This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Please place quesitions and suggestions about the expansion of the article here. I will address them when trolls go away and I can work normally. `'Míkka15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have detected, it turns out that the theme of Chinese in Russia has grown explosively in Russian publications in recent years because of growing penetration of Chinese workforce into Siberia and Far East, both legal and illegal. And the history of Revolution pops up again. Therefore I am leaving this topic to be finished by Russian wikipedians. Here are some solid refs found in first 290 seconds of Russian google search:
And here is an explanation why this topic has been ridiculously unknown: information about Chinese in revolution was censored in Soviet Union. [1] "Интересно, что цензура всё-таки запретила один документ районных Советов: там было упоминание... о китайских рабочих в 1917 г. в Петрограде!
"
[2]Союз китайских рабочих, разместившийся в бывшем китайском посольстве, и Комитет корейских рабочих (или Корейский национальный Совет) – Кук-мин-хэ. Интересно, что Корейский национальный Совет утвердил особый значок для ношения всеми корейцами: «Все корейцы для отличия от других национальностей обязаны носить особый значок».
[3] К 1917 г. в Петрограде проживало несколько тысяч китайцев, преимущественно занятых в качестве промышленных рабочих. В декабре 1917 г. в Петрограде был создан Союз китайских рабочих в России, который объединял организации китайских трудящихся, созданные в крупных городах России. Китайский интернационалист Шэн Ченхо в 1918 г. организовал отряд китайских интернационалистов, а в 1917 г. руководил первым китайским отрядом, сражавшимся против Корнилова и Каледина.
Book [4] А. Г. Ларин
Китайцы в России вчера и сегодня: исторический очерк Издательство: Муравей, 2003 г.
Мягкая обложка, 224 стр.
ISBN5-84630092-8
Тираж: 1000 экз.
Формат: 60x90/16
После разрушительных бурь революции и гражданской войны количество китайцев в России (теперь уже СССР) сильно сократилось. Этому способствовала и возобновившаяся репатриация китайских рабочих. Так, в июле 1922 года в торжественной обстановке, с речами и оркестром из Петрограда был отправлен «первый эшелон с китайскими рабочими на их родину». По переписи 1923 года, число их на Дальнем Востоке уменьшилось до 50 183 человек, а затем вновь стало возрастать. Согласно переписи 1926 года, на Дальнем Востоке уже проживало 71,6 тыс. китайцев (по языку), а всего в СССР — 101,7 тыс. (Столь значительный рост населения может быть объяснен как притоком мигрантов, так и более тщательным учетом числа жителей.)
Евгений Дмитриевич Поливанов (1891--1938) -- один из "троицы" русских языковедов XX в., оказавших наиболее заметное влияние на формирование современного облика лингвистической науки. ... Заведовал восточным отделом Наркоминдела. Был одним из организаторов "Союза китайских рабочих".
United States. Congress. Senate. Judiciary Committee. "Bolshevik
propaganda. Hearings before a subcommittee of the committee on the
judiciary. United States Senate. Sixty-fifth congress. Third session and
thereafter pursuant to S. Res. 439 and 469. February 11, 1919 to March 10,
1919", Washington, Government Printing Office, 1919; U.S. Supt. of Docs.
No. Y 4.J 89/2:B 63/40
Сенатор Стерлинг: Верно ли, что солдаты идут к
большевикам отчасти из-за платы?
М-р Фрэнсис: Китайцы были принуждены идти в их армию
голодом. Для тех, кто не идет в армию, продовольствия нет.
Сенатор Нельсон: Эти китайцы работали на
строительстве мурманской железной дороги?
М-р Фрэнсис: В 1916 году, когда я приехал, в России было
около 400.000 китайских рабочих. Я не знаю, сколько из них уехало
назад домой, но я знаю, что десятки тысяч из них сейчас в
большевистской армии. Иначе они не могли достать пропитания.
from a forum: names and ates for verification/search:
Уже в 1917 году был сформирован первый китайский батальон под командованием Са Фуяна.
