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

message: *Mikka Where do you get that quote from?
*Mikka I see the Sailors, but I'm not sure if they are Latvian. I see Riflemen who look like they are Chinese. But how do you get Jews out of the poster, Mikka? --Ludvikus 01:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Irpen has reverted Twice my deletion, giving "Blaning" as reason. I do not know what that is. And he has not made any arguments whatsoever in support of his position. --Ludvikus 01:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a typo, I meant to say blanking. The poster is notable and appropriate for an article. We are not using it to rally for some agenda (propaganda usage) but to illustrate the phenomenon. There is nothing racist in using the posted in Wikipedia in that way. --Irpen 01:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is how, in part, WP defines "Banking": "Blanking is one of the most common forms of vandalism - however, it is also one of the actions most commonly misdiagnosed as vandalism, and editors should be careful that they do not accuse editors of it unjustly." I think the deletion of an inappropriate racist Propaganda Poster (in my opinion) does not involve Blanking. You clearly are accusing me of that unjustly. --Ludvikus 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *The only one who expressed a desire to keep the Propaganda Poster is User:Irpen. --Ludvikus 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The image is in the article for a long time and none of the users saw in out of place. The only one who expressed a desire to remove the poster is Ludvikus. --Irpen 04:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What if someone who has the skills removes the offensive/irrelevant parts, and uploads only the small part of the corner of the poster that shows the Chinese soldiers?  The caption could read "part of a white army propaganda poster depicting Chinese soldiers".  Does the article have to have the entire anti-Semitic image?  Also, how do you know that they are actually Chinese?  Since its unsourced, isn't that original research? Ostap 05:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *As I understand the situation, the Poster was put up by User:Mikka only because he sees Chinese in it and it is an alleged product of the Russian Revolution. But you are right, we do not really have an exact reference for this item; it's purpose in the Article is nowhere explained. And the Poster is offensive: the actual killers of White Russians are the non-white people, the Chinese; the Russian Revolution was completely imposed on the Russians by foreigner, including Jews. That is how this article on the Chinese in the Russian Revolution now stands. --Ludvikus 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I guess I see your point. The image is not only offensive, but also inaccurate, misleading, and it doesn't actually say anything about the role of the Chinese soldiers or assert their notability.  In my opinion the image is neither necessary nor worth having.  Ostap 06:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've also checked it out at Wiki Commons & there's no authentication, or date of publishing, given. It could even be a fake, though it's quite convincing! --Ludvikus 06:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "imposed unto Russians by [[Jews]], [[Red Latvian Riflemen]] and [[Chinese]] [[bayonets]]"

message: 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)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the well-referenced sentence "This fact was well known[2] and even exploited by anti-Bolshevik propaganda[3]"?  Bishonen | talk 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th Reversion to Trotsky poster 

message: 14 October 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (6,114 bytes)
     (Rv. Please settle on talk before removing this very telling image.
     I'm hoping Ludvikus will eventually see that it *illustrates* propaganda, as opposed to being *used as* propaganda.)
*The latest Reversion is by User:Bishonen: he restored the Propaganda Poster of Lenin.
*He makes an excellent distinction (the above).
*However, he fails to see that at the moment it is being improperly "used as propaganda."
*#The Poster is not discussed in the article.
*#It is not Sourced or Referenced exactly - it may be a pretty good hoax.
*#It does not "illustrate propaganda" - the article is not about that. The article is about the Chinese in the Revolution. There is nothing - at this stage of the article's life - which is benefited by the poster. Quite the contrary, it merely portrays the Chinese as the killers in the Russian Revolution.
*I wish User:Bishonen would have explained how the Poster illustrates Propaganda before he had Reverted.
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you miss the well-referenced sentence "This fact was well known[2] and even exploited by anti-Bolshevik propaganda[3]"?  Bishonen | talk 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "illustrates propaganda" vs. "used as propaganda" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[White Russian]] poster [[http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/photo/t1919b.htm]] 

