky's adversary, a goverment official, in Finland, apparently on a state visit. He may very well be the source of the "reactionary press" information. But the main overall point is that we've got here Original Research. Much has been written on the RR & RCW - don't you think it odd that no such source is available which talks about the Chinese in it? All we have are unscholarly, biased, or unreadable Russian sources so far. --Ludvikus 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The source hs provides lists a population of Letts but I don't see Chinese listed (although I see other Asian ethnic groups such as Bashkirs). This wouldn't necessarily imply that there were no Chinese serving in the Red armed forces or police, only that ethnic Chinese were not voting constituents of Russia. Badagnani 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry. Will do (not be "funny"). The Chinese and Letts supposedly played a role in the Russian Revolution by forming "regiments" which were used (allegedly) to "disperse" the "Constituent Assembly." This body played very important role in Russian political history. So it was obvious that any historical study of this body should help us know what role, if any, the Chinese played in these events. But I was surprised that we had no WP article on this body. But as it turns out Wikipedia needed to Dismbiguate it, and so its name is made up of three words Russian Constituent Assembly.


 * So, it turns out that our quite well developed article on that does not mention any Chinese as having played a role in disbursing the Russian Constituent Assembly!!! It seems that Trotsky was right, the Letts and Chinese played no role of any significance in the Russian Revolution involving, at least, said Assembly. --Ludvikus 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are Letts listed in that article. Badagnani 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In my Google searches, I have found it very difficult to find mention of Lettish and Chinese troops in relation to the Russian Constituent Assembly. Other than Trotsky, Mereto and King (link provided below), nobody else seems to mention them.  --Richard 04:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More sources
Another "reactionary press" source. Let us keep in mind that most of the Western press fell into the category of "reactionary press".

http://books.google.com/books?id=0NwLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=%22russian+constituent+assembly%22+chinese&source=web&ots=Q-PVCZuyeL&sig=EOxigv1oW0MlqyTYn3oWch_e6b8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 04:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The Red Conspiracy

 * BY JOSEPH J. MERETO
 * 1920
 * THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
 * 37 West 39th Street, New York

"This book proves the existence of the Red Peril.   "We publish it to warn America. "We ask the help of every loyal American,   "organization and institution to put "The Red Conspiracy" in every home, school and library in the land. "Price, cloth bound, $2.15 postpaid; in paper, $1.10 postpaid.   "Chapters of the book and parts of chapters "can also be supplied in pamphlet and leaflet form for wide distribution.   "Write us for particulars. So it seems that the role of the Chinese is dispersing the Russian Constituent Assembly is supported by Red Scare sources. Hey, why not also use, as a reference, Mein Kompf by Adolph Hitler. What did he say about the Chinese in the Russian Revolution? --Ludvikus 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And here, finally, is where we get the "reactionary press" source Trotsky has worned us about (in the above text by Joseph J. Mereto): "CHAPTER X    BOLSHEVIST RULE IN RUSSIA     ...     Shortly after the Lenine-Trotzky government came into power in Russia,     in the latter part of the year 1917, Bolshevism became very popular in     America among the radicals, especially the Socialists. Among those who     helped most to bring it into such high esteem was Albert Rhys Williams,     who had spent but one year of his life in Russia, hardly spoke the     Russian language, and while staying in that country was in the pay of     the Bolsheviki, as he testified before the Senate Committee.     The Bolsheviki came into power by violence and have sustained themselves     in power by violence and terrorism. Their main support, the so-called     Red Army, in which the Chinese and Letts have played a prominent part,     is an army of mercenaries who are well paid and well fed, while     thousands of civilians are dying from starvation in the cities and towns of Russia. The first success of the Bolsheviki was the dissolution by bayonets of the Constituent Assembly, which for forty years had been the goal of all Russians--even of the Bolsheviki up to the time when they found it    overwhelmingly against them. Then they invented a new double name for their anti-democratic government: Soviets, or dictatorship of the proletariat. Next they dissolved all the democratic Municipal Councils and Zemstvos and proceeded to take away the various liberties won in the revolution against the regime of the Czar. [Emphasis added]] --The Red Conspiracy by Joseph J. Mereto (1920)


 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This text (above) - from the Red Scare period, is an unreliable and improper source.
 * It itself is propaganda. Here is another example of its scholarship (an excerpt from it):

Socialism has made terrible inroads among the Jews. To give one example, "The Forward," a Yiddish daily of New York City, has a circulation of about 150,000 copies. This paper should be watched very carefully by the government, for it has been doing some very dangerous work in the line of revolutionary propaganda without English-speaking people being aware of the doctrines it is advocating. This is supposed to be our source for the role of the Chinese? --Ludvikus 03:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
If the edit warring continues on this page I will protect it for a short while or until conflicts have been resolved, I prefer this to 3RR blocks(which I see the potential of for at least 2 users) when possible. I expect this to be resolved either on this talk page, or if necessary dispute resolution or perhaps even through outside input. I don't like to keep an article protected very long so I will resort to 3RR blocks if the edit warring continues after any potential protection expires. 1 != 2 03:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit warring is continuing. Badagnani 05:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that one of the edit warriors (Mikkalai) is an admin. It is not very civil to call an editor a troll simply because he is opinionated and obstinate.  There has been plenty of incivility from both Mikkalai and Ludvikus so neither side is blameless in this.
 * Nonetheless, I am not too eager to protect the page and even less eager to block an admin. I would hope that Mikkalai would be more collegial and collaborative and take these disputes to the Talk Page.  I would also hope that Ludvikus would discuss more rather than pushing his POV.  Even though I agree with Ludvikus on some points including the one that is the focus of the current edit war, I think discussion and consensus-building is better than edit warring.
 * --Richard 06:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the page for 48 hours. I did this in the hopes of preventing 3RR blocks which are frankly due. I want to make it clear that being an admin does not give you any special leeway in content disputes and that if the edit warring continues after the protection expires that all parties will be treated equally. I also agree with Richard that civility is sadly lacking here, and is expected to improve.

Please use this time to resolve this dispute through civil discussion or dispute mediation. 1 != 2 06:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page in the hopes that it can be improved in a collaborative manner. I do not think an article should be stifled by protection when avoidable, so I will most likely be blocking if there is excessive back and forth reverting. Please, try to come to an agreement or seek a wider consensus if you cannot agree. 1 != 2 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion to end edit warring and lift protection
Alright. At least somebody was willing to put his admin tools where his mouth was. (Unlike me who prefers to threaten and reserve admin action for truly egregious cases.) I was hoping that just rattling my saber would put an end to edit warring.

The sad thing about all this is the current edit war is really over a pretty small dispute. Ludvikus thinks that "large number" and "many" are words that are vague and unsupported by the sources. Mikkalai thinks Ludvikus is a troll for slapping tags on those words. I think Ludvikus is right in principle but I think edit warring over tags is kind of silly.

Can the two of you hash out this issue here on the Talk Page so we can get the protection lifted and continue editing?

