Jump to content

Talk:Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ludvikus (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 15 October 2007 (→Eskimos in Russian Revolution: spacing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hangon

This is an invalid usage of the "speedy" tag and the user refused to recognize this. `'Míkka 04:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"White Army propaganda poster depicting evil Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers...')"

That is not a proper use of an established Racist, Antisemitic, Poster. --Ludvikus 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a proper illustration of anti-Bolshevik propaganda whose goal was to show that Bolshevism was "imposed unto Russians by Jews, Red Latvian Riflemen and Chinese bayonets. `'Míkka 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)

Unknown involvement of Chinese in Russian Revolution

  • I didn't know about the possible involvement of Chinese military units in the Russian Revolution - only learned about it from this page. I find it quite interesting. I suggest that the article be expanded and properly cited rather than deleted. If the article must be deleted, its concept should at least be incorporated into another article about the Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.159.218 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Richard Unsigned, anonymous, Trolling comments of unregistered Users should not be allowed here, in deletion discussions. --Ludvikus 12:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It was not a trolling comment. Read it again, it was a serious comment. Please assume good faith.
  2. This is not a "deletion discussion". That would take place over at WP:AFD. Besides, even anons should have the right to express an opinion at AFD. AFD is not a vote.
  3. It was my comment. I forgot to login before editing and I didn't think it was worth the effort to sign the post since this wasn't an AFD.
--Richard 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Good Faith on your part, Richard. However, the comment above was unsigned - the WP computer added that observation. The comment is made by someone who did Not sign their name, like I'm not doing now: --00:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC). But doing now: --Ludvikus 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was unsigned. I explained above that I forgot to sign it. Happens to me every once in a while. But being unsigned doesn't automatically make a comment trolling or inappropriate. --Richard 00:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So now we know. It's you. No problem. Don't get excited. I respect your view as a fello WP. Peace. Hope the incident helps you remember to sign. --Ludvikus 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and perhaps you will remember to assume good faith rather than being too quick to use the word "troll".
In any event, after reading the AFD debate, I've changed my mind. I suspect that there is an encyclopedic topic here but this article smacks too much of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to be kept. --Richard 07:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the other kind of primary source which is used here as a reference:

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

This kind of reference usage is original research prohibited on WP.
The source is Arthur Ransome, a children's fiction writer

(though he also was a reporter on the RR, & close to Trosky).

It's for scholars and historians to evaluate this kind of reference as to its reliability.
--Ludvikus 16:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

russian references, for future use

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. ISBN 5-84630092-8 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.

Bye, moving onto other jobs, `'Míkka 16:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4th Reversion to Trotsky poster

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

"illustrates propaganda" vs. "used as propaganda"

    14 October 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) (6,114 bytes)
    (Rv. Please settle on talk before removing this very telling image.
    I'm hoping Ludvikus will eventually see that it *illustrates* propaganda, as opposed to being *used as* propaganda.)
  • The latest Reversion is by User:Bishonen: he restored the Propaganda Poster of Lenin.
  • He makes an excellent distinction (the above).
  • However, he fails to see that at the moment it is being improperly "used as propaganda."
    1. The Poster is not discussed in the article.
    2. It is not Sourced or Referenced exactly - it may be a pretty good hoax.
    3. 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)[reply]
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).[reply]

White Russian poster [[5]]

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)[reply]

File:1919 Civil War poster - White Russian Anti-Semitism (39) t1919b.jpg

  • Editor User:Irpen has just succeeded in having the image with its Original source name deleted. The original image image is labeled White Russian anti-Semitism. Why User:Irpen wishes - and succeeded - in having these two facts censored is incomprehensible to me. --Ludvikus 20:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not the title of the poster. Look at that archive list: those are descriptions, not titles. Or do you think there's one called "September 16 1916: Order for the expulsion of Trotsky from France"? Or "Mug shot from Russian secret police files" ? Ludvikus, now that you've failed to get any support for removing the poster, are you actively trying to make it look ridiculuos by that caption you call a title? Please desist. Bishonen | talk 20:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • You're splitting-hairs. If you want to say they are description, good. These are the description given by the outside source. Why do you wish to whitewash this poster of its White Russian anti-Semitic roots given to it by the original source and have your own, inaccurate, distorting, propaganda, anti-Chinese, usage? --Ludvikus 20:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of asking me to stop, why don't you guys explain - not to me - but how this poster "illustrates" anything but Racism against Jews and the Chinese? If you guys - User:Irpen and User:Bishonen - love this poster so much, why don't you write an Artcle about it Chinese stuges of Jewish monster? Or even an article on White Russian propaganda posters? But the article here is supposed to be about the role that "Chinese" played in the Russian Revolution. I have absolutely no idea how you can justify a anti-Chinese Racist picture, which was designed to show that Russian were not being killed by other Russians, but by Huns, Tartars, Jews, and other less-human people? Do you not understand that that was - and to those who know their history, still is - the subtext meaning of the poster? You both admit that it's propaganda. Then don't you guys know how propaganda works? Why don't you at least make some effort to justify your poster in the body of the article? Right now you are doing exactly what the White Russian Antisemites have done: using the image like so: "Look here, the enemy is a monster, inhuman, a Jew & Chinamen"! Are you guys really blind that that's the status of the article right now?
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ludvikus, I have already asked you to please use Preview before you post, instead of posting in installments.[7] As of this present moment, you have been editing your latest post for forty minutes and posted little corrections fourteen times.[8] (I don't know how many more times you have in you.) Do you realize how many edit conflicts people get when trying to respond to you? It makes it exhausting to discuss anything with you, even apart from your idiosyncratic argumentation technique and personal attacks. Could you please show some consideration for other posters, and edit normally? Bishonen | talk 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