В начале 1918 года даже был создан штаб формирования китайских отрядов в РСФСР.
С весны 1918 года на северном Кавказе действовал батальон плд командованием Пау Тисана.
В 1918 году китайский батальон под командованием Жен Фучена вел бои на Урале и позже воевал в составе Уральской армии под командованием Блюхера.
В январе-августе 1919 года было сформировано 8 интернациональных китайских отрядов (в т.ч. Образцовый китайский полк), которые вошли в состав 3-й, 4-й и %-й армий восточного фронта, 10-й, 11-й и 12-й армий Южного фронта, 6-й и 7-й армий на Севре.
Из публикаций газеты «Вечерний Свердловск» от 23 июля 1988 года:
«Четыре дня гостила в Свердловске семья китайского интернационалиста Жень Фученя. Те, кому довелось с ней познакомиться, наверняка будут долго вспоминать этих добрых, удивительно сердечных людей, искренне любящих нашу страну. А теперь можем сказать — и наш край.
Их недолгая поездка была богата интересными событиями, запоминающимися встречами. Жень Дунлян, сын героя, его жена Сун Фэнцинь и их сын Жень Гунвэй побывали на станции Выя, расположенной недалеко от Нижней Туры. Осенью 1918 года, сдерживая белогвардейцев, там насмерть стоял полк китайских интернационалистов. В ночь на 29 ноября погиб в бою командир полка Жень Фучень. Сотни бойцов похоронены в братской могиле на станции. Сейчас здесь установлен памятник.
На встречу с Жень Дунляном, чье детство прошло на Урале, собрались не только жители маленького пристанционного поселка, но и краеведы, учителя, школьники, представители общественности нескольких районов области.
По древнему китайскому обычаю сын привез на могилу отца горсть пепла с могилы матери, а на родину увезет горсть уральской земли.
— Я от всего сердца выражаю благодарность жителям Выи, которые сохранили память о моем отце, — сказал, обращаясь к собравшимся, Жень Дунлян.
Побывали китайские гости и в семье В. В. Блюхера, сына маршала В. К. Блюхера, работавшего в Китае военным советником. В Доме мира и дружбы их тепло принимали ветераны Великой Отечественной войны и труда, а Жень Гунвэй был, кроме того, и гостем свердловских комсомольцев — членов штаба операции «Коммунары». —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkalai (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A really unanswered question is where, when and how they were removed from Russia. In comparison, Korean migrants stayed. My educated guess is that they moved into the Chinese own Revolution, which Koreans were nowhere to go. But I didn't write my guesswork into the artcle. `'Míkka04:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we at least have translations into English of the authors' names and the titles of the sources? That would help us know if a Romanized Russian name is the same author as one of the ones in Cyrillic. This being the English Wikipedia, most of us can't read Russian.
I would like to question the title of the article. Isn't it too general? As far as I understand, the issue is about particlepation of Chinese regiments, not just chinese people. Mukadderat22:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid to disagree here. Respected User:Richardshusr suggested a good title for a new article. However the current article is not about "foreign troops". It is about "Russian troops", in which regiments composed of ethnic Chinese served. Mukadderat22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about Russian troops, as China and Latvia were not part of the nation of Russia at that time. It is about troops from these foreign nations serving in various Russian armies. Badagnani22:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about troops from China. The article is about troops from Russia which employed Chinese mercenaries not affiliated with the state of China in any way. Mukadderat22:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. the current article is about Chinese individuals in the Red Army not Chinese troops operating under the Chinese flag. --Richard23:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a more general note, Mukadderat raises a good point and I'm willing to modify my proposal to accomodate his concerns. My proposed title Foreign troops in the Russian Civil War would have been a survey article that combined a few disparate items which may or may not belong together. Let's describe the vision and then discuss whether it makes sense or not.
Chinese and Lettish individuals formed entire battalions and regiments which fought in the Red Army. There were some Chinese in the White Army but we don't know much about them.
Hungarians also served, I think. But I don't know much about them. Were there Hungarian battalions or a Hungarian regiments in the Red Army?