--Richard 06:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Using vague words is normal in summaries. The word "many" is used in the quoted references. Various sources give wildly varying numbers. I gave a referenced estimate from a modern source. Exact numbers are not known and never will be. `'Míkka 16:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That said, I stated above I will not edit this article in the near future, because I have no desire to waste my time with vitriolic trolls. Taging is but a small piece of his abuse. I several times asked him to change his tone, yet he continued his derision of disrespect. No one defended me. And now after prolific ass-kissing by Ludvikus Richard accuses me of incivility. `'Míkka 16:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh. Think I'm that easily swayed, eh?  I said you were both incivil.
 * I think the issue is that it is better to state the numbers we know rather than to use words like "large numbers" and "many" which could mean many things. More than anything else, we need to know whether we are talking about 2000-3000 or "tens of thousands".  I find "tens of thousands" hard to believe because all the other sources talk about numbers an order of magnitude lower.  Also, if it was that many, it would have been a widely remarked upon fact which would still be in the history books today.  Can you help us understand the support for the "tens of thousands" figure?  --Richard 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand the reason for your last question. And I don't find it hard to believe. I am repeating again that I refuse to work on this artricle until it will become clear that trolling is discontinued. In other words I am on stike here until further notice. `'Míkka 18:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for my last question is that, by providing a source in Russian, you are asking us to trust you on what that source says. I don't accuse you of deliberating fabrication or falsification but it is certainly possible that you may have read the source one way when alternate readings are possible.  Since this is the sole source that supports the "tens of thousands" figure, it is crucial that we have an understanding of how reliable that source is and why the number quoted there is an order of magnitude higher than the numbers mentioned in the other sources.
 * --Richard 18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm at a loss at how to proceed here. One approach would be to unprotect the article on the basis that the decamping of one edit warrior suggests that edit warring will cease. However, I am loath to hand Ludvikus a "victory by default" since, as I said earlier, he is not blameless in this either. I will ask Until(1==2) to express an opinion before proceeding. --Richard 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest once again dispute resolution, or if you really think that this user is a troll then to get consensus at ANI supporting that idea. This is by no means an impasse. 1 != 2  18:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with pursuing dispute resolution process is that it requires the cooperation of both parties. Mikka's response suggests that he is not open to engaging in the dispute resolution process.  We could open an RFC but that just seems like an excessive reaction to a minor spat between two editors.  (Other people may disagree but that's my opinion.)
 * I would propose instead a voluntary agreement on the part of both Mikka and Ludvikus to refrain from editing this article for a period of one week. This agreement would apply only to the article and not to this Talk Page.  Thus, other editors would be allowed to edit the article, possibly even in response to suggestions made by either Mikka or Ludvikus.  The critical idea here is that edits would be made within consensus rather than by editors who are prone to incivility and edit warring with each other.  --Richard 18:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to delete this article
I formerly gave this editor the benefit of the doubt but, since he will not answer any factual questions (including the one about the ungrammatical "direct quote" from an English-language source) but instead always chooses to refer to other editors, I am now in strong doubt about all of the claims of the article. Delete it. Badagnani 18:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's an extreme reaction. An editor's uncooperativeness does not negate the factual basis or encyclopedicity of an article.  However, if you still believe this article should be deleted, the proper process is via WP:AFD. --Richard 18:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard, now I'm disappointed in you. I also have had the same experience of un-coperativeness regarding queries as to sources and references. And all the sources and references we've read and could get a hold of only re-inforced the fact that there is no ground for an article here. I do not understand what else you need to conclude that this article should be proposed for deletion. Even if there were Chinese protagonists or populations which were active in the two historic events named above, it is not for us to so conclude. I have re-read several of my books on the Russian Revolution by scholars in that field. None of them mention the role of the Chinese. Why do you allow the editor(s) who support the article to drag you into considering Russian Cyrilic texts which you cannot read but which might support this article? Also, what page shall I scan for you to show you that the Chinese are not mentioned there? Remember, it's much harder to prove that something does not exist, than to prove that it does. It is not for us to prove non-existence. It's for the believers in the role of the Chinese in the events above to prove to us such a role existed in which the Chinese we involved- so far they have not done so. Therefore, please support the view that this varticle warrants deletion. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for a deletion discussion and even if you convinced me that it warranted deletion, I would be way out of line to delete it "out of process" and just about any admin worth his salt would restore it in a flash.
 * The AFD process is the way to go but it is too early to renominate this article for deletion since it just survived an AFD and renominating it so quickly would certainly be considered trolling.
 * I would prefer to make the best article we can and then consider whether that revision of the article is encyclopedic or not. If someone would go read the Russian sources provided in this article and tell us what they say (and who exactly says it!), we would be better able to make an informed decision.  Then, we could use that information to illuminate an AFD discussion IF we deemed one was necessary.
 * --Richard 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't do that because the individual who has added the sources does not address questions asked about them. Badagnani 02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well excuse me but that's downright silly. Imagine the user in question left Wikipedia for good. Would you delete all his articles? No, obviously not.

He's not the only person who knows something about the Russian Revolution/Civil War. He's not the only person who can read Russian. In the worst case (and I mean if none of the editors of related articles helps us), we delete all material sourced to sources that we cannot verify. That's an extreme, extreme worst case.

This page protection will not last forever. User:Until(1==2) has indicated that he does not favor long page protections so I expect this page will be unprotected soon. Then we can remove or fix the most egregious issues (e.g. "tens of thousands" and "many" and "large numbers").

I only hesitate to do this now because it is inappropriate for an admin to make changes to a protected page that are not clearly blessed by consensus.

--Richard 02:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are missing the point & bringing in a totally inappropriate example, one which does not apply here at all.
 * If you recollect, as we have, this is all about the work of one, and only one, editor.
 * It is he who created this article, and it is he who supplied us with all the sources
 * which we have been pleading with him to defend.
 * And he has not merely vanished (as in your example).
 * Quite the contrary, he is here, present, accounted for, and probably reading everything we write here.


