Talk:Avraam Benaroya

Clean up

I've been cleaning this article up, adding links, correcting madeup words such as "inexistent", and I recently added the NPOV tag after reading the 1st paragraph of "The Federacion and the labour movement in Greece". The "rivers of blood" and "socialist democratic propoganda" seem suspicious. I would encourage some major fact checking. freestylefrappe 22:07, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• The page appear to contain a number of serious factual errors. I just finished reading Mark Mazower's "Salonica: City of Ghosts" , which talks about the period in question extensively, and devotes a couple of paragraphs to Benaroya specifically.

1. "an even crueller blitzkrieg erupted in which Greece and Serbia took from Bulgaria most of her spoils". In fact, the second Balkan war was initiated by a Bulgarian attack on Serbia.
2. "violent ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, in Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor". In Macedonia and Thrace none of the four sides involved (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Serbia) can be said to have engaged in ethnic cleansing. Salonica Jews especially were relatively safe during that period as Salonica was handed to Greece without a fight, and the Greek government followed a policy friendly to the Jews of the city. Mazower describes acts of disorderly conduct by some soldiers and newly-liberated Greeks wanting revenge against muslims, but they were soon brought under control (page 300).
3. "Chaos reigned in the New Provinces of Greece, where central authority was either unable or unwilling to protect the so-called "foreigners" from spoliation and persecution." While this was partially true in the countryside, in Salonica the picture was very different.
4. "The wily, Liberal Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, opted for conciliation with its Jews". Again, Mazower paints a very different picture. In the first election after 1912, the Jews of Salonica almost universally voted against Venizelos' liberal party. Venizelos lost, and the conservative governmnent that was elected had excellent relations with the Jews. When the Liberals got back in power, they sought to reduce the power of the jewish voting block by establishing an restrictive voting policy. From 1922 until 1944, the Liberals and the Jews rarely saw eye-to-eye, and jews consistently voted anti-liberal (to the right, or to the left).
5. The rest of the article is esoteric at times. The struggle between republicans and socialists from 1922 to 1949 is a highly debated topic, and probably the best policy for this article would be to link to History of Modern Greece, the KKE and the Greek Civil War.
6. the epilogue seems highly POV, esp. the paragraph that begins "Strolling around Salonica". Considering the street-renaming frenzy in Greece between 1981-1987, i'd like to see a list of streets named for dictators in contemporary Salonica. At the same time, there aren't any streets named for any communist leaders; that Benaroya does not have a street named after himself can hardly be seen as a sign of anti-semitism.Sysin 18:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to fix these errors and so I think I've dealt with 1,3,5 and 6. I got rid of 2/3 of the epilogue as it was pointless, rambling and far from neutral. freestylefrappe 04:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

And where is Avraam Benaroya in all this?

This article purports to deal with Benaroya but contains very little on the man. I would agree with many of the points raised above and believe that this article needs some heavy editing. --Damac 12:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kekszakallu intervention

rejoinder

Fact checking is always welcome, ideological bias checking equally so. However it is as folly to search for words that are not 'made up', as it is megalomaniac, to say the least, to claim objectivity in history. Without claiming to be objective, and while it does not focus exclusively on the person of Benaroya but tries also to present the context, the article is based on thorough archival research and comprehensive knowledge of the relevant scholarly bibliography. Does it contain factual errors? This remains to be seen. But none of the six points raised by Sysin can be characterized as such. Kekszakallu

and a reminder

from the Wikipedia NPOV tutorial Often an author presents one POV because it's the only one that he or she knows well. The remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it. Kekszakallu

and a few words more

Things not to avoid

Some Wikipedians, in the name of neutrality, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of striving for neutrality. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to. On the other hand, these terms should be presented, explained and examples given, perhaps with views of other groups of why the term is used as well as the group itself.