There was the Czechoslovak Legion which became allied with the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War. These foreign troops fighting under their own flags but in support of the White movement were different from the Lettish and Chinese troops who were operating under the flag of the Red Army and were basically mercenaries.
I have no doubts that these pieces are taken from the quoted sources, but I am afraid that they cannot be stated as a matter of indisputable fact; at most as an opinion of the books author.
"who sided with the urban proletariat" - sounds like a piece of Bolshevik propaganda and contradicts to the following piece I also find dubious
"they were seldom able to understand Russian which kept them insulated from outside influences" - the first issue is how come they were not insulated from "bolshevik influences" if such was the case. The second issue is what influences there could be? I doubt that there was radio or newspapers for propaganda. even if it were I'd rather assume that they were indifferent for "outside" simply because it is a foreign country, and they simply had no reason to take any sides. As the article writes, they served for Reds and for Whites, ie., who paid money. I seriously doubt there were many people driven by ideology among ditch diggers and heavy load carriers. Mukadderat23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. The problem is that we are taking information from diverse sources who don't have the same perspective on this topic. In this case, we are looking at writings from Brian Murphy and Mikhail Khostov.
I don't know anything about Khostov but, you're right, he writes in a pro-Bolshevik tone. Murphy is more even-handed.
Mukadderat is right that the first paragraph is too sweeping in its assertion that "The Chinese with the Red Army ... sided with the urban proletariat with whom they worked.
The best read on this issue comes from the third paragraph in the section which says:
Some sincerely sympathized with the Bolsheviks who treated them as "proletarian brothers". Others simply joined the Red Army in order to survive and others wanted to fight their way home to China. Still others were recruited by the White Army.[4]
My read is that some of the Chinese "sincerely sympathized with the Bolsheviks". Presumably, these Chinese could speak Russians. Others just wanted to " to survive and/or fight their way home to China". Presumably, these were less "socially and politically conscious". They are probably more likely to have been unable to speak Russian. So, this is all WP:OR of course, but we can imagine that the Russian-speaking Chinese who sided with the Bolsheviks said to the others who didn't speak Russian, "Look, our best bet is to side with the Bolsheviks. They will treat us well and we'll get home somehow at the end of all this." Some Chinese may have said "I don't want to fight." Others may have said "I will fight with the Whites". But enough were willing to fight with the Bolsheviks that there were "tens of thousands" of Chinese in the Red Army.
I agree with you Richard, wholeheartedly (this is no flattery). Especially as you point out the distinction here about WP:OR.
Furthermore, regarding User:Mukadderat's observations as to pro-Bolshevik propaganda, I want to emphasise, once again, that we must also be equally cautious against monarchist propaganda, White Russian propaganda, Red Scare propaganda, and even contemporary neo-nationalist propaganda from Eastern Europe where the people have lived under the Soviet yoke for so long. That's why it's so important to look for scholarly works with peer review, and not engage in reckless Original research involving putting together information from diverse sources which establish that the Chinese played a notable role worthy of the original title Chinese in the Russian Revolution. Yours truly, --Ludvikus23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's better to present all available evidence and characterize the source, letting the reader decide which sources are reliable and which ones are less so. That would be preferable to us deciding that a source is "unreliable" and thus dismissing the information and making a decision for the reader. Then the anti-Communists dismiss "Communist propaganda" and the Communists dismiss "capitalist propaganda" and nobody learns anything.
Even scholars and historians have their biases. Nobody is truly neutral so NPOV is about presenting all points of view rather than about presenting the TRUTH.
I'm not sure who Brian Murphy is (most reliable sources are probably scholars but not notable enough to be in Wikipedia so the wikilink isn't likely to be useful). However, here is a URL to the book that is cited.
He has written a number of books about Russian military history. For a while, I was wondering if he was the Belarussian Foreign Minister but that's probably another guy with the same name.
Ok. Here's the 1st item: "Murphy, Brian. Cass Military Studies Series. Routledge, London and New York, 2005. xvi + 196 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Appendices. Select bibliography. Index. £65.00."