 * And he vdeliberately refuses to coi-operate.
 * It is therefore extremely reasonable for us to conclude that all his work is unreliable.
 * I do not understand how you do not see this which seems so obvious to me.
 * Best to you, Richard. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but what is obvious to you is not obvious to me. The entire point of verifiability is that assertions are entered based on reliable sources so that, even if we aren't sure of the editor's reliability, we can be sure of the reliability of the source and can even verify that the source said exactly what was asserted.  I have read whatever sources that I could on the Internet.  Enough to believe that some of the article is true.  I'm not quite sure how notable and how encyclopedic it is.  IMHO, it's marginal.  But so too is a lot of Wikipedia.  This wouldn't be the worst example on Wikipedia.
 * Thus, I am satisfied to delete the parts that seem dubious but I am OK for now to keep the article. I know you have always wanted to delete it but I have not shared that opinion.  Just because some of it might be OR doesn't mean it is all OR.
 * --Richard 03:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * But I believe you are backtracking (no insult intended). I am completely surprised by your claim that you found some "truth." That's the first time I hear that from you. I wish you would share that truth with the rest of us.
 * Best to you, Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, I thought it was obvious from the last several days of posts that I believe there were Lettish and Chinese troops used in the Russian Revolution / Civil War. I also believe that this was important enough to provide ammunition for anti-Bolshevik propaganda which stung enough that Trotsky saw fit to refer to it in "Between Red and White".  The only reason that I believe this is that we have four sources that mention the presence of Lettish and Chinese troops. If we leave out Trotsky who may not have been serious, we still have Gavronsky, Moreto and the White Russian poster.
 * Thus, it is a fact that anti-Bolsheviks "claimed" that the Bolsheviks used Lettish and Chinese troops.
 * We're not 100% sure that the Bolsheviks actually did use Lettish and Chinese troops but my personal belief is that they did. I just don't think you can fabricate propaganda from thin air.  Truly effective propaganda is based on half truths and distortions of the truth.
 * We're not at all sure that these troops had any decisive value although there is a suggestion that Petrograd and Moscow were "held" by these troops and that the Russian Constituent Assembly was dispersed using these troops.
 * I fully believe that substantiating these hunches is difficult. My Google searches turned up very little other than the Gavronsky and Moreto documents.
 * I would be amenable to documenting the uncertainty about these facts in the article and leaving the reader with the sense that "nobody knows for sure". It would be better to cite a reliable source saying that, though.
 * --Richard 06:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Richard. That's very helpful. Now please let me tell you where and how you're grossly mistaken.
 * Since standard scholarly works on the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War do not mention any Chinese troops, it follows that what you are doing constitutes original research.
 * Going to primary sources for va novel hypothesis is prohibited by Wikipedia.
 * I suspect you do not fully appreciate the meaning of this distinction (an uneasy one).
 * It's what a historian does. He examines the statements of participants as well as archival documents (including political posters).
 * it is he (the historian) who makes the judgment that a poster is or is not reliable.
 * It is also the historian who determines if the testimoney of protagonists in history is credible.
 * As I've explained to you before, both Trotsky and that Dr. Gavronsky (who is a goverment official and adversary of Trotsky) are such primary sources. To give credit to these several sources is precisely what Wikipedia discourigious us from doing - it is proposing a new theory, namely, the theory that the Chinese played some role in the Russian Revolution and Civil War.
 * Here you are going to have Wikipedia say what the scholarly works on the subject do not say: that the Chinese played a role in the RR and the RCW.
 * That's precisely what Wikipedia tells us we should not do.
 * I suggest you read up on what constitutes primary sources for Wikipedia.
 * That other source we were given also does us no good. It is clearly a Red Scare unscholarly imprint.
 * Again, we are not the scholars who are supposed to make such an evaluative judgment;
 * I do not know at the moment how much clearer I can be in making a point of the fact that none of the items you mensioned can be used as a reference by a Wikipedian to come up with the novel discovery that Chinese did play an important role, besides the fact that they appear to be mentioned and depicted in places we have observed.
 * As always, best to you. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's how Wikipedia's anti-Original research article tells us we should use Primary sources so that we would not fall into the trap of conducting Original research: An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions. "Ahah, I see Chinese in it.    Well there are half-truths in all lies.     So there were Chinese around in the RR & RCW."
 * That (number 2) is precise what you are doing when you draw the hypothesis that there were Chinese in the RR & RCW.
 * You can do the other (number 1) by quoting what has been said. But you cannot analyze it and say that it's true.
 * For example, you look at the Trosky poster and say,
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 07:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Richard. Badagnani 07:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WHAT? Now you've flip-flopped on me?
 * I'm shocked. Why did you suddenly switch sides?
 * You make me feel now like I'm in an insane asylum!
 * You'd better explain - or I'm leaving Wikipedia!!!
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 07:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has to do with reasonableness. You seem to be saying that you believe no Chinese nor Letts had any part of any of these events. Richard states that the sources seem to show that they did, which is why the propaganda of the period used such claims. More than that we cannot say, however, because the editor who has the sources will not answer simple questions raised about them. Badagnani 08:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Badagnani. After reading Ludvikus' long critique, he just about had me convinced.  Thank you for restoring my confidence in what is a difficult "middle of the road" position.
 * Are there really NO secondary sources that mention the Lettish and Chinese troops? Mikka has provided a bunch of sources in Russian (and a Congressional hearing during the Red Scare era).  This plus all of the other stuff that I mentioned in my last message proves that the concept was notable and encyclopedic at the time although the West seems to be uninterested in it now.  Mikka says that this topic is of increasing interest in Russia recently.  We should ask our Russian colleagues to help us understand the Russian sources.
 * I would be comfortable with an article that said either of the following "Anti-Bolsheviks charged that the Bolsheviks used Lettish and Chinese troops but historians today believe that was pure fabrication" or "Anti-Bolsheviks charged that the Bolsheviks used Lettish and Chinese troops and historians today believe that was true although the military significance of these troops is considered to be minimal." I am flummoxed by the lack of English sources on the Internet.  I can't read Russian and I do not have access or interest level to seek out a university library.  There are some possible sources on JSTOR but I'm not willing to pay in order to access them.
 * So for the time being, we are at a standstill. The basic facts are neither false nor unencyclopedic although some of the linkages between them are not verifiable due to the lack of English sources.  Thus, they are arguably OR until someone can evaluate the Russian sources.
 * --Richard 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

More sources
I think the problem I have come up with so little so far is that I have been Googling "Chinese" and "Russian Revolution". Googling "Chinese" and "Russian Civil War" is turning out to be a bit more productive.

Actually, Googling on "Chinese" and "Russian Civil War" wasn't that much more productive. The only thing that I learned was that the Russians and Chinese fought over Mongolia.

I know this URL is not a reliable source but it should suggest that there's more to this topic than the crazed lunacy of a single Wikipedian. It suggests that others have seen this same material and that it is worthwhile to figure out what is encyclopedic and what is not.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=100582

Rayfield is mentioned in one of the posts. I've seen the name Rayfield before. We need to figure out who that is and how reliable that person is. Suvorov is also mentioned in a different post. Who is he and how reliable is he?
 * Viktor Suvorov is not reliable. He is not a professional historian, although he stirred quite a few hornet's nests. While his books are fun to read for a person with native command of Russian language, they are useful only as a source for hints at information suppressed in the Soviet Union. But he is notoriously known for twisting the facts to fit his theories. Moreover, even the facts he mentions are mostly unreferenced, so additional effort is always required to figure out what it actually was. `'Míkka 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am guessing at this point that we are talking about 2000-3000 Chinese in European Russia and 30,000-40,000 "Chinese" (possibly other Orientals such as Koreans) in Asian Russia (Siberia and other Asian territories). --Richard 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Corect. `'Míkka 19:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But so this is a critical point which is not at all made clear in the article. Were there tens of thousands of Chinese on the Bolshevik side in Siberia?  Or were they on the Chinese side?  I think the White Russians were involved in the Sino-Russian border conflict as well but I haven't taken the time to read much about that sector of the Russian Civil War yet.
 * The Sino-Russian conflict in Mongolia seems to be far better documented in sources available on the Internet (although many are in JSTOR or MUSE).
 * --Richard 20:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have decided to vote Keep in the current AFD discussion based upon research that I have done tonight. I have come up with three modern sources in English which confirm what this article says. These are Alexander Lukin, Brian Murphy and Mikhail Khvostov. All three of these sources are available via [books.google.com Google Books]. I have actually read the pages that I cited.

