Talk:Sophie Areshian

Anarchist?

@Aristoxène, Areshian is categorized in the article as an Amenian anarchist but no source is included for that claim and the other language Wikipedias do not categorize her as such. Which reliable sources describe her as an anarchist? czar 21:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czar Good evening, I’m replying here and I’ll start by apologizing for not yet responding on the other page. I tend to be cyclical and want to create new pages, so I move on to something else and take my time—sorry about that. Regarding Areshian, this is a question I’ve asked myself, and perhaps @Grnrchst insights can help us here, as with my former account, AgisdeSparte, we did some work on Alexander Atabekian together, so I believe this person could assist us.

As for Areshian, I used the same categories available on Mikaelian’s page because, given that he is clearly the predominant influence on Areshian’s political formation, it didn’t seem unreasonable. However, if we go back to the source, we encounter the same issue with Mikaelian: was he really an anarchist? I think the root of this problem lies with the ARF. Essentially, this organization, founded in the 1890s, seems to have highly variable positions depending on its members.

Between 1890 and 1915, it’s undoubtedly a mix of far-left ideas and anti-colonialism (later, following the genocide and especially the Soviet invasion of Armenia, the party became anti-communist and, in many ways, right-wing nationalist - which is not unusual for the evolution of far left anticolonial parties, probably). But there are definite trends. In this case, labeling Mikaelian as an anarchist didn't completely seem a mistake—and this likely extends to Areshian as well.

For instance, Mikaelian primarily built networks with anarchists. He appointed Quillard (a friend of Reclus) as the organization’s Western spokesperson, collaborated with Joris and Nellens, and sourced most of the organization’s weapons from Naum Tyufekchiev. These are the general observations. As for specific sources, an entire chapter in Alloul’s work, which I’ve referenced extensively in the article (the book, not the chapter), addresses the question of anarchism and explicitly connects the attempted bombing to anarchism, particularly through the influence of propaganda by deed and ideological influence on the ARF during this period. This chapter is titled The Ottoman War on ‘Anarchism’ and Revolutionary Violence and spans pages 99 to 128 of the book. Furthermore, the attempted attack was explicitly categorized as anarchist by the Ottoman Empire (in fact the Ottoman Empire considered even talking about the 'Armenian Question' as anarchistm - linking the two fights together, a connection that was clearly made by Mikaelian at some extent too, seing his links with anarchists) I’ll send some screenshots of the relevant chapter to illustrate this.(1)(2)(3) Axel Corlu kinda looks towards the same direction, and explicitely speaks about the ARF + Mikaelian + Yildiz attempt in his article about anarchism in the Ottoman Empire, that he published in the book 'History from Below', but it is avalaible freely online. He says :

The reasons for this specialized attention are not difficult to fathom: state oppression and Armenian uprisings with disastrous results had become a fixture of the second half of the nineteenth century in Ottoman lands, especially in Asia Minor. The 1915–16 genocide at the hands of the Union and Progress leadership proved to be merely the tragic ending to a decades-old struggle. Thus, the emphasis on Armenian in “Armenian anarchist” was probably the reason for this inflated number of reports, even though Armenian anarchists certainly “deserved” some of the attention through their activities such as the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover in Constantinople, led by members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as Dashnaksutyun), not to mention the assassination attempt on Abdülhamid II.

So I feel like it's best to see what you two think about that, but those are the ideas that came into my mind before chosing to keep that category.

I’m not saying they must be categorized as anarchists, but it seemed reasonable to do so, given that Mikaelian already had these categories. I had tried to provide a historical analysis of the ARF’s anarchist tendencies on the ARF page, but it was gatekept by a contributor who didn’t want to hear about it—I think; I don’t quite remember. In any case, there is academic literature on this topic and should be dwelved into a bit. What do you think? Aristoxène (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I just remembered that there’s also a chapter in the book that explores Joris’s perspective (it really is a great book! lol). In this chapter, the author revisits the ideological proximity between anarchism and smaller anti-colonial movements of the period—a proximity that was notably stronger than that of Marxists at the same time. It's called - 'Edward Joris : Caught Between Continents and Ideologies ?' and the points made by the author are that not, he wasn't contradicting himself and it was a struggle that was linked ideologically. At least, that’s what this chapter seems to suggest in my opinion.(1)(2)(3)