What does it matter whether the first book has any relation to "Rostov in the Russian Civil War"? The point is Brian Murphy is arguably a reliable source on the Russian Civil War. Is there a point you are trying to make here? --Richard05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The next makes me want to run to Barnes and Noble: "Mikhail Khvostov was born in Moscow in 1950. He has been interested in military history since childhood. He studied at the Moscow College for Foreign Languages. He has worked as an interpreter and a tour guide, but is now producing Russian toy soldiers – a childhood dream. His previous work for Osprey includes Men-at-Arms 305 The Russian Civil War (2) White Armies. He is married and lives in Moscow". Ibid., --Ludvikus01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote was about the fact that Chinese soldiers in the Red Army wore the same uniforms as Russian soldiers. Presumably Khvostov has reason to know about Red Army uniforms. That single assertion is all that the Khvostov quote is supporting although, by implication, it suggests that this is one more source that asserts that there were Chinese soldiers in the Red Army and that such presence was notable enough to be considered worthwhile military trivia almost 90 years later. This was one of a trio of quotes that convinced me that we were dealing with factually based assertions of Chinese soldiers in the Red Army and not scurrilous propaganda fabricated by anti-Bolsheviks. Before finding these three sources, I was honestly unsure. --Richard05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic escapes me. Is the book notable? If not, then it doesn't warrant an article. Are you suggesting an article about the book as a sarcastic way of suggesting that this article's topic is equally non-notable? Please stop wasting our time with these roundabout arguments. Just come out and say what you mean and let's discuss the main argument directly. --Richard05:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be even better if you didn't raise rhetorical questions (I notice you are doing that a lot), but simply state who you believe which ethnic groups the images in the book cover represent. Further, how would it "prove" there were no Chinese involved in the Russian Revolution by showing that there are no Chinese in the book cover? That doesn't extrapolate for me. The text of the book must be examined, not just the cover. Badagnani01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1919 White Army propaganda poster from the Russian Civil War era (1918-1921), depicting Leon Trotsky as a demonic figure. Caption reads "Peace and Freedom in Sovdepiya". Chinese soldiers wearing blue and gold uniforms are depicted executing a prisoner and shoveling bones.
You haven't answered what I asked (was I not clear), which was which ethnic groups do you believe to be contained in the book cover photograph you uploaded (and which now seems to have been deleted). The man with the red-and-white-striped headdress must be a Latvian, as those are the colors and form of the Latvian flag. Badagnani01:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not into interpreting the meaning or content of images. That's improper Original Research. Neither do I think any WP articles includes any proper descriptive commentary except clear Facts, such as Author, Year, Publisher. All this discription of Covers and Posters is completely improper. Yours truly, --Ludvikus01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the reason the image disappeared is because Administrator User:Mikkalai has just deleted it. I think that was either in Bad Faith, or rash, or unfair, as I'm proposing that we write an article about this book(s). Yours truly, --Ludvikus01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that, after yourself adding the book cover here, presumably to show that it depicted a Latvian (after all, he was wearing what appears to be a Latvian flag on his head), to complement the poster showing Chinese soldiers, that now you state that you're not sure it was a Latvian--and in fact state that images should not be used at all. I'm surprised the image was deleted so quickly, as we should all exercise all due deliberation in everything we do, and never act in a rash manner. Badagnani02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the book cover illustration again here, and now I'm not convinced it is a Latvian insignia, which I had assumed from your earlier post (I thought you were suggesting it as a complement to the propaganda poster depicting Chinese, so that there would be an illustration of both Chinese and Lettish military personnel). The Latvian flag's red is very deep, a burgundy sort of color, and the red bands surround the white. Badagnani02:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing me with User:Mikkalai. I'm not here to analyze the ethnic make-up of the Red Army. That is the work of Mikkalai. I'm saying we have no ground to isolate the Chinese. I've indicated that where the Chinese were mentioned the Letts were also. Also, when we look at the book, it is about the Red Army, not about the Chinese Red Army. That's enough for now. Why on earth Mikkalai wishes to single out the