There are a couple of inconsistencies among the sources but it is not our job to resolve inconsistencies but simply to report them.

--Richard 06:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

July 6, 1917 (old/new Russian calendar)?
The above date is important because that is the date of the "dispersal" of the Russian Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks by force under the overall bleadership of Lenin and Trotsky. I've been reading several books by or on Trotsky - but there is no mention of a Chinese regiment. I hope vto give a more precise report on that later. It is to be remembered that it's harder to prove non-exitence. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 01:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

An apology to Mikkalai
At times during this debate, I skated very close to challenging Mikkalai's credibility and integrity and I'm sure he felt insulted that we would not take his word that the Russian sources supported what he said they asserted.

It was never my intention to suggest that Mikkalai had intentionally fabricated or distorted the Russian sources. However, without English sources that were available over the Internet, there was simply no way to verify that he had accurately represented the sources and the earlier revisions of this article certainly told no coherent story and smacked strongly of original research.

With the few English sources that were available, Ludvikus' charge of original research seemed to ring true. It was not until I stumbled across Google Books tonight that I was finally able to turn up some secondary sources of the last decade written in English so that I could verify what was being asserted in the article.

Although the debate has been acrimonious at times, I have tried to keep a neutral and objective perspective (causing me to flip-flop a couple of times). I think the debate could have been conducted more civilly but I also think that the article has benefited hugely from the challenge and response. If you compare the current article to the revision of October 11th, I think you will agree that there has been a quantum leap in quality.

Best regards to all and happy editing.

--Richard 07:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"You've been reading to much of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion", or something to that effect (I'm not literally quoting him)
 * I beg to differ. My experience is different in the extreme. My disagreements come from dealing with Jewish Bolshevism which a well known and established ethnic slur and political epithet. It appeared to me, quite clearly, that the slant of that article was to show that there's some truth to the idea that Bolshevism was Jewish apart from the statistics (whether "many" or "few" Jews happened to be Jewish). Now there are three articles pending for deletion on that score.
 * 1) This article here was presented as a counter-example to that article, and I took the bite.
 * 2) None of the studies of the Russian Revolution or Civil War is there any mention of the Chinese as playing any notable role except as propaganda in t5he poster. Furthermore, as I've already pointed out (above), one of the sources mentioned is a Red Scare author, another is a contemporary Russian government official, stationed in Finland at the time, actively engaged in the Russian Civil War. Another source is the author of Childrens books and reporter who is telling us what a certain single Chinese individual was reporting to the Bolshevik authorities at the time.
 * 3) So much for the available English language sources. As to the Russian texts, the contributor has been excerpting blobs of texts in the Cyrilic Russian alphabet which might be White Russian disinformation as well.
 * 4) Furthermore, I've made a gesture of peace to this editor, but he's merely wiped it out. So I cannot assume any Good Faith on his part - it is impossible. And in that circumstance, WP does not require me to do so.
 * 5) I strongly believe that this article is simply the original research of this one editor.
 * 6) More than that - he has made it impossible for me to trust anything he writes. His response to my queries has been, and remains, that
 * His having said that to me, makes be think that he's merely doing the same kind of work here (as the White Russians have done in the time of the revolution: It's not the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Poles, you see, it's the Jews. Similarly, It's not the Russians really, it's the Chinese, you see. That was Trotsky's position regarding Trotsky's sarcasm. But whether Trotsky was right or wrong is not the point. The point is that we need a solid source or reference, and that has not been provided. This editor has no concern whether or not anyone can read Russian. He expects us to believe what he says - that the Cyrilic text supports his position - and that we are supposed to trust him on that because he said that it supports his view.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The first reference (#1) is to a text published in Moscow in 1959 - that's only 4 years or so after Stalin's death. Russia was very Communist then. It's press, as well as it's scholarship were under very strong government control and censorship - to put it mildly. On political and historical issues, towing the party line was the practice. My guess, at this point, was that the publication (as its title suggests) was a mere propaganda tool to bring Russia and China closer together (something China is actually known to have feared, and which by the 1970's resulted in the peace which Kissinger & Nixon succeeded in bringing about).
 * Be that as it may, there is some improvement. The reference(s) are becoming more precise. This improves our ability to criticize the article - when criticism is warranted of course.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistencies in the article
To me, the major inconsistency to be resolved is the assertion that there were "tens of thousands" of Chinese troops in the Red Army and yet this is deemed to be "not a significant fraction of the Red Army" by Brian Murphy.

The only way that I can see to resolve this (assuming the "tens of thousands" estimate to be in the ballpark) is if the Red Army comprised more than a million men under arms in 1920.

See my query over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force titled "How large was the Red Army during the Russian Civil War?" for a fuller treatment of this question.

--Richard 07:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure
I think we should stick to the title in our structure. Otherwise it's illogical, hard to follow, nor easy to edit. I've tried it but was arbitrarily reverted. I propose that we split the article as follows: Please discuss, and thereby avoid wasteful reverts. Yours truly --Ludvikus 11:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Chinese in the Russian Revolution (1917)
 * Chinese in the Russian Civil War (1918-1920)
 * As things stand now, from glancing at the article, the Chinese played no role in the Russian Revolution.
 * Accordingly shouldn't we change and shorten the title like so: Chinese in the Russian Civil War?
 * PS: Let's not forget that the Red Army was formed by Trotsky in 1918 (out of the former Red Guard) during the Russian Revolution.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The four (4) sources to the opening of our article

 * (1) Пын Мин. История китайско-советской дружбы. М., 1959. (Peng Ming,
 * "History of the Chinese-Russian Frienship",
 * translation from Chinese, Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1959,
 * original: "Zhong-su yu she", Pekin, 1957 (Russian)
 * [no quote supplied by WP editor]
 * (2) Россия и мир глазами друг друга: Из истории взаимовосприятия /
 * Под ред. А.В. Голубева; РАН. Ин-т рос. истории. - М., 2000.
 * Вып. 1. - 365 с. ISBN 5-8055-0043-4,
 * Chapter IV, Section "The Perception of China by USSR Political Elite" (Russian)
 * "Chinese detachments, together with Latvians, Hungarians, and others
 * guarded the Soviet government already in 1917-1918"
 * (3) a b Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen:
 * The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him, Viking Press 2004: ISBN 0670910880 (hardcover)
 * "In 1919, 75 percent of the Cheka's central management was Latvian.
 * When Russian soldiers refused to carry out executions,
 * Latvian (and Chinese force of some 500 men) were brought in. 
 * (4) a b c Lukin, Alexander (2002). The Bear Watches the Dragon:
 * Russia's Perceptions of China
 * and the Evolution of Russian Chinese Relations
 * since the Eighteenth Century.
 * China: M.E. Sharpe, p.98.
 * [no quote supplied by WP editor]


