Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese in Russian Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, after significant discussion and debate, but without a clear consensus, as notable, sourced, and encyclopedic. Bearian 23:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese in Russian Revolution

Chinese in Russian Revolution (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)
  • Delete. The mere fact that there were Chinese in the Russian Revolution is insufficient to write an article about that; neither is the juxtaposition of the two terms noteworthy, or notable in accordance with WP standards. --Ludvikus 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Fixed AfD from here. Carlosguitar 08:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • speedy keep, nomination smells WP:POINT. --Irpen 08:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the subject is notable and interesting. There might follow Jews in Russian Revolution, Poles in Russian Revolution, Georgians in Russian revolution, etc. those articles might be very biased at first but I believe we can fix it Alex Bakharev 08:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment (1): Then why not have Russians in antisemitism, Poles in antisemitism, Ukrainians in antisemitism, etc.? I don't think juxtaposing any two words and asking if it creates an interesting subject is a legitimate WP way to go. And we should not find Titles for WP - not create them ourselves. If someone wrote a scholarly study about the Chinese role in the Russian Revolution, then write about that. But does that turn it into a legitimate Title/Subject heading for a WP article? I think not.! --12:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment (2): How about X in Spanish Revolution and X in French Revolution (filling in the "X" in any way one finds interesting)? If one WPdian finds it interesting should we have an article on it?
    • Comment (3): I inadvertently omitted Russians in Russian Revolution. Perhaps such an article might be interesting because it might show that Russians have no other nationality to blame for Bolshevism but their own Russian people. I do not believe we should break things up that way - by nationality - unless we find sources which do; and then determine whether these were Propaganda: Nazi, Communist, Capitalist, or what not. --Ludvikus 12:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well referenced, educational. I don't really see what the proposed reason for deletion is. If the subject was not notable then the content would not be sourced as it is right now. Good article. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep So what if we don't have articles about Jews, Poles, Georgians, and Russians in the Russian Revolution? Wikipedia is not paper. The article is referenced (mostly) by multiple sources — what else do we want for notability? This isn't like a "List of Chinese songs that refer to the Russian Revolution": it's studying the rôle of a specific group of people in a specific event. Nyttend 15:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Original research: It's easy to reference articles. The point is an examination of such sources reveals improper original research by a WP editor, like so:

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 is a primary source item that should be evaluated by a scholar or a professional historian. WP is not a place where editors are to discover that Chinese played a historical role in the Russian Revolution. Original research of this kind belongs in a peer-reviewed journal. The 1919 report of a chilren's book writer on the report of a single Soviet representative (a foreign Chinese worker) to an apparent Moscow Soviet, regarding alleged 2,000 Chinese, is not proper source material for WPdians to conclude that "large numbers" of Chinese did this ot that. --Ludvikus 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not even have an article on Chitaya Kuni! --Ludvikus 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Look again, Lud. It's magic! Keep Encylopedic topic, which could be improved. We have articles about Germans in the American Revolution (called Hessians) and about American soldiers who were deployed to the Soviet Union in the early years after World War I. I was unaware that there had been Chinese nationals participating in the Russian Revolution, but it's a valid start for an article. Mandsford 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 1: User:Ludvikus has a huge personal grudge against me because I am opposing his rather peculiar way of editing wikipedia, such as writing two nearly-identical articles on the same topic: Jewish Bolshevism and The Jewish Bolshevism. In his rage in Talk:Jewish Bolshevism he fails to notice that I actually support his position that the title "Jewish Bolshevism" is inappropriate for the current content of the article, and explained that the proper an neutral title would be something directly related to the history of the Jews, rather than a political slur. As an example I cited Chinese in Russian Revolution. He obviously noticed that I am the author of the article, and all hell broke loose. <Shrug>. This editor needs a real attitude adjustment. `'Míkka 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment 2 Contrary to the claims of Ludvikus, the bulk of the article is based on the secondary source: a Finnish historical article (cited), which explained the mystery that long haunted me: how come huge numbers of Chinese happened to be in St. Petersburg at the moment of the Revolution (just look at the map: where's St.Petersburg and where's China). Donald Rayfield (quoted) is hardly a "children writer" either. The participation of Chinese is very well known in Soviet historiography. It is ssimply now I am very far away both from Russian sources and Russian keyboard, so it is very difficult for me to search Rusian google. I hope this vote will draw attention of Russian wikipedians who will expand the article. `'Míkka 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply Geez, I hate to be the one to bring out the old "assume good faith" slogan, but it looks like a legitimate nomination. I've had it happen fairly often that I happen to mention an article, like "goldfish swallowing" or "Jewish American fashion designers", and someone nominates it for deletion the next day. Is it because of me? I doubt it. More likely, your cite of Chinese in Russian Revolution inspired several people, including the nominator, to click on the link and read the article. As noted above, I think it's an encyclopedic topic that fits Wikipedia's global view. Funny, both of you take an interest in the Bolshevik Revolution, and you don't get along. Mandsford 20:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I see the goldfishie, but where is the second one? `'Míkka 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • re: "both of you take an interest, but..." Surprized? Take a look eg, into "Islamophobia" page & its talk. And there is more of such. And ours is friendly chat in comparison. `'Míkka 00:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Arthur Ransome was more than just a childrens author, it was as a journalist that he was in Russia. KTo288 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Alex.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Well-referenced and just the propaganda aspect establishes notability. Edward321 05:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. Maybe WP Russia and WP China can help fix this problem if notified. In my own judgment, the article should be kept. However, opinions from those whose histories are involved should be considered.--Lenticel (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency in WP Title/Subject Inclusion Rules. (First of all, I ask no one to take things personally - Assume Good Fait per Wiki policy). Calling someone a "Communist" has long been considered a slur, especially in the United States, beginning with the Red Scare and going throught McCarthyism. Accordingly, a {{stub}} which merely, or substantially links the Chinese with the Russian Revolution - supported by that famous propaganda Poster with Trotsky in it and emphasizing the presence of Chinese soldiers in it as well, is merely to say that Russia was not responsible for its own Communist predicament. It is a disguise for Chinese Bolshevism; just like Jewish Bolshevism; yet we do not have Russian Bolshevism, nor Ukrainian Bolshevism, nor Polish Bolshevism. And we are absolutely prohibited, at WP, from having Russian antisemitism, Ukrainian antisemitism, Polish antisemitism. It's the inconsistency to which I object. That having been said, I have no problem with a clearly supported subject, title, article on any two words for a WP article - as long as that is Notable, and not the Original Research of a Wikipedian. Merely bring two words together and writing an Article about it is easy: just put them in quotes, and Google, and voi la, you've got a Wiki article. If Chinese Bolshevism can be evidenced as either a political slur or a topic researched by some scholar, I have no problem with that. But just because a Wikipedian editor finds it interesting to associate the Chinese in Russia with Bolshevism - that's not enough; or have WP rules now completely changed regarding Notability? And here's the earliest source for justifying the article about the Chinese in the Russian Revolution - the Trotsky with Chinese Poster: "[[Image:WhiteArmyPropagandaPosterOfTrotsky.jpg|right|thumb|200px|[[White Army]] propaganda poster depicting [[Leon Trotsky]]. Notice the Chinese soldiers.]]" : Yours truly, --Ludvikus 13:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
White Army propaganda poster depicting Leon Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers.
White Army propaganda poster depicting Leon Trotsky. Notice the Chinese soldiers.
    • Polish antisemites. Why, User:Mikka, will you not allow me to start an article on that? I find a study of notable or notorious Polish antisemites much more interesting than Chinese communists in Russia. I challenge you to give me a sound, rational explanation why you will not allow me to write an article about Russian antisemites. It's OK for you to study Chinese Commies (who allegedly made the Russians suffer), right? But the victimization of Jews by non-Jews is prohibited on Wikipedia? Explain the inconsistency please. --Ludvikus 14:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Category:Notable or notorious antisemites. That proposal of mine, fello Wikipedian User:Mikka, has yesterday been deleted. But you, Mikka, are going to get to keep your article, an article which can be interpreted as blaming yet another foreign element - like the Jews - for Mother Russia's Communism which later allegedly victimized Poland as well. --Ludvikus 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Trotsky Poster: This racist Poster depicts metaphorically the Russian Revolution as the product of two (2) (faceless) Russian Uniformed Sailors, five Chinamen, and led by Monstor Trotsky, also with slanted oriental eyes, all-red and dripping with blood, with a pentagram around his neck (one point less than the Jewish Star of David). This picture tells us who the real makers of the Revolution were - they were not really the (pure "White") Russian(s) - but mostly orientals - which the Jews and the Chinese are; no, no, it's not the fault of the Russians, it's the Chinese, just look at the picture which we are given. --Ludvikus 14:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Yep, you figured it out correctly. This was significant part of White Russian propaganda at these times: Blame on Jews, Letts, Chinese. `'Míkka 15:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sorry but the text is too poor to cover such a topic. It is collection of few low quality factoids without providing wider context. Such synthetic articles need to be created complete, not to be built by people adding this or that. Pavel Vozenilek 23:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep-interesting topic. Articles on other nationalities fate in Russian Civil War would be interesting too, for instance about early massacres of Poles by Russian Bolsheviks due to their perceived religiousness and stron national identity, or Latvians who formed Latvian Riflemen units and who fought for Bolsheviks and against their nation.