Chinese for special treatment I still do not know. I have not read his Russian Cyrilic sources, and he has not been at all cooperative in giving us an exact translation. Yours truly, --Ludvikus02:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. So we have a consensus of three! So why don't you, Badagnani, make that name change. There is no one who has voiced an opposing view. It seems like we're making progress. Yours truly, --Ludvikus02:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will ask kindly for the sixth time, please stop using this sort of language here, or I will report you for disruption. Badagnani04:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know who you think might vandalize the article, but I don't think it's any of the editors commenting here. I myself would revert any vandalism to the article on the spot. If you are referring to a change of the article's title, that would have to be arrived at via consensus, the way we do everything at WP. Come to think of it, I believe an editor moved the article to a new, non-grammatical title without any discussion or consensus several days ago. While that was not an advisable action, I did not accuse that editor of "vandalism." Badagnani04:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've just found the following interesting reference:
And here' the publisher's discription (of Brian Murphy's work):
“
A. B. Murphy uses translated documents from Russian archives to give fresh insight into the Russian civil war, a struggle whose outcome defined much of the history of our time. Areas covered include Soviet relations with the Don Cossacks, the problems of securing supplies for the Red Army, the issue of disloyalty of the two successful cavalry commanders, Colonel Mironov and Sergeant Budyonny, as well as a selection of documents from White sources.
You are welcome to discuss with me anything on the topic in this page: User:Mikkalai/chine. Since it is in my user workspace, I have right to ban any trolling comments from Ludvikus from it. I will not discuss anything in this infested page which is impossible to read. `'Míkka04:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, Badagnani, you must have missed what Mikkalai has just said above, so here it is (and it's so important that I will not use your {{Prettyquote}}):
Any vandalism of the article will be reverted on the spot. `'Míkka 04:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It means that any consensus You, I, and Richard have come to is meaningless, because what we have decided is "Vandalism." So Richard, and Badagnani, what should we do about that? Yours truly --Ludvikus05:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you ludvikus is a provocateur, too. I wrote this in anger and since then replaced by less aggressive text
Wrong, and you know that you are writing a falsehood here, troll.
Precisely because you are deliberately creating intoleable working environment I refuse to talk here and will not accept any consensus with your participation. This is my last word in this page. I finally have found a possible way tio defeat a troll. You know where to talk to me about real issues with the article. `'Míkka05:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Will you please stop using this type of terrible language? This is the seventh request I have made of you and if you do not stop I will report you for disruption. Regarding last words, you did, about one week ago, state emphatically that you would no longer participate here, then began participating again just a few hours later. Badagnani05:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tell you what, Mikkalai. I will leave, and let you work things out with Richard and Badagnani. What do you have to say to this proposal? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 05:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC
I think that would greatly improve everything but I don't believe it would happen. On a separate note, Richard and Badagnani, I read this page and I must say that you both surprised me here by how you handled the Ludvikus' conduct. There is enough said above on that by others. I am not surprised by several non-writing admins showing up to pontificate about policies, as this is mostly all they do, but I thought that content editors like you two would be able to tell the impossible troll from an editor who in desperation tries to fend off his attacks. --Irpen05:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mikka, you may not have liked the way that we "handled" Ludvikus' conduct but, let me ask you this, are you happy with the current state of the article? Is it not much improved over what it was on October 11th?
The quality of the article has been my major concern, not the nasty squabbling between you and Ludvikus. I tried to see if Ludvikus had any valid points and whether you had any valid points and I think the current article reflects most of the valid points that I could substantiate or address through reliable sources. You should both be content with the current state of the article except that Ludvikus still thinks it over-emphasizes the Chinese. I kind of agree with him but I'm still sitting "on the fence" on this one.