Also, I remember reading somewhere that Zavarian, one of the three founders of the ARF, was full blown anarchist communist and was very Bakuninist, but I have no source about that and it should be researched, maybe @Grnrchst knows more about that. There is also the quote when I improved the page of Quillard, I found one of his publications and he is speaking at a conference he is organizing to recolt funds and support for the ARF and he says (this is the spokesperson of the ARF in the West) : 'This situation is, in reality, common to all of Turkey, as it is general causes that create among all populations in Turkey an anarchist or revolutionary state of mind that is nothing but the natural resistance of human beings defending their property and their lives. They defend their property against the Turkish regime and their lives against the Hamidian regime.' (This was 2 years before the Yildiz attempt, and he participated (he was seemingly able to participate in their congresses) in the events leading to the choice of that strategy, which he found a 'bit extreme') Aristoxène (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't bother with finding Zavarian being Bakuninist, I found a source in the book (p.44-45) and it also revisits the position of the ARF at the time.(1)(2) Aristoxène (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this analysis. Generally categories represent "defining" connections, i.e., associations that are so commonplace as to warrant mention in the lede section and certainly to be covered by reliable sources. If there are sources that Areshian was a Bakuninist or that it was influential in her thinking, that could warrant the category. If sources more commonly describe her as a revolutionary, we should categorize her as that rather than as an anarchist. It's unclear to me from the quoted passages whether the group associated with anarchist philosophy or if the authorities were calling them anarchists as a pejorative form of rabblerousers, but in any event that would be more a discussion for the ARF article. czar 15:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Although your thoughts on this are very interesting and well-researched, I think this discussion is getting away from the topic. Per WP:CATDEF, we're supposed to be using categories based on what sources say about a subject, not what they say about other related subjects. Sources do describe Mikaelian as a Bakuninist and as believing in anarchist principles (hence why he is listed in the category); that Mikaelian was the main influence on Areshian and that the Ottomans used "anarchist" as a blanket pejorative for Armenian revolutionaries isn't relevant to whether to specifically categorise Areshian herself as an anarchist. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst She is described like that, though, see the Axel Corlu source. Armenian anarchists did the attack on Yildiz. That's an affirmation that clearly extends to Areshian, who was one of the main organizers of the Yildiz attack, except if you think the claim doesn't apply to her but only to Mikaelian (which would make 0 sense, since it's a plural) or only Zareh/Mikaelian/Margarian ; but we have no source specifically saying which one would be and which one would not be. To that source, we can add the one saying that Areshian was politically influenced by Mikaelian - which was her mentor and whom she called 'Dad', and you tell me that there is a source saying that he was Bakuninist. After checking the page, indeed there is. Then it's not anymore that much of a debate, I feel like, not categorizing her as an anarchist would be a mistake and would go against published sources (Corlu clearly and the others by extension). Aristoxène (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You have an organization that is clearly very linked with anarchism, with 2/3 founders being Bakuninists, you have one disciple of one of these leaders who is politically formed by one of those Bakuninists (the source says that Mikaelian kept these views until his death, so during the planning of Yildiz) and who made an act described as being made by 'Armenian anarchists' Aristoxène (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

It's true that I didn't clearly mention that in the page, but I note here that name 'hayrik' she gave him was an affectuous and intimate one ; it's not the nickname he had in the ARF or anything. It was between her and him and a personal way of showing her affection and respect towards him. Aristoxène (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think this would be more clear cut if Corlu had explicitly mentioned Areshian when discussing the attempt, but he only name-drops Joris and Mikaelian. Personally I'd lean towards keeping the category, but I think it'll probably raise questions again in the future if there's no mention of anarchism in the article. If you can elaborate that connection explicitly in the text of the article (rather than here on the talk page), I think that'll provide a better case for keeping the category. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst Maybe the best way to putting that would be to remove the cats on her page since she isn't mentioned by name directly but to say that she participated in the attempt, which would be an attempt influenced by anarchism and maybe note that Mikaelian was anarchist or very near that while presenting him in the page. That way, we let a significant part of it to the reader to understand, we don't go too far to not make the sources say stuff they aren't, and we don't invizilibise those links at the same time. Aristoxène (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This solution seems better also because it seems to me to confine the anarchism to a certain period of her life (youth+meeting Mikaelian+Yildiz), it's not sure she kept those views after the death of Mikaelian, especially since her writings (at least those in Berberian, who is the only one to actually quote her in the text) seem to mostly revolve around practical and not theoretical things. Also, the fact of her marrying Ohanjanian, who would become Prime Minister, is kinda not-anarchist in a way lol. (Even though the First Armenian Republic was more like a grouping of fedayis trying to mitigate the effects of the genocide, so it was a very peculiar republic controlled by the ARF and void of people in a way. But in any case, it's a state ; so maybe the proposal of saying the attempt was influenced by anarchism (and in fact the attempt could be seen and is seen as a two-fold attempt ; since Western anarchists and Balkan anarchists joined the project - and there is a source saying Mikaelian was Bakuninist at the time) and that Mikaelian was Bakuninist is a better idea, because it kinda restricts the talk about anarchism to that period, and we let the later events of her life follow their course Aristoxène (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Aristoxène: This sounds like the ideal solution aye. Thanks for all your efforts looking into this! --Grnrchst (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@Grnrchst @Czar Tell me if this suits you or not ? I removed the cats and added some text, I think we can maybe keep her in the project now that some links are made, but indeed best to remove the cats at least since it's not sure. I have to say that it's kinda difficult to find sources about figures like that, and it's kinda hard to determinate what are the actual tenets of those people. I read a bit of what Mikaelian wrote in Droshak, and I have to say he looks indeed very anarchist, but I thought he was maybe a Marxist or whatever. Thanks for the discussion and know that you made me research things and discover things I wasn't even suspecting ; I will be less dumb this night than this morning. (Also I will probably use this opportunity to improve the page on the Yildiz attack and speak about those links and way more in detail about the sequence of events, since the page seems kinda generalistic and not very precize so far (no insult to the former editors)) Aristoxène (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. We can only go as far as the reliable, secondary sources go. czar 12:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)