Kekszakallu

censorship addiction?

i have restored the original version of the article, enriched by the links added to it by various contributors. may i be permitted to note, as regards the recent adventures of poor Benaroya, that: 1. The habit of imposing censorship on an article without declaring the reasons, or giving any explanation whatsoever, brings to mind bad old times. Namely, Nazism. 2. Encouraging 'major fact checking' and not doing it for four months, and yet insisting on arbitrary censorship, testifies to authoritarian tendencies compounded by a certain lack of seriousness 3. Talking about undefined suspicions and neglecting to explain them shows intellectual sloppiness, and also an undemocratic mentality. 4. In any case, i cannot comprehend the objections to phrases such as "rivers of blood" and "socialist democratic propoganda". As regards the first, does anybody think that the bloodletting in the Balkan Wars did not qualify for that expression? Should one prefer terms such as 'collateral damage' instead? I am sickened by people who glorify war and wish to hide its less savoury aspects - they are worse than the ones who do the actual bloodletting. So, do we have here not only antidemocratic obscurantism, but also militarism and chauvinist nationalism? A nice mix indeed! 5. As a professional historian of the period, i can only ascertain that the six points raised by Sysin betray wholesale ignorance of the recent Balkan history and almost certainly of the greek language, and are themselves irrelevant and in thrall to nationalistic interpretations of history (1), or factually incorrect (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). 6. Given their ignorance of a subject, it is entirely logical that people may condemn its presentation as 'esoteric'. This speaks volumes about themselves, not about what they read. Of course, any interest on Benaroya today cannot but be highly esoteric, what else? But if people do not care about his life and ideas and struggles, why do they so fervently wish to spread their ignorance to others? 7. I see that the article on Benaroya tends to be deleted by people without any obvious or declared interest in the period or in the issues covered by it. I can only speculate on their reasons. Imposing censorship on a project based on openness, like Wikipedia, brings to my mind Hitler's use of the democratic process to destroy the German democracy, such as it was. Continue your good work, guys! Bravo! Go on for the Iron Cross!

Kekszakallu

vandalism

According to Wikipedia, 'Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content.'

In this sense, i do not see how restoring the original text can have been accused of vandalism. Rather the opposite is the case.

Kekszakallu

Thank you for turning this into a personal attack against my person, and my knowledge of the Greek language (μήπως τα δικά σου ελληνικά είναι καλύτερα; το αμφιβάλλω). I was quite surprised, esp. since I've never made a comment about you or your edits.

I came across this article while reading Mazower's book (he had a few pages on A.B. and I was looking for some additional information). I found some major contradictions between Mazower's book and the article. I also found some paragraphs to be of an editorial nature and (in my opinion) POV.

I didn't start hacking the article to my POV. I didn't start comparing the previous editors to Hitler. I posted my opinion in the Talk page, pointing to Mazower's book as a support (very lazy of me, since it was still on my desk). Freestylefrappe was kind enough to listen to my objections and make some changes to the article, but I never tried to force my opinion down his throat. Can you be a part to a constructive debate in this manner?

Regards, Sysin 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and on a technical matter, replacing wikified text with plaintext is a bad idea; if you are going to post your One And Only Truth again, please, at least, wikify it first. Sysin

some factual clarifications

1. There have been no 'personal attacks against persons' in my previous interventions in the current discussion. I do not know personally any of the participant persons, of course. And i have not the slightest idea about their person or character. But could not refrain from criticism of certain actions. Yes, i insist that the arbitrary censorship imposed on the article can plausibly be considered as showing antidemocratic obscurantism, militarist tendencies and chauvinistic nationalism. And such traits really bring to mind Hitler and his Nazis. No personal offence here. But political and ideological demystification.

2. As regards Sysin's command of the greek language, it now seems to be proficient but not perfect. As attests the solecistic phrase in greek used (το αμφιβάλλω). But i do not accuse anybody, believing as i do in everybody's democratic right to language, as a means of communication at least. Anyway, this knowledge might be put to good use… lots of relevant bibliography in greek await conscientious readers.

3. Sysin is certainly commendable for being the only contributor to the article, so far, who takes the pain to note down objections and sources, even without proposing any alternative view. And also for making the one valid criticism, that i do not wikify the original form of the article. As a newby, i unfortunately happen to lack the technical skills, at present. If he (or she) wanted to do something constructive, he (or she) might well wikify it, and add his or her POV at the points on which he or she disagrees. Instead of deleting them. For which work, of course, more familiarization with the facts would be welcome; a cursory reading of Mazower's fine book is but a good start. Among other sources, for a second start, could well be the recent History of Greece in the Twentieth Century, edited by Christos Hadjiiossif, of which four volumes have already been published.