message: *Editor User:Irpen has just succeeded in having the image with its Original source name deleted. The original image image is labeled White Russian anti-Semitism. Why User:Irpen wishes - and succeeded - in having these two facts censored is incomprehensible to me. --Ludvikus 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Image:1919_Civil_War_poster_-_White_Russian_Anti-Semitism_(39)_t1919b.jpg]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  English 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I heard that Joke a while ago. But your version is better developed. --Ludvikus 23:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We are waiting. There are at least two Wikipedians who have bothered to examine your sources, moi and User:Richardshusr. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese, Japanese - what's the difference? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Result of AfD 

message: 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 
replies: text: STOP KIDDING. This topic is not joke. Can someone explain Ludvikus that his behavior is uncivilized? `'Míkka 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you kidding me? Your keeping that hateful Racist poster - and without any ability to show the tiniest justification for it - is much, much, more offensive than your complaint about my writing here as "uncivilized." I want you to to show us exactly how any of your references justify that Racist poster. --Ludvikus 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This racist poster is example of racist posters, just like in articles Golliwogg, Nigger, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Eternal Jew, Propaganda, Action T4... Shall I continue? `'Míkka 00:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peng Ming]] 

message: OK. Let's move to the Second reference:
     Chinese served in the Cheka  Donald Rayfield,
     Stalin and His Hangmen: The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him,
     Viking Press 2004:  (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., 
Can you please WP editor give us the page number which supports the allegation that "Chinese served in the Cheka?
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Go away, troll. Are you accusing me that I fabricated the citation? You have read too much of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. `'Míkka 00:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is a very un-Wikipedian way to speak to another editor. Please state that you will no longer use this sort of language here, or I will report you. Badagnani 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: **Nice turning of tables here. I am under an assault of a troll who failed to make the article deleted , and you are going to "report" me. Go ahead. `'Míkka 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm not accusing you of anything. I just want to verify your source. That's exactly what all scholars do. --Ludvikus 00:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: **I am not answering your questions until I see apologies for uncivilized behanvior. `'Míkka 00:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Stalin and His Hangmen]] 

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

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

text: I think I will try to find more information on new slightly anti-Ukrainian article Poryck Massacre‎.  It needs to be expanded.  Goodbye Chinese in Russian Revolution. Ostap 01:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fell free to vandalize

message: 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)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Large numbers" 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What I read in the article is that its at least about the Chinese in, or about, Moscow. The other sources are in Russian. So you have to read the Russian to figure out what's going on with this article. But I would like to know more about the Chinese slave  labor. No one has written about that. That sounds most interesting to me. Can you inform us of the Chinese slave labor? --Ludvikus 05:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Location doesn't seem right

message: 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)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Russian propaganda poster 

message: Does anyone have access to the Rayfield book? This quote, as presented in a footnote in the article, has a parenthetical phrase that is in English with poor grammar, leading me to question whether this is a direct quote, as presented in the article.
Badagnani 18:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct quote? 

message: I inserted the sentence that Yakir was the first to use Chinese Mercenaries.  Mikka took it out.  I went back to check the source and discovered that it was a Wikipedia mirror of the Iona Yakir article.  Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy me.
Just to close this issue, can Mikka explain why we believe Yakir was not the first?  If he wasn't, then who was?
:I will not talk without references; that would be a magnet for trolls into endles bickering about my original research. `'Míkka
Also, what about the 500 bodyguards?  Is that also false?
:"he was always accompanied by 500 Chinese bodyguards" - Where is your critical thinking? `'Míkka 00:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No more discussion or insults of other editors. From now, we discuss only actual facts. That will be more productive and less wasteful of time. Badagnani 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iona Yakir not first to use Chinese mercenaries? 

