![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That is not a proper use of an established Racist, Antisemitic, Poster. -- Ludvikus 04:49, 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)
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)
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)
--
Richard
Unsigned, anonymous, Trolling comments of unregistered Users should not be allowed here, in deletion discussions. --
Ludvikus
12:57, 11 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.
(though he also was a reporter on the RR, & close to Trosky).
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)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
OK. Let's move to the Second reference:
Chinese served in the Cheka <ref> 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.</ref>,
Can you please WP editor give us the page number which supports the allegation that "Chinese served in the Cheka?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Mikka,
You deleted this sentence.
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)
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)
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" is probematic for the same reasons. -- Ludvikus 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Do we have here one or two separate articles collected together under one WP contrived article?
What role did the Chinese play in the Russian Revolution?
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".
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
“ | 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. | ” |
Badagnani 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please address this, thank you. Badagnani 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
Also, what about the 500 bodyguards? Is that also false?
-- 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)
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)
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: [7]. -- Ludvikus 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Surprise !!! -- Ludvikus 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
This text (above) - from the Red Scare period, is an unreliable and improper source.
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)
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)
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)
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 {{fact}} tags on those words. I think Ludvikus is right in principle but I think edit warring over {{fact}} 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)
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 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)
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)
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."
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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. WeThe 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)
Translate again
SYSTRAN - Internet translation technologies Add Babel Fish Translation to your site. Tip: You can now follow links on translated web pages.
Is this the Alexander Larin whom we know [9]? Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
McNeal writes about the Constituent Assembly's dispersal but mentions no ethicity, Chinese or otherwise:
“ | Early in the morning of the 19th [of January 1917] a detachment of sailors insisted on adjournment for some rest, and armed force prevented the resumption of the session later in the day. | ” |
There is no further characterization of this event of the Russian Revolution by McNeal.
Corrections:
“ | We are informed by the biographer of Trotsky, Isaac Deutscher, what transpired on the day of The Assembly was dispersed on 6 January [1918] before his [Trotsky's] return to Petrograd. When he arrived, on the 7th, he and Lenin had a moment of anxiety because the adherents of the Assembly seemed on the point of organizing a strong popular protest against the dispersal. But the protest fizzled out inconsequentially— ...".[8] |
” |
I don't know what the rest of the dispute is about, but the current passage about "Chinese shadows" ( [10]) 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)
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)
As I've just assured User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on his Talk page,
“ | ' The adherents of the Assembly had come, had made a glorious noise, and had dissappeared like Chinese shadows.' | ” |
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)
This outburst of passion also shows genuine lack of understanding of the expresion. "Chinese shadows" is this. `' Míkka 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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...
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.
-- 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)
“ |
|
” |
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)
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.
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)
Has this article been examined? Latvian_riflemen#Red_Latvian_Riflemen. Badagnani 20:56, 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)
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
That is not a proper use of an established Racist, Antisemitic, Poster. -- Ludvikus 04:49, 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)
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)
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)
--
Richard
Unsigned, anonymous, Trolling comments of unregistered Users should not be allowed here, in deletion discussions. --
Ludvikus
12:57, 11 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.
(though he also was a reporter on the RR, & close to Trosky).
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)
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.)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
OK. Let's move to the Second reference:
Chinese served in the Cheka <ref> 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.</ref>,
Can you please WP editor give us the page number which supports the allegation that "Chinese served in the Cheka?
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)
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)
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)
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)
Mikka,
You deleted this sentence.
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)
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)
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" is probematic for the same reasons. -- Ludvikus 05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Do we have here one or two separate articles collected together under one WP contrived article?
What role did the Chinese play in the Russian Revolution?
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".
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
“ | 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. | ” |
Badagnani 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Please address this, thank you. Badagnani 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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?
Also, what about the 500 bodyguards? Is that also false?
-- 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)
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)
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: [7]. -- Ludvikus 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Surprise !!! -- Ludvikus 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
This text (above) - from the Red Scare period, is an unreliable and improper source.
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)
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)
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)
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 {{fact}} tags on those words. I think Ludvikus is right in principle but I think edit warring over {{fact}} 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)
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 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)
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)
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."
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?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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. WeThe 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)
Translate again
SYSTRAN - Internet translation technologies Add Babel Fish Translation to your site. Tip: You can now follow links on translated web pages.
Is this the Alexander Larin whom we know [9]? Yours truly, -- Ludvikus 21:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
McNeal writes about the Constituent Assembly's dispersal but mentions no ethicity, Chinese or otherwise:
“ | Early in the morning of the 19th [of January 1917] a detachment of sailors insisted on adjournment for some rest, and armed force prevented the resumption of the session later in the day. | ” |
There is no further characterization of this event of the Russian Revolution by McNeal.
Corrections:
“ | We are informed by the biographer of Trotsky, Isaac Deutscher, what transpired on the day of The Assembly was dispersed on 6 January [1918] before his [Trotsky's] return to Petrograd. When he arrived, on the 7th, he and Lenin had a moment of anxiety because the adherents of the Assembly seemed on the point of organizing a strong popular protest against the dispersal. But the protest fizzled out inconsequentially— ...".[8] |
” |
I don't know what the rest of the dispute is about, but the current passage about "Chinese shadows" ( [10]) 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)
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)
As I've just assured User:Future Perfect at Sunrise on his Talk page,
“ | ' The adherents of the Assembly had come, had made a glorious noise, and had dissappeared like Chinese shadows.' | ” |
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)
This outburst of passion also shows genuine lack of understanding of the expresion. "Chinese shadows" is this. `' Míkka 16:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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...
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.
-- 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)
“ |
|
” |
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)
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.
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)
Has this article been examined? Latvian_riflemen#Red_Latvian_Riflemen. Badagnani 20:56, 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)
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)