As for "handling" Ludvikus' conduct, I would have been harder on him except that you were not blameless and evenhandedness would have required blocking you both. As a courtesy to a fellow admin, I shied away from doing that. Also, I have an aversion to blocking and only do it in the most extreme circumstances. You two came very close to passing my threshold for blocking. As it turns out, other admins have lower thresholds and were not so reluctant to block you.
Richard, a narrow comment on the last paragraph. There is a huge misconception of even-handedness among some admins (and even some arbitrators) on Wikipedia that is based on the presumption that all Wikipedians should be treated equally rather than fairly. In RL the criminal and the victim are not treated equally but they are treated fairly that is the victim is supposed to get help from and the perpetrator should be punished. However tempting to say that when there is a conflict everyone should be beheaded (and our ArbCom often does that too), this is a worrisome approach. Ludvikus approached this article with the single goal to cause Mikka some grief, this is trolling in the most text-book form, acting with the purpose to distress others. He attacked the image, attacked the article, AfDed it twice, block-shopped, filled the unspecified amount of pages with his rants and Mikka was simply defending the article he wrote from a troll. Then two editors who joined the discussion having, no doubt, the best interest of an article in mind, saw the conflict and treated a troll and an editor who stood up to him equally. This is unacceptable. That said, with Ludvikus thankfully out of here for some time, the article can be developed and some lessons may be learned. --Irpen15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, I agree with you in principle. However, Mikka and Ludvikus were not treated "equally". Mikka got a 48-hour block which was the subject of some dispute when offered for review at WP:ANI. Ludvikus got a 2-month block which no admin in his right mind would consider lifting. (reducing maybe but not lifting)
That said, I think I'm one of the "editors who having the best interests...". The truth is, despite his trollish behavior, Ludvikus had some valid points to make and, with his help, we were able to focus on these issues and improve the article.
Whether Mikka would have gotten there on his own is a question that I am unable to answer. I did not know at the time that Mikka was a highly respected contributor with over 100,000 edits. Now that I know that, I suspect that Mikka might have improved the article without this "extra help" from Ludvikus. All I know is that the current article is much improved from where it was on October 11th when Ludvikus tried to get it speedied and I declined to do so.
I also did not know on October 11 that Mikka had been contending against Ludvikus' trollishness for some time or that Ludvikus had a personal agenda against Mikka. Perhaps knowing the history would have helped but it's hard to look deeply into the history of every article to understand the context. Often times, I take recent edits at their face value and hope that is enough.
Mikka's treatment of Ludvikus was disruptive and a major distraction to our efforts to improve the article. Perhaps he was provoked but the bottom line is his treatment of Ludvikus was a major distraction to us while we were trying to address Ludvikus' concerns.
Note that, as soon as Ludvikus stopped bringing up useful issues and went off the deep end with his "Chinese shadows" edit and pointy creation of an article about a clearly non-notable book, we parted company with him and told him that he was out-of-line. I don't think I would have blocked him (I rarely block anybody) but I wasn't going to object when somebody else did.
His drama had outlived its usefulness.
As for lessons learned, knowing what I know now, I think I would handle this differently. Knowing Mikka and Ludvikus, I think I would tell Mikka "Shut up, go take a break and let us handle Ludvikus". Ludvikus was clearly out to get Mikka and the constant provocation must have sent Mikka's blood pressure sky-high. However, as long as the provocation was based on valid concerns, somebody needed to look at those issues and resolve them. Just not Mikka. There was no way that Ludvikus was going to accept anything Mikka had to say.
I'm sorry to see Ludvikus blocked because, for all his histrionics and incivility, he had some valid points to make. However, given the history of his edits and disruption, I doubt any admin will lift the block. I certainly won't.
Even though I'm not happy with the resolution (Ludvikus being blocked), I recognize that it was probably in order and I feel we should move on hoping that Ludvikus will learn a lesson and come back with more willingness to interact civilly.
In the meantime, we will have to go on without him.
I would really appreciate it if Mikkalai would provide more information about the Soviet censorship of Chinese involvement in the Russian Civil War and also about the revived Russian interest in that involvement after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
I believe that much of that is encyclopedic as Soviet and post-Soviet historiography and should be included in this article. Sometimes, the historiography is as interesting as the actual event. (In this case, maybe even more so.)
