Talk:Stepan Shaumian

Comment

His name is Stepan Shahumyan, not Shaumyan. I know transliterating a name from Armenian to Russian to English can mess it up, but this should be fixed. --RaffiKojian 17:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The information contained in this edit can be found in many sources:

In March 1918 the leaders of Baku Commune attempted to disarm local Muslim forces, while leaving armed all other political forces in the city, which resulted in armed confrontation between the Bolshevik forces, supported by the Armenian nationalist Dashnak militants, and Muslim militia. After the defeat of Muslim forces Dashnaks killed thousands of Muslim civilians in the city of Baku and neighboring areas.

Please do not remove it just because you don't like it. Grandmaster 13:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Smith, here's another source:

In March 1918 a showdown over the Soviet's demands for the disarming of Muslim troops ended with a two-day-long rampage through Muslim neighborhoods by Armenian soldiers allied with the Soviet, during which the soldiers set fire to a large part of the city and killed thousands.

Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10: 1566636469

--Grandmaster 13:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Smith as a source is unacceptable. The other source is academic and well written. The text should be modified accordingly to comply with the data provided by Benjamin Lieberman.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. As it stands now, it's way too POV. -- Clevelander 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why such a notable scholar as Smith is not acceptable. Also, what Septemeber events have to do with Shaumian? He was not involved, by that time he left to Turkmenistan. Grandmaster 05:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why Smith is notable at all. If he's so notable why can't you provide a source in English? -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Smith is a professor of Georgetown University. He is a specialist on Russian history and wrote books and articles on that topic. And who said that the source has to be in English? The article was written for Sakharov center, to a Russian language project, that’s why it’s in Russian. Grandmaster 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great but why is he notable? The point remains that his interpretation is not neutral while Lieberman states the facts only.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

His description of events is factually accurate, you may not like him, but we cannot dismiss a reliable source just because of that. Grandmaster 06:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have striked out the following in the article. I don't its relevant in the article. it just sticks out.

Levon Shahumyan, Stepan Shahumyan's son, was the assistant editor-in-chief of the Soviet Encyclopedia at the beginning of the 1970s.

IF someone wants to integrate that into the article it would be nice. I personalty don't see anywhere that it can be added. VartanM 21:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a paragraph can be created about his family? Grandmaster 10:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning Levon being the editor-in-chief is fine, as it is a notable position it itself. But, we need sources for that. John Vandenberg 12:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an article about Lev Shaumyan in Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [1] Grandmaster 12:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think words like "hostile Turkish army" with wikilink to ethnicity of Turks are at all appropriate and neutral in this case. So, let's avoid original research in future. Shaumian prepared for struggle against Ottoman Army of Islam not Turkish army as known today per se, moreover, he was deposed and executed by Britons not Turks. Atabek 20:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Atabek. I think the author of the article was being as accurate with the sources as possible. I changed some of your edits but hope that they are not too egregious.

Instead of wikilinking to "Turks", I linked it to "Ottoman Empire" but I don't think this was even necessary since the word hostile and Turk really have no connection with the behavior of Turks today.

In regards to his and the other Baku 26's deaths, this is the way it is written in most books. The British captured them at Krasnavotsk, then handed them over to the authorities at Ashkabad. As it is clearly sourced in this article, the British had no explicit hand in the execution of Shahumyan and his comrades as they originally wanted to trade them for British prisoners held by the Bolsheviks. Peter Hopkirk is a great authority when it comes to Central Asia and he says the same thing.

The last and final edit was in regards to the NK reference. I think it makes sense to say this only once since a reader who clicks on the link will find out that Karabagh is not recognized by any country in the world. Regards, cheers,--204.102.210.1 21:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

All good points. Also, the sources on this article write that 10,000-20,000 Armenians were killed by Enver's forces; while March Days appear to be pretty horrific, the number dead seem to disqualify it from the conditional "most" and by itself, seems too unnecessary and far too specific for a lead about a Soviet revolutionary. --Marshal Bagramyan 21:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Which sources? Armenian National Council in Baku reported figure less than 9,000 for September 1918 events, when Ottoman Army of Islam entered Baku (not "Enver's forces"). The confirmed figure for March Days was at least 12,000. What you call a Soviet revolutionary was actually a war criminal who engaged in massacre of civilian population fueling further ethnic conflict between two communities in order to gain political power. Atabek 18:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