message: 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)
replies: text: No more discussion or insults of other editors. From now, we discuss only actual facts. That will be more productive and less wasteful of time. Badagnani 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent recommendation. Count me in. --Ludvikus 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chinese in the Russian Revolution and the Russian Civil War]] 

message: It appears that Trotsky is correct in disparaging the "reactionary press" - the alleged regiments of Lettish and Chinese troops which allegedly dispersed the Constituent Assembly are non-existent so far: . --Ludvikus 01:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be less "funny," and clarify what you mean? Badagnani 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludvikus believes that the fact that "Red Scare" sources charge that Lettish and Chinese troops were used by the Bolsheviks weakens the credibility of the charge.  However, he overlooks the fact that the same charge was made by Dmitri Gavronsky and, according to Trotsky, the Second International.  It is not just the charge made by White Russians or the American "Red Scare" propagandists that gives the charge credibility.  It is the charge being made by both White Russians AND anti-Bolshevik socialists.  --Richard 04:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, Richard, on the 2nd International. Read Trotsky more carefully. He's only comparing them in style to the reactionary press. --Ludvikus 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Dr. Dmitri Galvonski is not a valid source. He's not only a Primary Source but, as such also unreliable. He's Trotsky's adversary, a goverment official, in Finland, apparently on a state visit. He may very well be the source of the "reactionary press" information. But the main overall point is that we've got here Original Research. Much has been written on the RR & RCW - don't you think it odd that no such source is available which talks about the Chinese in it? All we have are unscholarly, biased, or unreadable Russian sources so far. --Ludvikus 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The source hs provides lists a population of Letts but I don't see Chinese listed (although I see other Asian ethnic groups such as Bashkirs). This wouldn't necessarily imply that there were no Chinese serving in the Red armed forces or police, only that ethnic Chinese were not voting constituents of Russia. Badagnani 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Will do (not be "funny"). The Chinese and Letts supposedly played a role in the Russian Revolution by forming "regiments" which were used (allegedly) to "disperse" the "Constituent Assembly." This body played very important role in Russian political history. So it was obvious that any historical study of this body should help us know what role, if any, the Chinese played in these events. But I was surprised that we had no WP article on this body. But as it turns out Wikipedia needed to Dismbiguate it, and so its name is made up of three words Russian Constituent Assembly.
*So, it turns out that our quite well developed article on that does not mention any Chinese as having played a role in disbursing the Russian Constituent Assembly!!! It seems that Trotsky was right, the Letts and Chinese played no role of any significance in the Russian Revolution involving, at least, said Assembly. --Ludvikus 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are Letts listed in that article. Badagnani 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Constituent Assembly]] 

message: Surprise !!! --Ludvikus 02:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please be less "funny," and clarify what you mean? Badagnani 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludvikus believes that the fact that "Red Scare" sources charge that Lettish and Chinese troops were used by the Bolsheviks weakens the credibility of the charge.  However, he overlooks the fact that the same charge was made by Dmitri Gavronsky and, according to Trotsky, the Second International.  It is not just the charge made by White Russians or the American "Red Scare" propagandists that gives the charge credibility.  It is the charge being made by both White Russians AND anti-Bolshevik socialists.  --Richard 04:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong, Richard, on the 2nd International. Read Trotsky more carefully. He's only comparing them in style to the reactionary press. --Ludvikus 04:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, Dr. Dmitri Galvonski is not a valid source. He's not only a Primary Source but, as such also unreliable. He's Trotsky's adversary, a goverment official, in Finland, apparently on a state visit. He may very well be the source of the "reactionary press" information. But the main overall point is that we've got here Original Research. Much has been written on the RR & RCW - don't you think it odd that no such source is available which talks about the Chinese in it? All we have are unscholarly, biased, or unreadable Russian sources so far. --Ludvikus 05:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The source hs provides lists a population of Letts but I don't see Chinese listed (although I see other Asian ethnic groups such as Bashkirs). This wouldn't necessarily imply that there were no Chinese serving in the Red armed forces or police, only that ethnic Chinese were not voting constituents of Russia. Badagnani 04:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Will do (not be "funny"). The Chinese and Letts supposedly played a role in the Russian Revolution by forming "regiments" which were used (allegedly) to "disperse" the "Constituent Assembly." This body played very important role in Russian political history. So it was obvious that any historical study of this body should help us know what role, if any, the Chinese played in these events. But I was surprised that we had no WP article on this body. But as it turns out Wikipedia needed to Dismbiguate it, and so its name is made up of three words Russian Constituent Assembly.
*So, it turns out that our quite well developed article on that does not mention any Chinese as having played a role in disbursing the Russian Constituent Assembly!!! It seems that Trotsky was right, the Letts and Chinese played no role of any significance in the Russian Revolution involving, at least, said Assembly. --Ludvikus 04:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are Letts listed in that article. Badagnani 05:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Russian Constituent Assembly]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: More sources