English

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

Removal of photo without consensus

Why was the photo just removed? Diff If the individuals with long thin mustaches are not Chinese, what are they? Were there Mongolian, Korean, or Vietnamese soldiers also filling such roles in the Red Army at that time? Badagnani 05:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=== Mongolian, Korean, or Vietnamese ===
Hey, why did you leave out the Japanese?
  • It does matter. Chinese is chinese, it is not a generic term for orientals, except may be in the streets when shouted by angry racists. Temur 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're engaged in analyizing a 1919 "White Russian" propaganda poster aimed at ignorant, poor, uneducated Russian peasants who only had a single sense of un-Christian "wild" people from the East of Asia - the hordes of Gingus Khan. We are talking about a Racist poster which made no distinction among "oriental" people. We are not talking about a scholarly tome here. Why you make such fine distinction regarding an ethnic slur expressed by the poster is incomprehesible. The poster is of "oriental" people vwho are supposed to be less human than the Christian Eurasians of Europe and West Asia. The point of the poster is to show Who is killing us ("whites") - it says: it those "yellow" people. And in that regard, "Chinese" is a mere euphomism for them.
Yours truly, --Ludvikus 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems quite well reasoned. In looking through the propaganda, it was implied that the "Chinese" soldiers were merciless/ruthless/willing to kill peasants or priests at the drop of a hat without compunction. Glossing over such propaganda isn't something we do at WP, to assuage anyone's national or cultural interest; we examine them dispassionately. If we did, we wouldn't even include articles such as Der Stürmer. Badagnani 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So you agree (for precisely these reasons) that this kind of poster does not belong in the article, right? --Ludvikus 20:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't agree that the poster does not belong in the article, for reasons I stated earlier. From the evidence, the soldiers depicted were most likely intended by the artist to depict "Chinese" soldiers. Russians' perception of the poster at the time is entirely up to them. Badagnani 20:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left out the Japanese because the Japanese, at that time, were not traditionally allies of the Russians, and would be unlikely to be working for the Russian Red Army. There was a war called the Russo-Japanese War which had taken place just a few years earlier--didn't you know that? Also, I don't believe the Japanese, who had modernized themselves in the 19th century, retained such long mustaches such as are typically used in caricatures of Chinese (or, at least, were used as such in the silent films of the first decades of the 20th century, such as Fu Manchu). Badagnani 07:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor, named Temur, wrote earlier, "On the picture there are some men who look like Chinese but they can be anything from Buryats, Mongols, Kalmyks, Tuvanians, Altai-men, Kyrgizs, Kazakhs, Chukchas, or Crimean Tatars." However, if it is true that the White Russians had as a primary part of their propaganda the (racist) claim that under the Reds Russia would be taken over by "foreign elements" Chinese, Jews, etc., then they probably are Chinese. The skullcaps and long mustaches seem more typically Chinese to me than indicative of those other Central Asian ethnic groups. In my opinion, the poster is historically important, and interesting in this context. Badagnani 07:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise proposal