--Molobo 23:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - If this group really is the "Chinese volunteers" as mentioned in the Russian Civil War, should the article be changed? So far 1 group are singled out to be some kind of supporter of the cause. May I just ask how many of the thousands of "workers" are really bodyguards? My concern is that there are thousands of slave laborers, but only a few are part of a mercenary group. And the whole group is being categorized into 1 group to create the illusion that they are bigger. Benjwong 04:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. The flow of the article is incoherent, smacks of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There may be an encyclopedic topic here but this article isn't cutting the mustard. --Richard 07:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Intriguing topic, article should be allowed to develop. Re... "is merely to say that Russia was not responsible for its own Communist predicament. It is a disguise for Chinese Bolshevism", it in no way dilutes "Russian" responsibility (that being a most amorphous phrase). I don't see any "disguise" here. Agree with Molobo. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very intriguing topic, and one with which I am mostly unfamiliar. Article needs cleanup, more references, and expansion, but no justification is given for deletion. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable historical topic. Certainly, the article (even the title, which is ungrammatical) could use some improvement, but the basic idea, already supported by some reliable references, is sound. Biruitorul 20:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletions. —Carlosguitar 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. —Carlosguitar 18:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • References (3): What disturbs me is my belief that the References are not carefully scrutenized. For example, Ref. #3 is a very long list of Poster descriptions - but there is no way of knowing exactly what item on that long list is pertinent to our Article; it appears as if the WP editor merely directs us to the Propaganga text-copy which makes reference to Chinese - that's a very strange way of establishing that (the) Chinese played a notable role in the Russian Revolution. I ask for editors please look at each reference and determine if it really supports the article. --Ludvikus 20:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Reference (2): This reference relies on this Original Research involving a primary source for a scholar to evaluate:
    "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.".
The problem is that the article is such a hodge-podge of Original Research by a single Wikipedian editor - and no-one is bothering to look very carefully on the list of refereces. A careful examination of same will show that there is no basis for the article at this stage whatsoever. --Ludvikus 20:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
We must be careful here because it's well known that the Whites were desperately trying to show that it was not Russians, but outside agitators, Jews, Chinese, etc., who caused the Revolution. Even if that were true, it's not for a WP editor to do original research to prove that. --Ludvikus 21:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per the other deleters. Ostap 04:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Encyclopedic and valuable for our readers. To delete because an editor would prefer this aspect of history remain unexamined would leave an unacceptable lacuna. Badagnani 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - I did some checking of my own. While this topic can be considered encyclopedic, I disagree with the content due to the timing. What makes the Chinese participation in the red army near impossible is the pre-cursor Li-Lobanov treaty. Under the rule Chinese were not allowed to interfere with russian troop movements, let alone join the red army. The timing doesn't fit as China was hammered by the unequal treaties up until the start of the Russian revolution. At this stage, China always had the short end of the stick. The book "Russia in 1919" about Chitaya Kuni is questionable. My best guess is still Chinese laborers marketed for the wrong cause. Benjwong 05:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Colleague, your are confusing the discussed topic with the political issue of China as country. `'Míkka 20:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Please show me where I am confused. The more I read up on it, the more this appear as propaganda disguised into an article. Benjwong 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, subject is notable and nomination smells WP:POINT. Also per Alex. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would note that multiple editors active in the portrayal of the Soviet legacy who can be found to disagree in the extreme all agree on "keep" in this case (a quick check finds Irpen, Piotrus, Grafikm_fr, and myself all in the affirmative). Based on that sort of unanimity of involved editors, I motion that we are done here. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 23:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good try. This article will very possibly get kept due to "no consensus" unless the closing admin chooses to give more weight to the delete arguments than the keep arguments. However, your "unanimity of involved editors" argument holds little water. --Richard 06:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't blame and editor for trying. :-) Though quite seriously I would have thought the Earth would stop rotating and we'd all fall off if I ever found myself agreeing with Grafikm_fr on anything. So definitely some water, I think.  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely. Finding myself in agreement with Grafikm_fr, Alex Bakharev, Irpen, and having Molobo agree with all three, as well as you and Piotrus: 60 Minutes material, for sure. Biruitorul 23:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You forgot the IRREDENTIST and CHAUVINIST Communist ANTI-ROMANIAN plus ANTI-SEMIT VANDAL who concocted these horrible Cinophobic Antisemitic Bolshevist lies from primary sources of KGB propaganda. `'Míkka 23:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.