Regards,

Kekszakallu

no explanation necessary

One more demonstration of brute force by Freestylefrappe, without any consideration for argument whatsoever. Will it again be called a personal attack, to remind the affinities of this practice with trademark nazi style?

Kekszakallu 23:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

You are lacking much more than technical skills, believe me. Προφανώς η στάθμη στο ΑΠΘ έχει πέσει πολύ. Κρίμα. Sysin 05:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I will believe when i see solid argument. Which seems slow in coming.

Insinuation is far easier than argument. A rhetorical device, in fact, currently connected with neofascism a la Georg Haider. Which, fortunately, doesn't go far. And utterly out of place in civilized discussion.

By the way, your last entry exhibits some more characteristic traits of generic fascism: wild generalizations, ponderous assertions of collective responsibility, and a telling depreciation of university and intellectual activity in general.

But what better to expect from somebody who claims that has read Mazower's book and has not noted that there were not many jews left in Greece in 1944? Or imagines out of thin air that "The struggle between republicans and socialists from 1922 to 1949 is a highly debated topic"? Some slight terminological confusion here, my dear colonel.

Kekszakallu 19:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Jews in the Italian sector (Athens, etc) were not deported until April 1944, and the left/right stuggle is still the most debated topic in Greece today, perhaps half the ink consumed every year in the country is on that subject. Sysin

one more demonstration of blind, silent violence

words fail me this time. Kekszakallu 21:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

We had an article here that was the product of a civilized debate. It wasn't perfect, but you could have helped improve it - by participating. You are new here - you said so yourself. Look around and learn. You don't need to study political science for four years to learn that barging in and calling everyone a nazi is not the best way to get your point across. Regards, Sysin 22:08, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. I did not call anyone a nazi. I just noted the affinities of certain actions and implicit ideological positions to the ideas and practices of nazism, which is a very different thing. And which affinity, i think, is a bad, very bad thing. That should not characterize our actions and ideas, and if it did characterize them should not be left without comment.

Of course, i am new here. But i learn. In other things, in which i am less new, i ask from others to learn before deleting other peoples' opinions. And looking around i found elsewhere in this site a nice proposal: When you disagree, the remedy is to add to the article—not to subtract from it. And another one: If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate. And a third: Concede a point, when you have no argument against it. Declare when your disagreement is based on intuition or taste. Nowhere did i find advice of the type 'delete ad lib'.

All the best,

Kekszakallu 22:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So you didn't call us nazis, you just said that we behave as nazis? I feel much better. And reverting an article many versions back, deleting all the work that went into wikiformatting it, is not called "adding to it". Regards, Sysin 07:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits

Freestylefrappe, please look again at what you've reverted and tell me that it's correct English

1. Damac: He studied law in Belgrade but did not graduate, becoming rather a teacher in ...

Freestylefrappe: He studied law in Belgrade but did not graduate, but became a teacher in ...

One to many buts in my opinion. What you propose is not natural English in my book.

2. Damac: ... each representing the different ethnic group of the city: Slavo Macedonians, [Jew|Jews]], Bulgarians, Greeks and Turks.

Freestylefrappe: ... each representing the different ethnic group of the city: Slavo Macedonians - Jewish, Bulgarians, Greeks and Turks.

Why the dash after Slavo Macedonians? Why Jewish when we refer to the Turks and not Turkish? In the books I read about the city, reference is made to the Jews and not to the Jewish, Turks and not the Turkish.