 * This is the basis of the article's opening. It is important, therefore, to examine these arefully. To a great extent, the status of the article rests or falls on these 4 items. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Lets look exactly at what our article actually says: Chinese served as bodyguards of Bolshevik functionaries[1][2], served in the Cheka[3], and even formed complete regiments of the Red Army.[4]
 * 2) Now lets look exactlt at what our four (4) sources actually say: "Chinese detachments, together with Latvians, Hungarians, and others guarded the Soviet government already in 1917-1918" and "In 1919, 75 percent of the Cheka's central management was Latvian. When Russian soldiers refused to carry out executions, Latvian (and Chinese force of some 500 men) were brought in.
 * Such use of sources (to interpret, selectively edit, and expand on what's actually said) is prohibited by Wikipedia. At best, it's original research.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Latvians, Chinese, Hungarians, and others in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

 * As the English language sources made available to us by quotation show, the above should be the title of our article — at this stage of its development at least. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we singling out the Chinese in this way when our sources include the Latvians, Hungarians, and "others" as well? What's the Encyclopedic reason for that? Answer: none.
 * How about having Latvians in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War?
 * And why not the Hungarians in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War?
 * And our source requires this as well Others in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War, no?
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Copied from my Talk Page where I responded to the same points raised by Ludvikus above.
 * Now you're embarking on a crusade which is bordering on original research. My sense of it is that Latvians in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War is an encyclopedic topic and I'm thinking of creating that article based on what I've read.  The only thing is that there is even less on that topic than there is about the Chinese!  I don't know anything about the Hungarian involvement but the Czechoslovaks were definitely involved and might deserve an article of their own.  I don't think that we should go after every ethnic group only the ones that are historically notable.
 * I will comment that you might ask whether Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War merits an article unto itself or if it should just be merged into Russian Civil War. Consult WP:MERGE for explanation of the process.
 * Up to now, the debate has been whether or not this stuff was even true or notable. Now, the debate should shift to whether it is notable enough to warrant a separate article.  I'm on the fence on this one.  I wouldn't oppose a merger into Russian Civil War or Foreigners in the Russian Civil War.  I would oppose deleting the article entirely.
 * --Richard 15:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Got you. So now lets go to the sources.
 * The sources we actually are reading (in English) include the Chinese together with the Latvians (at least 3 of our sources do that). So what justifies segregating them (pun intended)? Is this not clearly Original Research?
 * Richard, please, please, please (I plea I learned from Administrator User:BrownHairedGirl do read what WP say regarding its guidelines against original research. I really feel you have not done that. If you read it carefully, I think you will see that we cannot split up the Chinese from the Latvians when our sources keep the together. They are like husband and wife - what authorizes a Wikipedian editor to divorce the two? Nada.
 * Another point is this: Remember our original title was restricted to the Revolution - that covers just one year: 1917. I suspect that since there's nothing really much to say about that, the title was expanded to cover the years of 1918-1920 (the Civil War). But by the similar methodology, we have no choice but to add the Latvians to their "spouses," so to speak, the Chinese. The only way to avoid that is to find a scholarly source which treats the Chinese separately.
 * I think, Rechard, that the only reason you do not agree with me on that is because you haven't yet had the opportunity to read up on OR.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Repeated, arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable reversions
I would appreciate it if User:Mikkalai stop reverting my work as he has done twice just now, without any effort to discuss the matter. Every effort I make to come to term with this editor is like confronting a brick wall. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please discuss your differences rather than edit warring. And please remain WP:CIVIL: calling another editor "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable" is not the way to try to open a dialogue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ludvikus, please do not refer to Mikkalai's edits as vandalism, WP:VAND is very clear that this is a content dispute and not vandalism. Your reverts are in no way more justified or noble than Mikkalia's, this edit warring needs to stop now. Both of you. 1 != 2  18:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Now I learned that it's content dispute. That's educational. So how can I ressolve the dispute - with you help please? --Ludvikus 18:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dispute resolution. 1 != 2  18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate it if you gave us both more specific advice. We are both experienced Wikipedians (him more than me). It is not like either of us is a novice. I'd like you to now that I've made several attemts to come to peace with this one editor. I've left a posting on his page, but he just wiped it out. Could you possibly mediate between us? Could you try to have a discussion with him as to how we can work on the article without him merely wiping out my work?
 * In the alternative, can you give me some more specific advise - like exactly where on the Guide page I should look?
 * Thank you. --Ludvikus 18:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