March 1918

What do alleged actions by Dashnaks in March 1918 have to do with Chairman Shahumyan? And it's also a distortion of history to portray the Baku Soviet's retaliation against Azerbaijani nationalist massacres against Russians in the winter of 1917-18 and the attempted coup of March 1918 in Baku as massacres against Muslims.Kupredu (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no coup in Baku. That was the claim of the Soviet propaganda. It was not taken seriously anywhere outside of USSR. Grandmaster 04:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I quoted Kazemzadeh at March Days talk, here's another source:

In March 1918 a showdown over the Soviet's demands for the disarming of Muslim troops ended with a two-day-long rampage through Muslim neighborhoods by Armenian soldiers allied with the Soviet, during which the soldiers set fire to a large part of the city and killed thousands.

Benjamin Lieberman. Terrible Fate: Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. ISBN-10: 1566636469

Where do you see any mention of coup? Grandmaster 04:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If there were armed Muslim troops, while the official forces were armed Communa troops, is it not a revolt. For example, if you see armed Christian troops somewhere in Central Asia, what's this. Is it a revolt against official authorities or a peaceful demonstration of weapons? Let's think realistic. Gazifikator (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only the represented RS's, but also Thomas de Waal, who sometimes does pro-Azeri statements, recognizes there was a revolt: " in March 1918 Azerbaijanis revolted against the Baku Commune " [Black Garden, p. 100]. Gazifikator (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There were no official forces or official power in Baku. There was an anarchy and struggle for power after the collapse of the Russian empire. And the hostilities were provoked by the Baku Soviet, when they attacked and tried to disarm Azerbaijani armed forces. Here's a detailed source aboiut what happened: [2] Grandmaster 05:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Shaymyan himself admitted that it was him who started a civil war, and did it deliberately. This is from his letter:

Мы должны были дать отпор, и мы воспользовались поводом, первой попыткой вооруженного нападения на наш конный отряд, и открыли наступление по всему фронту. Благодаря стараниям и местного Совета и перебравшегося сюда Военно-революционного комитета Кавказской Армии (из Тифлиса и Сарыкамыша) у нас были уже вооруженные силы — около 6 тысяч человек. У «Дашнакцутюн» имелось также около 3—4 тысяч национальных частей, которые были в нашем распоряжении. Участие последних придало отчасти гражданской войне характер национальной резни, но избежать этого не было возможности. Мы шли сознательно на это. Мусульманская беднота сильно пострадала, но сейчас она сплачивается вокруг большевиков и вокруг Совета.

Grandmaster 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I have a scan of Shahumyan's letter, if anyone is interested. He pretty much says it all. He admits that he took a pretext to attack Azerbaijanis, and that he deliberately provoked an ethnic massacre, by using Dashnaks against the Muslims. No more needs to said. Grandmaster 06:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

In the cited part of the letter Shahumyan writes about Civil war, I see nothing denying the fact of revolt. The revolt and killing of disarmed Russians is also documented in - Anatomy of a Rumour: Murder Scandal, the Musavat Party and Narratives of the Russian Revolution in Baku, 1917-20, by Michael G. Smith, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2001, pp. 211-240. Gazifikator (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