I suspect that some of it might have been translated into English and inserted into the article by now if we hadn't spent so much time dealing with the edit warring between Ludvikus and Mikka.
That's nice. Thank you for the information. Here is where I talk about "Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War". You are welcome to discuss any topics related to the editing of the article at that page. --Richard23:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have already noticed that you enjoy a chat with trolls. This remark is for other people, who might want an undisturbed discussion. `'Míkka23:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As mentioned now an eighth time, it's probably much better if you try very hard to discuss the issues at hand in a calm, professional manner and not say anything to disparage other editors. Badagnani23:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page is IMO the only place where the trolls have no chance disrupt the professional talk. If you think the 200K pile of garbage above is a professional talk, allow me to calmly and politely disagree and refuse to accept any guilt to what had happened here. `'Míkka00:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave this one go... I thought Mikka was responding to my comment immediately above his and I was telling him where I discuss article content... on the Talk Page of the article in question.
Trolls or no trolls, that's where I think content discussions should be held.
Apparently, Mikka's comment was targeted not just to me but to "other people". My mistake. These "other people" now know where they can have an "undisturbed discussion" with him about the article content.
Mikka and everyone else also know where they can discuss the content of this article with me. I make it a habit to move article content discussion off user pages and onto the Talk Page of the article so as to centralize discussion. Many users prefer it that way as it keeps their Talk Page from getting cluttered. I won't do that with any content discussion I have with Mikka since he has expressed a desire to have discussions in his userspace.
I think that's all that needs to be said on this topic. Let's not make a mountain out of a molehill.
I think the subject must be closed. and the talk page archived, because it has become impossible to read. To open the page it took me hours. Mukadderat01:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot write anything with solid reference. I only stumbled upon a passiong reference that "the <something about the subject> was censored because the text discussed involvement of Chinese", and from the context it was clear that this explanation was self-evident. It only several days ago dawned upon me that the reason was Khruschev-Mao Tse Tung rift, whe I noticed that all thich Soviet books I found references to which talk about the details of chinese involvement in Russian Revolution are printed before 1960. I find this instance of censorship in the Soviet Union not surprising, but of course this needs referenced confirmation. `'Míkka02:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An editor seems to have moved the page, again (is that the third or fourth time now?), again without first generating consensus. I am having difficulty understanding what the difficulty with these editors is with first discussing such edits. Let's do so in the future. Or is this similar to the difficulty with not disparaging other editors, even when asked up to 6 times? Badagnani02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please move the page back to its original title and discuss here, as you should have in the first place, generating consensus before changing the page's title. Badagnani02:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. No big deal. May I remind you that I am not disparaging "other editors". I am calling a troll a troll, and this page and his edits of the article is a solid proof that he is troll, you may wiki-sue me. As you may have noticed I have disagreements with you as well, but I have no reason to treat you as troll. I even answered to you about your request about the Chinese name in your talk page. I did it so because I was 100% sure that my answer in the article talk page will be met with a new wave of derision about alleged "original research". Now I may copy it here. `'Míkka02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Badagnani. This article has seen too many unilateral moves. I have protected the article against moves by anyone other than admins. I would ask that admins show restraint in not moving the article unilaterally. Let's discuss and reach consensus before changing the title anymore.
User:Badagnani posted the following question as a comment in the article.
Ren Fuchen<--Need Chinese characters for this name-->
I am afraid that to figure out the correct name is unlikely. I strongly suspect that the name in the Chinese source is back-transliterated from the Russian sources. If this the case it may be, eg., Zheng Fu-ren or dozen of other close matches. But I may be mistaken. `'Míkka02:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this question way above all this trolling for the following reason. I have written a series of wikipedia articles about population transfer in the Soviet Union. It turns out that Stalin moved around virtually every non-indigenous nationality: Finns, Norvegians, Poles, Germans, Koreans, Greeks..., perceived as the fifth column (as well as some indigenous ones perceived as traitors). When discussing this article it occurred to me that nowhere I've seen any record of the forced migration of Chinese. So I concluded that theirs were negligible numbers. I finally have noticed a passing reference that in 1921 "the fist trainload of Chinese internationalists departed to their Motherland". Indeed, it is logical to conclude that all these trained and indoctrinated Chinese would have come handy for Sun Yat-sen. But again, I don't have conclusive references on the issue. `'Míkka03:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does "foreign" mean in the context of the Russian Revolution?