This edit warring has to stop. I have protected the page on, as it turns out, Ludvikus' latest revision. This is NOT an endorsement of that revision. Admins are not supposed to select which revision to protect. We The group of editors of this page should look at the disputed text and form a consensus on what to keep and what to change or delete. (Note: By "We", I meant the "editors of this page" not the "admins". Just making things clear.) --Richard 18:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not going to mediate, I don't know the subject enough. You can try mediation cabal if you think it will help, you can try filing an WP:RFC if you think it will help, but do not edit war. 1 != 2  02:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am fine with article protected with this glaring nonsense in the middle. I will not mediate with this obviously mentally damaged person. If wikipedia don't want or cannot deal with such people, my only answer here is the revert button. If you don't see the idiotism or intentional disruption in this page, let us wait until some newspaper makes a laughing stock of it. `'Míkka 03:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have neither sought to gain a greater consensus that this user is being disruptive nor have you sought dispute resolution. I see you being as disruptive to this article as Ludvikus, your behavior is very similar. While your differ on your point of view, you are both acting in a near identical manner. Your unwillingness to pursue dispute resolution in no way grants you any sort of privilege to edit war.
 * Yes I did seek for "greater consensus", but my request was ignored. I am not looking for privilege. I am saying I am at war with this person and will stay in it from now on. `'Míkka 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned right now we have a page that switches between two wrong versions, because neither enjoy consensus. This article will be of little value until this consensus is achieved. 1 != 2  03:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I dopnt' care about what you concerned about. What I am concerned is that nobody reasonable cared to see what really happens here. In addition to hypotheses of insanity and disruption I have a third, even better, hypothesis: since two deletion nominations of this guy were overwhelmingly rejected, he now deliberately sabotages the article by adding nonsense, so that during the third monination the article will be killed. Good luck with police work. It requires little brain power to protect an article. Like I said above, I even see an advantage of stupid version being protected, as long as sabotage of Ludvikus will not go any further. `'Míkka 04:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't care what I am concerned about ehh? I will keep that in mind. You are making no attempt at dispute resolution, or to address the behavioral issue through an uninvolved party, I will keep that in mind too. Since you don't care about these things I expect you to not edit war at all in the future because these are the sorts of things you need to care about to work in a collaborative editing environment. 1 != 2  15:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Source #5: Macine translation: "REDS & WHITES / Red Army, etc.
Translate again SYSTRAN - Internet translation technologies Add Babel Fish Translation to your site. Tip: You can now follow links on translated web pages.
 * Here's the rough translation of Source #5 :
 * "Aleksandr LARIN, the candidate of the philological sciences
 * RED And WHITE: Red Army men from The the podnebesnoy
 * '''The main reserve, from which in the years of revolution were drawn the personnel of Chinese Red Army men, was the hundred-thousand contingent of Chinese workers, recruited and brought into Russia (mainly into the European part of the country and in the Urals) during the First World War. Under the conditions of ruin and Civil War they proved to be in the trap, after being deprived of work, and the possibility to return to the native land. Bolsheviks, after unrolling agitation among the Chinese, proposed to them to fight for the victory of world revolution. On the calculations of specialists, the numbers of the Red Army and red partisans supplemented 30-40 thousand Chinese workers. Chinese diplomats in the years of Civil War called number into 60-70 thousands. Chinese warred at all fronts. From them were created the forces, companies, battalions and even regiments. In this case the overwhelming majority of Chinese in policy were not interested. For the workers, left to Russia, cherished dream it was return home. Such people dispatch in soldiers simply in order not to perish from hunger and cold in the strange country. In one of the reports of Chinese diplomats we read: "secretary whether invited recruited into the army workers into the embassy and frankly had a talk with them. They burst into tears and said: "perhaps it is possible to forget its native land? But in Russia it is very difficult to find work, but we do not have money to the return route. We cannot bring together ends with the ends, therefore they were written down in soldiers ". Thought about the construction of socialism especially did not disturb the minds of zheltolitsykh proletarians. Are exponential the recollections of the soldier Of futsina, it is later than Lenin served in the protection. In the spring of 1917, when the crowds of hungry coolies did ferment along the Ukrainian steppes, with the comrades met Russian, on the surname Ivanov. He said: "comrades in order to remain among the living, it is necessary to be organized and to begin to beat tsarist troops. In their warehouses is bread, and the clothing ". By this time whether "he already understood a little in Russian, and it felt that Ivanov rights". Sino-Russian force "began to accomplish films on the garrisons, to raid storages", derailed train with the ammunition. "later whether Futsin he understood that force lead the Bolsheviks". But political sympathies and antipathies were designated in the course of time among the medium Chinese workers. In the regions, occupied with white, the Chinese as before remained people of the second type, deprived and Beza any opening in the future. Moreover, under the conditions of Civil War white began to look on them as to the enemies, the accomplices of Bolsheviks, and respectively to be turned with them. "in the region troops of Donskoy, reported during April 1918 that authorized of Chinese embassy, cossacks and they until now arrest all without the exception of Chinese and are sent they into the reference, whose location to us is unknown. The same regime is established in the territory, occupied with volunteers "(i.e. by the voluntary army Of denikina. - authors). However, red promised to Chinese workers the overall protection of their interests. And not only they promised. The Chinese for the first time felt in red that with them they are turned as with the equal.'''
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Alexander Larin whom we know ? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bolshevik Tradition by Robert H. McNeal, p. 50
McNeal writes about the Constituent Assembly's dispersal but mentions no ethicity, Chinese or otherwise:

There is no further characterization of this event of the Russian Revolution by McNeal.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly dispersal - January 6, 1918
Corrections:


 * Sorry for my typographical error in transcribing the date. --Ludvikus 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

1997 Scholarship on the (Russian) Constituent Assembly

 * See Nikolai N. Smirnov
 * "Constituent Assembly"
 * in Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution 1914-1921
 * eds. Edward Acton, Vladimir Iu. Cherniaev, William G. Rosenberg
 * (Indiana University Press: Arnold, 1997)
 * ISBN 0-253-33333-4
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Will edit this page while protected
I don't know what the rest of the dispute is about, but the current passage about "Chinese shadows" is clearly some kind of bizarre WP:POINT vandalism, there's no way denying that. Unless somebody comes up with a serious defense that this was a good-faith addition, I'll be removing it despite the current protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have unprotected the page in the hopes that a neutral point of view can form now that there are more editors participating. 1 != 2  16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Chinese shadows" and unprotection of page
NOTE: Following discussion moved here from User talk:Until(1 == 2) to keep all article discussion on this page. --Richard 16:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your notice, but actually, I was indeed aware of the protection, and commented accordingly on the talk page earlier. This was not taking sides in a legitimate content dispute, but removal of vandalism - the passage about the "Chinese shadows" was so self-evidently nonsensical that it was safe to assume its addition had not been in good faith, and as such vandalistic. I believe I'm safely within the bounds of protection policy with this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, at my first glance it fits right into WP:VAND where is says NPOV violations and stubborn editing are not vandalism. However, if you think the content you removed was added in bad faith then it is vandalism, and I have no reason to doubt your convictions. I am glad there is another set of eyes on that article, perhaps it can move forward in a meaningful manner. 1 != 2  16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the same text and wanted to delete it because it seemed to make a flimsy argument (that the reference to "Chinese shadows" contributed to the idea that there were Chinese troops in the Russian Revolution) but held back because of the protection. I disagree that it was vandalism but the article is much better off without the text so I think the current situation (text deleted, article unprotected) is far superior to the previous one (text in, article protected).  --Richard 16:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you do not disapprove of me removing the protection from that page, I have come to respect your judgement.


 * In a more general line, certain parties on that page are very keen to find some sort of "unfairness" to refer to in defense of their ideas. We need to be careful not to give this to said parties. It is also in our personal interest to maintain a level of fairness to give credibility and reason to any final decision that is made in this matter. 1 != 2  16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese shadows"
As I've just assured User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on his Talk page,
 * the above exact quotation was not placed in Bad Faith in the article. Quite the contrary.


 * It comes from p. 373 of that acclaimed biographer, Isaac Deutscher.
 * I'm certainly not going to inflame matters any more by any action which is not sufficiently prolonged in time
 * so as to give Wikipedians an opportunity to digest this rather indigestable matter.


 * I would appreciate it, however, User Future Perfect at Sunrise,
 * if you were to explain to me why or how you came to the conclusion
 * that this contribution was Vandalism. That is an amazing surprise to me.