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

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

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

This seems to be an oversimplification, and doesn't address the sources presented in the article, which do show a role the Chinese played in the revolution. As such, this is encyclopedic. The Tuvans (such as Subutai) also played a role in Genghis Khan's conquests of Asia and Europe, and the French helped with the American Revolution (see France in the American Revolutionary War), and these items are also of similar interest. Badagnani 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spend some time looking closely that the sources - or improper and irrelevant sources I should say that we've been given - these include, 1) Propanga poster, 2) Trotsky (A neutral? primary source for original research), 3) Stalin biography - I wonder why it would inform us of the alleged significant role the Chinese played. --Ludvikus 20:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are more and varied sources than the ones youa re mentioning here. Badagnani 20:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusatory observation is extremely unhelpful. Why don't you give us an exact quote and reference? Do some real work, please. We can all observe that there's a list of alleged sources. --Ludvikus 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article presents more than the sources you mention--quite a few, actually. Badagnani 21:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent observation (in my opinion) on your part, Editor Richard. As a matter of fact, I thought of making the same kind of demographic observation, but my memory of the numbers involved is not as precise as I would like them to be. The numbers of alleged Chinese appears to be 1,000, 1,500, ... but no more than 2,500. Whereas the population of the Russian Empire was somewhere in the neighborhood of 130,000,000 (to the best of my recollection. So the role of the Chinese was clearly miniscule.
  • But I think you are missing the point, or gist of the debate. The other editors have been trying to establish that the Chinese played a significant role in the Russian Revolution. Accordingly, I believe it would didplease them tremendously to have the article turn into a presentation of the "White Russian" racist propaganda campaign. But as Wikipedians, we are required to assume Good Faith. I hope the other editors accept your recommendation. I certain do. Cheers. --Ludvikus 20:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This could be solved with a single sentence or two summarizing that while Chinese did take part as hired mercenaries, etc., their numbers were very small in comparison to the number of fighters in the army. The same was true of the French soldiers in the American Revolution, yet they helped win that war for the Americans. Badagnani 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is though that there are no solid references, just Original Research and the use of Primary Sources. --Ludvikus 20:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • 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?
        • See my further comments below...
The article claims "The total number of Chinese in the Red Army is estimated in tens of thousands.[8]"
Really? If this is true, then it is possible that Chinese did play a minor though arguably significant role in the Russian Revolution. Can someone check the source? I can't read Russian. Also, are these Chinese from China or just Asians from the eastern part of the Russian Empire?
The article also says "Chinese were one of several foreign contingents dubbed in Soviet historiography as "internationalist detachments" ("отряды интернационалистов", )."
OK. Let's assume this is true. Then this article should be about the Chinese "internationalist detachment". There is no information about that unit in this article.
We should apply the criterion of notability to facts as well as to people, corporations and works of art and literature. It may be true that several thousand or even tens of thousands of Chinese participated in the Russian Revolution. Presumably so did many other nationalities in the Russian Empire. What is notable or significant about the participation of the Chinese? Did their presence shift the tide to win an important battle? Did any of them rise to the leadership of a local or regional Soviet? To the Supreme Soviet? Or occupy any important government post?
Most of all, what I hate about this article is that it does not tell a cohesive story. I doubt that anyone is saying Chinese instigated the Russian Revolution. For that matter, it seems highly unlikely that the Chinese Emperor instigated or supported the Bolsheviks. See this link for evidence to support the proposition that, if anything, China was concerned with limiting the spread of the revolution from Russia to China.
http://books.google.com/books?id=XCUdAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA297&lpg=PA297&dq=chinese+%22russian+revolution%22&source=web&ots=G-YaAQUMU9&sig=_krwGF38HKL3mZo9sHgNKGd_9DQ#PPA300,M1
Yes, there were some Chinese in Russia in 1917 and some participated in the revolution. So what? Why is it encyclopedic to mention these facts? Just because something is true doesn't make it encyclopedic.
Here's an article that asserts "While there were many Chinese anarchists, there were no converts to Marxism prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917." The phrase "no converts to Marxism prior to 1917" strikes me as an extreme statement but it does suggest that there was no significant participation of Chinese anarchists or intellectuals in the Bolshevik movement.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/10087/Marxism-in-Asia-China.html
Here's another book that talks about the introduction of Marxism to the Chinese intelligentsia. Read pp. 20-22. The book asserts that Marxism made no significant impact on Chinese socialist thought until 1918.
http://books.google.com/books?id=f9yqmzGMYkgC&pg=PA39&lpg=PA39&dq=chinese+%22russian+revolution%22&source=web&ots=VheNoGJF0V&sig=VfyBD9upI6fCTEJ9MrVOPM4UOds#PPA21,M1
'Nuff said?
--Richard 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimos in Russian Revolution

OK. These were people who lived in Siberia and Scandinavia. I don't know if anyone wrote an article about them. But can anyone please find a disparaging poster about them - hopefully from around 1919? If we can find at least one statement about an Eskimo who did something on the side of the Reds, then we could start this stub.

There were probably some northern Siberian tribes participating in the Russian Revolution, but as yet there don't seem to be a large number of sources discussing this. The term "Eskimo" refers specifically to North American Inuit as opposed to Asian ones, so that's not the best term to use. Latvians, Chinese, and Jews, however, seem to have discussed a great deal of by the White Russians and, in consulting the sources, there is some verifiable truth to the participation of these groups. Badagnani 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you'd better go over there (Eskimo) and make the necessary corrections because (and I quote):
"Eskimos or esquimaux are aboriginal people who inhabit the circumpolar region, excluding Scandinavia and most of Russia, but including the easternmost portions of Siberia." [Emphasis added] Yours truly, --Ludvikus 21:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chinese_in_the_Russian_Revolution_and_in_the_Russian_Civil_War&oldid=164809831"