What does "foreign" mean in the context of the Russian Revolution? Are Jews more or less foreign than Chinese? Are Ukrainians more or less foreign than Chinese depending on whether they happen to be in Ukraine at the time? .......... Harrypotter (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. However in the traditional course of Russian history (in Soviet times) that fact was never mentioned first of all, and second of all it was sort of implied that it was the Russians fighting for their Motherland during the Russian Civil war. Yet still, you do bring up a good point. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Pole" on the left does resemble a stereotypical Cossack hetman. However, I fail to detect anything "Mongoloid" in the other guy. Degenerate and evil, yes, but it is unlikely that the author of this caricature had the Chinese in mind since (to my knowledge) the Chinese troops were never deployed in Belarus. --Vihelik (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Five Races Under One Union flag was used as a national flag from the inception of the Republic in 1912 until the demise of the warlord government in 1928.
I think there are some real problems with this whole article. It is unclear what is meant by Chinese - the link to Ethnic Chinese in Russia does not really resolve the problem, referring as it does to the Ethnic Chinese. Does this mean Han Chinese, itself a concept which gives some fluidity. How does this relate to the Five Races Under One Union, which was prevalent at the time of the Russian Civil War. I think the article makes some important points, but they need to be recontextualised, perhaps with a different name for the page.Harrypotter (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most readers won't have a problem understanding whom the title refers to: the people who were present in Russia (meaning, the territory of the former Russian Empire) ca. 1917-1921 and who were self-identified, and were identified by the people around them, as "Chinese". Which largely means that they either had came to Russia from China during WWI, or had been subjects of Qing Empire (later, citizens of R.O.C.) resident in Russia prior to WWI. In formal terms they could be primarily identified in terms of both citizenship (I believe that even among long-term Chinese residents of pre-1917 Russian Far East, very few became Russian subjects) and language.
In terms of either the Five Races Under One Union or the modern 56 minzu, they probably would not differ too much from the population composition of a city like Harbin: predominantly "Han", with a few "Manchu" or "Hui" among them, or maybe even an occasional "assimilated" (Chinese speaking) Mongols or Daur. You'd hardly expect any noticeable number of Tibetans or Uyghurs making their way to Russia, realistically (they did not live in any numbers in Northeast China, not would be recruited to work as navvies in WWI). On the other hand, there could, I suppose, be some Mongols from Outer Mongolia, or Kazakhs from Xinjiang crossing to Russia; but Russians would just think of them as "Mongols" and "Kazakhs", and so would they themselves - and so would we, really. Moreover, [Outer] Mongolia was clearly on its way to independence anyway. So those groups are not relevant for this article, methinks.
Now, if you do want to some "fluidity", you could remember the Dungan people, who had lived in Russian Empire's Central Asian provinces for some 40 years by 1917. One of them, Magazi Masanchi (1885-1937), actually became a fairly important person in Kazakhstan. But that's was a small community, and very remote geographically from most of the revolution/civil war events... And, more importantly, the Dungans, being Russian subjects, would probably identify themselves - and be identified by others - as "Dungans", and not "Chinese". -- Vmenkov (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure to what extent Chinese people in Siberia can be described as migrants. As far as I can see the information from the Imperial Russian Census were made in relation to speakers of Chinese.Harrypotter (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
.svg)
_P6086AL.JPG){kind=link}
.svg)
The Five Races Under One Union flag was used as a national flag from the inception of the Republic in 1912 until the demise of the warlord government in 1928.