 * Can you please explain how you arrived at that deduction?
 * Thank you.
 * Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you insane? Are you absolutely off your rocker? A passing mention of "chinese shadows" by way of simile is patent nonsense when added to this article. It is meaningless. It is of such irrelevance I am flabbergasted. Stop adding such rubbish or you will be summarily blocked for trolling. Moreschi Talk 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you do not stop insulting other editors and begin to discuss here in a calm, professional manner (as you have been asked now no fewer than five times), you will be reported for disruption. Badagnani 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhm, if this was directed at Moreschi, are you confusing different people here? Moreschi was never involved in this talk before. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake. The rhetoric seemed so familiar to me, I somehow neglected to note that this is a different individual making comments in a similarly accusatory tone. Badagnani 20:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Okay - But be that as it may, as for the outburst: we have a problem here. Wikipedia normal dispute resolution processes, with their emphasis on politeness and respect and all, are designed on the basis a fundamental expectation that editors will be able to uphold a certain minimum level of rational discourse and logical thought. We need to find out how to deal with a case where this expectation is evidently not true. I totally support that we should no longer treat Ludovikus as a fellow editor with whom we should or must engage in rational debate. He is evidently not able to reciprocate. There may be no need to shout at him because of this, but the hard fact is there and I'm not sure how one could find a friendly way of saying it. I share in Moreschi's flabbergastedness. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears we have a difference of opinion. From my vantage point, scholarly authorities do not attribute any notable role to the Chinese in the Russian Revolution. What we do have, however, is that simile which you do not like. Until such time as we find an authoritative source which tells us what the role of the Chinese was in the Russian Revolution, I think it good literary and Wikipedia style to include the simile, which is not mine, which involved "Chinese shadows." I do not know why you take it upon yourself to disparage the words of the Bolshevik highest military officer who was carrying out the orders of Lenin and Trotsky. I'm not saying that it's true. I'm saying it's not for us to say.
 * In the alternative, can you tell us of any notable event involving the Chinese in the Russian Revolution?
 * Cheers. --Ludvikus 17:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe "Chinese shadows" would be a metaphor, not a simile. Badagnani 20:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact usage from The Prophet Armed, Trotsky: 1879-1921, Vol. I, by Isaac Deutscher, (New York: Vintage Books, 1954C, 1965), p 373 is as follows:


 * This is contained in the footnote which Deutscher has in turn taken from Zapiski Tsen. Kom., p. 200, in which the statement is said to have originally bee made by Antonov-Ovseenko. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Thank you again, Badagnani, for teaching me how to use Wikipedia's  .  --Ludvikus 22:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The "like Chinese shadows" is clearly a simile and only relevant if one wants to make an argument that the alleged use of Chinese troops is merely a misunderstanding of this quote and that no Chinese troops were actually deployed during the so-called dispersal of the Russian Constituent Assembly. Since you have made arguments along these lines on various Talk Pages, one assumes that this is what you intended by this edit.  If so, this is clearly WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and, since OR is one of your hobbyhorses, I don't need to explain to you why this is OR.
 * --69.236.166.145 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another comment made by me after I was auto-logged off. Sorry. --Richard 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has hired lawyers. Not it seems that it needs profesional shrinks. Have fun with mentally decapacitated person. It is amazing how a single persistent disruptor may play with heads of five admins and growing crowd. `'Míkka 15:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is the role of the Chinese shadows. What role did they have in the Russian Revolution. What the well cited source says is that at the "dispersal" of the Russian Constituent Assembly it appears that the so-called Chinese and Lett regiments only needed to disperse the participants "like Chinese shadows." That's what the source says. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This remark is a clear demonstration of the unfitness of the person to logical reasoning. We have thousands of books that say nothing about the topic. Imagine if we start quoting all them in articles about a topic. `'Míkka 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

This outburst of passion also shows genuine lack of understanding of the expresion. "Chinese shadows" is this. `'Míkka 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Simile vs. metaphor
Well, I was wondering why "like Chinese shadows" was a metaphor and not a simile when I was pretty sure it was a simile. So I consulted my favorite resource (Wikipedia, of course) and here's what I found...

From the article on Metaphor...
 * Metaphor and simile are two of the best known tropes and are often mentioned together as examples of rhetorical figures. Metaphor and simile are both terms that describe a comparison: the only difference between a metaphor and a simile is that a simile makes the comparison explicit by using "like" or "as." The Colombia Encyclopedia, 6th edition, explains the difference as:


 * a simile states that A is like B, a metaphor states that A is B or substitutes B for A.

According to this definition, then, "You are my sunshine" is a metaphor whereas "Your eyes are like the sun" is a simile. However, some describe similes as simply a specific type of metaphor (see Joseph Kelly's The Seagull Reader (2005), pages 377-379). Most dictionary definitions of both metaphor and simile support the classification of similes as a type of metaphor, and historically it appears the two terms were used essentially as synonyms.


 * Despite the similarity of the two figures, and the fact that they have historically been used as synonyms, it is the distinction between them which is normally focused upon when the terms are introduced to students. Ironically, "not knowing the difference between a simile and a metaphor" is sometimes used as a euphemism for knowing little about rhetoric or literature. Of course, someone truly versed in rhetoric understands that there is very little difference between metaphor and simile, and that the distinction is trivial compared to, for example, the difference between metonymy and metaphor. Nonetheless, many lists of literary terms define metaphor as "a comparison not using like or as", showing the emphasis often put on teaching this distinction.

--69.236.166.145 04:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The above was written by me, not some "anonymous troll" --Richard 04:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck in wasting your time on issues that have no slightest relation to the topic of the article. It is amazing how a single person can shrink heads of many. `'Míkka 17:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please, this is now the fifth request: do not insult other editors here; please focus on the issues of the article in a calm and professional way. Speaking in this manner so consistently does undermine your credibility. Badagnani 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am repeating for the fourth time: I will contribute professionally to this article only when trolling stops. I don't care about my "credibility". I don't think my credibility means much for a person who passionately wants this article destroyed. Finally, in case you didn't learn this yet, wikipedians' credibility has nothing to do with article content: please spend some time perusing Attribution and all policies mentioned in it. `'Míkka 18:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - It seems hard to know this, because you spend at least 80 percent of your words using terms of verbal abuse against other editors and 20 percent or less actually discussing the text of the article in a calm, professional manner. Badagnani 19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it's not at all a matter of "a single person," but mostly User:Mikkalai vs. User:Ludvikus. I very much would like to hear the views of others. As Adminstrator User:Banno has informed us (and I'm sure he's looking over our shoulders as we speak right now like the Olmypian gods) Wikipedia seeks consensus. So "please, please, please, ..." as Admisitrator User: BrownHairedGirl (another Olypian goddess looking from above) likes to say, let's have a third view which takes into account the views of us both. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 17:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the sake of the content of this article, I think I should inform everyone that I've made an offer of Peace to Administrator Mikkalai, but he merely deleted it, and called it trolling. I have absolutely no idea how to come to terms with him.
 * At the same time, I think no one has noticed that he has just Reverted my work for the 3rd time, there violating the WP:3RR guidelines. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the sake of the Article, here's my Peace offering which Mikkalai rejected as trolling.:

I truly would like to make Peace with Mikkalai. But I cannot figure out what I should do - except that he implies that that I need lessons in logic or visit a shrink - both of which I disagree with. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

From a rabbi: Patience please
I actually started to write this a few hours ago and then accidentally closed my browser before I finished. However, since Ludvikus asked, I will try again.


 * NOTE: I wrote this before I read Mikka's rabbi joke. As it turns out, it is particularly apt to what I wrote.  I fear that what I write below will seem like "Mikka, you're right" and "Ludvikus, you're right".  And even "Isaac, you're right".


 * The truth is: they're both right and they're both possibly wrong. When they can see that and seek a NPOV stance that reflects both their positions, then there will be peace.

Both User:Mikkalai and User:Ludvikus have valid points. Neither of them is totally right and neither is totally wrong. The truth is... this is a difficult topic to write about because of the near lack of reliable sources, especially modern-day sources 1in English that are available online.