You evidently know something about the subject. How do you feel about the rest of the article? I think it's pathetic and deserves to the blanked and written from scratch. --Damac 21:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your redirects were my main concern. I have to say, blanking and rewriting from scratch would be a bad move, but editing out unrelated info is fine. You do not need to put the "|" between the page you want to link to and the reference that shows up. The word to the left of | is where it links to, to the right of | is what you see. freestylefrappe 21:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My redirects all ended up where they were supposed to; I do think it was rather petty of you to revert some of what I had changed and retain other parts. I could see nothing consistent in your edits: you reverted but/becoming to but/but, retained Slavo-Macedonian (as opposed to your anachronistic Republic of Macedonia), and but reverted to the hyphen and the word Jewish. I think the content of articles is far more important than where the "|" goes.--Damac 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians/Slavo-Macedonians/Bulgarians

In AB's time there was no concept of "Slav-Macedonians" as a group separate from "Bulgarians". This explains why BA, who tried so hard to include everyone, only published his paper in Bulgarian, and not in the (then non-existent) Slav-Macedonian language.

Of course, you're right. I'm glad there's someone else out there concerned about these attempts to rewrite history. --Damac 20:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But to use the term Slavo-Macedonians, as Freestylefrappe did is only to offend ethnic Macedonians, as someone says that Freestylefrappe is Shiptar, which is not uncorrect as far as I know, but it would be offencive for him. So I propose to use the neutral term "Macedonian Slavs" here. Freestylefrappe, stop using the Wikipedia to satisfy your nationalist frustrations.

This is still problematic as these people - Slavo-Macedonians/Macedonian Slavs - saw themselves as Bulgarians at the time. This is reflected in one of the languages of Benaroya's newspapers, which was published in Bulgarian, and not the language now referred to as Macedonian.

What is also interesting is that when this ethnic group was expelled from the city, they were sent to Bulgaria.--Damac 08:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Entire article is problematic

This entire article is comprised of 95% unsourced assertions at variance with basic general texts on the history of Greece, in facts large and small.

The basics of Benaroya's life belong, and his views, quoted FROM him, but this is not what this text comprises. It is a polemic.

It makes wild and absurd genalizations and my guess is lifted verbatim for a highly pov screed.

Therefore, instead of just complaining about an article's low status, please go ahead and edit it. Instead of just saying that the article is eg "a polemic" you could very well point out those very parts of the article that justify this opinion. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please be bold and go for it! --Michalis Famelis 15:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Jewish Ethnic Activism

I have added a section detailing Benaroya's efforts to assist his community and his awareness of his Judaism. This should be evident from the books he wrote, the commitees he founded and his final decision to emigrate to Israel. The facts are all from other parts of the article. Xenovatis

• He was actually exiled to Israel and stripped from his citizenship, while being detained in a greek island together with other communists. Abravanel GR (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

year of death

Mazower writes that he died in 1973, and Marketos in 1979. both dates are reflected in the article (it says 1887-1973, but also that he died in 1979). can someone who is fluent in Greek check the Greek sources for confirmation? (Unsigned: Written by Dgl)

The Greek Literature and History Archive has an online version of portions of Iossif Sakkis' archives on Greek Jewry, and it lists Benaroya as born in 1886 in Bidini, migrating to Salonica in 1908, and dying at age 97 (i.e 1983) in Israel [1] [2]. The same source names his son as Lazaros Benaroyias, born in Thessaloniki in 1918, died as a Greek soldier during the Greek-Italian war in 1941. Sakkis (died 1999) was the community's authority on the Holocaust in Greece, but there is no way of knowing what his source for AB's death date is.

It is also interesting that many (most?) KKE sources use the name Benaroyias for the father. It is possible that his Greek documents after the annexation of Thessaloniki added the 's' in the name, as is typical in Greek name-endings and/or that his party registration used this form of his name. sys < in 11:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Main source not credited as such / copyvio

The article of Spyros Marketos ("Avraam Benaroya and the Impossible Reform") is only mentioned in the bibliography section, but after having read it, it appears that it is the main source of this article (and of Socialist Workers' Federation), entire sentences were just copied from it to wikipedia. No problem for me, but it would be correct to insert some "ref" to credit Marketos' article. --109.129.31.75 (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blind reverts