message: :BY JOSEPH J. MERETO
:1920
:THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY
:37 West 39th Street, New York
    "This book proves the existence of the Red Peril.
    "We publish it to warn America.
    "We ask the help of every loyal American,
    "organization and institution to put "The Red Conspiracy" in every home, school and library in the land.
    "Price, cloth bound, $2.15 postpaid; in paper, $1.10 postpaid.
    "Chapters of the book and parts of chapters
    "can also be supplied in pamphlet and leaflet form for wide distribution.
    "Write us for particulars.
So it seems that the role of the Chinese is dispersing the Russian Constituent Assembly is supported by Red Scare sources. Hey, why not also use, as a reference, Mein Kompf by Adolph Hitler. What did he say about the Chinese in the Russian Revolution? --Ludvikus 03:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  July 6, 1917 (old/new Russian calendar)? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 11:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An apology to Mikkalai 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Apparent inconsistencies in the article 

message: :(1) Пын Мин. История китайско-советской дружбы. М., 1959. (Peng Ming,
::"History of the Chinese-Russian Frienship",
::translation from Chinese, Moscow, Sotsekgiz, 1959,
::original: "Zhong-su yu she", Pekin, 1957 (Russian)
::[no quote supplied by WP editor]
:(2) Россия и мир глазами друг друга: Из истории взаимовосприятия /
::Под ред. А.В. Голубева; РАН. Ин-т рос. истории. - М., 2000.
::Вып. 1. - 365 с. ,
::Chapter IV, Section "The Perception of China by USSR Political Elite" (Russian)
::"Chinese detachments, together with Latvians, Hungarians, and others
::guarded the Soviet government already in 1917-1918"
:(3) a b Donald Rayfield, Stalin and His Hangmen:
::The Tyrant and Those Who Killed for Him, Viking Press 2004:  (hardcover)
::"In 1919, 75 percent of the Cheka's central management was Latvian.
::When Russian soldiers refused to carry out executions,
::Latvian (and Chinese force of some 500 men) were brought in. 
:(4) a b c Lukin, Alexander (2002). The Bear Watches the Dragon:
::Russia's Perceptions of China
::and the Evolution of Russian Chinese Relations
::since the Eighteenth Century.
::China: M.E. Sharpe, p.98.
::[no quote supplied by WP editor]
*This is the basis of the article's opening. It is important, therefore, to examine these arefully. To a great extent, the status of the article rests or falls on these 4 items. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 12:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The four (4) sources to the opening of our article 

message: *As the English language sources made available to us by quotation show, the above should be the title of our article — at this stage of its development at least. Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 14:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yours truly, --Ludvikus 20:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Latvians, Chinese, Hungarians, and others in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War]] 

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

message: McNeal writes about the Constituent Assembly's dispersal but mentions no ethicity, Chinese or otherwise:
There is no further characterization of this event of the Russian Revolution by McNeal.
:Yours truly, --Ludvikus 22:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''The Bolshevik Tradition'' by Robert H. McNeal, p. 50 

message: Corrections:
:Sorry for my typographical error in transcribing the date. --Ludvikus 00:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituent Assembly dispersal - January 6, 1918 

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

message: I don't know what the rest of the dispute is about, but the current passage about "Chinese shadows" () is clearly some kind of bizarre WP:POINT vandalism, there's no way denying that. Unless somebody comes up with a serious defense that this was a good-faith addition, I'll be removing it despite the current protection. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected the page in the hopes that a neutral point of view can form now that there are more editors participating. 1 != 2 16:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will edit this page while protected