Ludvikus is not a troll although his style of arguing is often trollish. We need him to stop being so nasty and needling in the way he makes his points. We also need Mikkalai to be more civil. Dismissing a good-faith editor as a troll is uncivil even he is particularly persistent, obstinate and annoying.

Ludvikus argued that the lack of coverage by reliable sources (historians, in this case) suggests that the topic is not encyclopedic. Until recently, he argued that all the sources provided seemed to be primary sources and this suggested that the article constituted WP:OR. If there were no secondary sources at all, his argument would have been on firmer ground. However, after looking into Google Books, I was able to find some secondary sources and so the article does seem to have some basis in fact.

One unresolved issue, however, is whether the Chinese actually played a significant role in the Red Army. One estimate says they were 30,000 - 40,000; another says 60,000-80,000. Total size of the Red Army in 1920? Over a million men. So, on the one side, they were a substantial number ("tens of thousands"); on the other side, they did not constitute a significant fraction of the Red Army (less than 10%, maybe less than 5%). I have changed the article text to reflect both of these facts.

Did the Chinese play a significant role in the Russian Civil War? This is difficult to determine. One source praises the Chinese as being effective and industrious. They were in "virtually every theater of the Russian Civil War". On both the Red and the White sides but apparently more on the Red than the White.

They were noticeable enough to spark criticism from the White Russians and anti-Bolshevik Socialists.

But was their role significant enough to warrant mention in Wikipedia?

What about the Letts and the Hungarians? Do they warrant their own article? How about the Czechoslovak Legion? And the Americans and the Japanese?

What is the best way to organize these little nuggest of history?

My compromise proposal is that we change the title of this article to Foreign troops in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War.

--Richard 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think this is a very reasonable suggestion. Each of the major non-Russian ethnic groups can be discussed. The Chinese do seem to have served primarily as troops and, as they were not ethnic Russians or Russian citizens, not in positions of leadership in the communist party. So the title seems apt. Badagnani 20:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - The words "in the" are not required in the new title because, due to these words' use in the first instance, they are understood. Badagnani 20:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * An amendment Thank you both for the consenses, and particularly you, Richard, for you valuable criticism which I'll do my best to absorb under the asumption that it was made in good faith. I definite go with this consensus. It does improve things tremedously. However, I must make this crutial observation. The Red Army was created at the start of the Russian Civil War. During the Russian Revolution the military force was known as the Red Guards (Russia). So as things stand, it appears that the Chinese did not play any role in the Russian Revolution. So I would recommend instead a further amendment as follows: Foreign troops in the Russian Civil War. However, I will go along with the consensus if you guy do not wish to adopt my further amendment at this stage. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'd like to have a summary of the evidence Chinese played a role (if any) in the Russian Revolution before agreeing to this amendment. Badagnani 20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You just confused me. I though you agreed with Richard just a moment ago, did you not? I agree with your latest request for evidence. But I'm now confused as to where you stood, or stand? --Ludvikus 20:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am addressing your amendment only. I would like to see a summary of the available evidence showing that these ethnic groups did, or did not participate in the Russian Revolution. We agree that they did participate in the Russian Civil War. Badagnani 21:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WP article on Latvian troops
Has this article been examined? Latvian_riflemen. Badagnani 20:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you saing that this shows that there were no Chinese involved? --Ludvikus 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Are you? I'm afraid I can't understand your question (you did not answer mine). Badagnani 21:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the guy who also was asking for citations from the beginning. So it seems that we agree that there's no "evidence," to use your word, for the Chinese in the Revolution. Let me remind everyone, that the use of force in the Revolution occurred on one day that's of concern to us it seems, January 6, 191 7 8. That's the day of the disperslal of the Constituent Assembly. --Ludvikus 21:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Ludvikus means January 6, 1918. [Sorry 1918 --Ludvikus 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)}]
 * And, unfortunately, that's the one event about which there is some ambiguity as to whether force was even used at all! As Ludvikus has pointed out, some accounts suggest that the Constitutent Assembly met on 5 January and was allowed to continue until 4am the next day at which point they were told "the guards are getting sleepy".  They passed a few quick resolutions and adjourned at 5am to the next day.  When they returned the following afternoon, they found that they were locked out and met elsewhere but never managed to regain control of the government.
 * The real violence of the October Revolution seems to have taken place in October (surprise!) when the Bolsheviks launched an assault on the Winter Palace (25/26 October). There's no mention of the use of Chinese troops there so the support for the use of Chinese troops in the Russian Revolution rests on this charge documented by Trotsky that the Bolsheviks had used Chinese and Lettish troops in dispersing the Russian Constitutent Assembly.
 * In summary, I'd be OK with Foreign troops in the Russian Civil War until such time as it can be shown that foreign troops of any nationality were used in the Russian Revolution. Let's be clear, though.  Is there a date or event that separates the Revolution from the Civil War?  Is it Jan. 6, 1918 - the date of the "dispersal" of the Russian Constitutent Assembly or is it October 26, the date of that the Winter Palace was taken over?
 * --Richard 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, after reading all this with increasing disbelief, this is my vote: as a rename would be tantamount to a deletion; and there have been two AfDs already, I propose there cannot possibly be a re-name until the moment the trolling stops. Trolling should not be rewarded, however persistent it may be.--Paul Pieniezny 22:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Trolling should not be rewarded" : Agreed but what is the definition of "trolling"? What if the troll has a valid point?  Is he still a troll because his interaction style was trollish?  Yeah, yeah, I know.  WP:DUCK.
 * I refuse to let personal interaction styles get in the way of improving the project. Both sides have been uncivil.  Uncivil #1 wanted to delete the article text altogether.  We have shown that the topic is factual.  What we're not sure about right now is whether it is encyclopedic.  I am arguing that it is encyclopedic in a context that focuses on the fact that these troops were not Russian and de-emphasizes the fact that they were Chinese.


 * Moreover, I disagree that a rename and the affiliated rescoping would be "tantamount to a deletion". Practically all the text of the current article would be kept (at least, this is my vision).  What we would be doing is de-emphasizing the significance of "Chinese in the Russian Civil War" and merging that topic in with that of "foreigners including Chinese, Letts and Hungarians".  Do you have an argument that "Chinese in the Red Army" is a topic notable in its own right?
 * --Richard 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will only answer your last point - I can read some Russian and I know there is enough meat in these sources: Wikipedia is not paper. Oh, and the people who voted for keeping this (grafikm and Molobo on the same side, well, well, well!) knew very well from past experiences (we have had a lot of "Soviet Occupation of" thingies recently) that a rename was a possible choice. And did not believe it was necessary. As for the duck, Chinese shadows was not the first quack I noticed here. And no, I am not editing the article before the trolling stops. --Paul Pieniezny 01:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was my question never answered, yet other issues were brought up under this subheading? That is not proper. Badagnani 22:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Your question was whether that section had been considered. Answering just for myself, I read the link.  I would propose copying that text into the expanded Foreigners in the Red Army during the Russian Civil War article.
 * --Richard 23:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)