He also writes about ethnic massacre, which he was going for deliberately. The events in Shamkhor had nothing to do with Shahumyan or Baku. In fact, the disarmament of the Russian troops returning from the Turkish front was the joint decision of 3 national groups, Armenian, Azeri and Georgian. It was carried out in the territory of Azerbaijan, by Azerbaijani and Georgian forces, and resulted in casualties on both sides. But it is a different story. I read that article by Smith, but there's a more detailed description in Kazemzadeh's book. Grandmaster 06:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It was everywhere in Azerbaijan. even Smith, who is welcomed in Azerbaijan, writes, that "Besides the random acts of self-arming by Muslim groups and defence committees throughout the winter, Muslim civic leaders in Ganja and Baku also began to prepare national militias to promote self-determination through self-defence, or what they also called the 'law and order and well-being of the region'. They now turned to the worst, but for them the only, possible alternative: the armed remnants of the Savage Division scattered throughout the Transcaucasus. These tensions broke into open conflict in January 1918. Under the authority of both the anti-Bolshevik 'Transcaucasus Commissariat' at Tiflis and the Muslim National Committee at Ganja (represented in Bolshevik propaganda as counter-revolutionary institutions within the dual power), Muslim forces disarmed Russian soldiers at Lenkoran and Shamkor, killing over 1000 in the latter skirmish. Here was concrete proof that, in the words of the Bolshevik Commissar, Alesha Dzhaparidze, Muslim forces were 'closing a counterrevolutionary circle around' Baku, advancing eastward from the Caucasus front, threatening from the North Caucaus and Dagestan, from Ganja and Shemakha, from Mugan and Lenkoran." Gazifikator (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I see nothing else to discuss. We have sources we need to incorporate it to the artilce. There are many sources on revolt, if all of these RS's are minority or wrong, you're free to add any comments by other authors. It is for WP:NPOV. Gazifikator (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And where the above source says anything about the revolt? Grandmaster 06:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of engaging into OR by trying to link the events in Shamkhor, very far away from Baku, with the March events, which took place in Baku, Shemakha and Kuba, it is better to describe what exactly happened in the city. And what happened was that Shaumyan ordered to disarm the Azerbaijani soldiers who came to attend a funeral and were about to leave the city. When the Muslim population demanded the return of the arms, Shahumayn started a civil war, and turned it into an ethnic massacre. These are the facts. Grandmaster 06:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, this is an article about Shahumyan. How was he involved in Shamkhor events, if he wasn't even there? What Shamkhor events have to do with this person? Grandmaster 07:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you was the first who named Shamkor here. I wrote about Azerbaijan and about revolt in March 1918 supported by the represented sources, including de Waal. Gazifikator (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Even Shahumyan himself admits that there was no revolt, and that the Bolsheviks were the ones who attacked their opponents. What is here to discuss? Professional historians, who conducted researches on this topic, say nothing of revolt. It is better to refrain from labeling the events and describe what in fact happened. The reader can decide for himself, if there was a revolt or not. Grandmaster 07:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Judging by POV and IP location, 71.143.159.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be banned user Jacob Peters/Kupredu. Grandmaster 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP reverted the article back to a months old version without any discussion or consensus. That is not appropriate, and I suspect that we are dealing with the same banned user who edit warred on this article before, most probably Jacob Peters/Kupredu. Please discuss and reach consensus first, and for banned users it would be better to get the community permission to edit AA articles. For genuine newcomers (though it does not look like the IP is editing for the first time) it would be best to get registered. Grandmaster 11:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved, unopposed. Will add a hatnote to the top of this article. Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Stepan Shahumyan → Stepan Shaumian – WP:COMMONNAME Երևանցի ^talk 20:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Google Books (excluding results from Wikipedia):

• "Stepan Shahumyan" - 38 results
• "Stepan Shaumyan" - 211 results
• "Stepan Shaumian" - 345 results

Google Scholar (i.e. academic articles):

• "Stepan Shahumyan" - 11 results[3]
• "Stepan Shaumyan" - 19 results[4]
• "Stepan Shaumian" - 75 results[5]

• Relisting note. Target is currently a dab page. Jenks24 (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I would like to once again state my opposition to the use of Shaumian as a completely nonsensical way to write the man's name. He was Armenian, and his name had an H in it. Just because the Russian language does not have an H, does not mean we should permanently desecrate his name, simply because the study of this man has been done by Ruso-centric scholars so far. It's a bad idea, and I'm not sure anyone even showed up to discuss the matter. RaffiKojian (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Does spelling Hovhannes Baghramyan's name as Ivan Bagramyan desecrate his name? So what he was Armenian? So is Yuri Oganessian/Hovhannisian. I clearly backed up my proposal with Google Books search results, which clearly show that Shaumian is more common in English language sources. ----Երևանցի ^talk 07:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course it desecrates his name. It is only a common spelling as I said due to heavy Russian influence. His name simply was not Shaumian, it was Shahumian. It's as simple as that. You can google this: "changed spelling of mao tse-tung to mao zedong", and see why the spelling of Shahumian's name should certainly be with an H, and why Baghramyan's should also be with an H. Why Peking is now Beijing, Bombay is Mumbai and Calcutta is Kolkata. Shaumian is essentially a colonial version of his name, and is not acceptable. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Stepan Shaumyan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)