To the User:AngBent who was blocked for long time for the same. You nead a discussion, not reverts of a sourced text. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added more then 10 reliable sources, including Encyclopaedia Judaica, Ben Aroya was Bulgarian Jew from Vidin. Jingiby (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Unfortunately, the article is plagued by disruptive editing. Certain people continue to remove information, and even add info that is factually wrong (e.g. his place of birth is given as Vidin, Bulgaria, while this person was born in 1878, when the city was part of the Ottoman Empire) AngBent (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Benaroya was born in 1887, i.e. nearly 10 years after Bulgaria was recognized with the statute of a distinct Principality in 1878. Jingiby (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This should be settled by sources not edit reverts. These two sources (1 and 2) suggest he was born in Vidin in 1887, and that surely was Bulgaria not the Ottoman Empire. Apcbg (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please AngBent, stop your disruptive editing. If you need a verifification, citation or a source, just put a corresponding tag in the text. Deleting a sourced matrial only because you do not like it and without discussion is vandalism. Jingiby (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AngBent, to avoid being blocked, instead of blind reverting and deleting reliable sources and information, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

AngBent, please do not remove correct information and reliable sources from this article. You have a long history of edits in this article as removing everything related to Bulgaria in it. If you believe the information and sources you removed were incorrect, please cite contradicting references or sources and discuss the changes here before making them again. Now you tend to be enganged in an edit war. Jingiby (talk) 08:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

AngBent, for more than one year you have vandalized this article repeatedly deniyng even the fact that this man was born in Bulgaria. And that despite that in support of that fact there were provided more than ten sources. Now you keep deleting information and facts about the life of Benaroya which linked him again with Bulgarian organization. And deleted infos are supported again with nearly ten sources. Moreover, you refuse any reasonable dialogue or even compromise. What is your problem? Jingiby (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

AngBent, I didn't see your compromise proposal. Deleting every sourced sentence, you don't like is not a real descision. You aren't the only editor here. Consensuss is also not obscene word. Please, give a reasonable suggestion. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I only removed a small piece which was a clear example of coatrack. The core of the article remained unchanged.AngBent (talk) 13:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Stop removing sourced content from this article. To avoid being blocked, instead of blind reverting and deleting reliable sources and information, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to echo the above comment. Please, refrain from making non-constructive edits such as this one. The edit not only removed sourced info, but also introduced various grammatical mistakes, which were far from helpful. --Laveol ^T 11:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite so; Jingiby and Laveol are right that we should refrain from deviating from normal Wikipedia process. Apcbg (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

POV-pushing and disruptive editing

Jingiby, please refrain from making sweeping changes in the article without discussion and reverting everything you don't personally like. You did provide a source, but it was a biased book from decades ago, not justifying changes on such a huge scale. You should work towards making a version that represents consensus among editors AngBent (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Cf. preceding section. Apcbg (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

AngBent, below are the secondary Academic and tertiary peer-reviewed sources, you have repeatedly deleted. Now I have understand they were biased and out of date. Could you explain, which exactly, or all of hem are biased and outdated? Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Biographical dictionary of European labour leaders, A. Thomas Lane, Greenwood Publishing Group, 1995, ISBN 0-313-26456-2;
• Sociological papers", Volume 11, Leon Tamman Foundation for Research into Jewish Communities, Bar-Ilan University, 2006, ISBN 9637326618;
• Modernism: The Creation of Nation States, Ahmet Ersoy, Maciej Gorny, Vangelis Kechriotis, Central European University Press, 2010, ISBN 9637326618,
• Borderlines: genders and identities in war and peace, 1870-1930, Billie Melman, Routledge, 1998, ISBN 0-415-91114-1;
• Turkish Review of Balkan Studies, Volumes 10–11, Ortadoğu ve Balkan İncelemeleri Vakfı, Isis, 2005;
• Socialism and nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, 1876-1923, Mete Tunçay, Erik Jan Zürcher, British Academic Press, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, 1994, ISBN 1850437874;
• Balkan Smoke: Tobacco and the Making of Modern Bulgaria, Mary C. Neuburger, Cornell University Press, 2012, ISBN 0801465508;

AngBent, if I see, you continue to make disruptive edits in the article, without serious discussion or proposal for compromise and you revert everything you don't like without to read the comments of other editors or to hear their advises. If you don't change your way of editing, the next time, I will report you to the admins. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)