Talk:Self-hating Jew/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Controversy" section POV

A "controversy" is when there is disagreement about something. However, this section consists of nothing but a generic defense of those who criticize Israel, saying that if they haven't explicitly said that Jews should never have a state, their criticisms can't be due to their being self-hating. Where's the "other side"? Are these defenses against particular people? Against straw men? Where's the rebuttal? The section is POV and improperly titled as it is. Calbaer 00:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

the prophets condembed israel for their sins if one does the same today it would seem as the prophets they are attacked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.199 (talk • contribs) 10:14, October 20, 2007

Self-Hating Jew

Jews critical of Judaism or Jewish community movements, aren't they called Self-Hating Jews too? --Sina 04:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The article mentions this in the Usage and Controversy sections. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate Entry

1. The phrase is used in most Jewish communities around the world.

2. The entry leaps into the current political debate, without mentioning the origins of the phrase and the phenomena (of obvious controversial ontological status) which goes back to (at least) the 1930's in Nazi and Pre-Nazi Germany (cf., Theodore Lessing, Das Judische Selbsthaas [Jewish Self-Hatred], 1930). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.34.127 (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Here is my letter to Malik about this entry: (2008-03-13)

Dear Malik Shabazz,

1. It seems that you might have skipped accidentally one of the sources of the article:

Theodor(e) Lessing's tract “Jewish Self-Hatred” (Nativ (Hebrew: translated from German), 17 (96), 1930/2004, pp. 49-54 (Das Judische Selbsthaas, 1930)).

This source was already published in Pre-Nazi Germany, by Lessing, who was a Jewish philosopher. Thus, it is clear that the phrase "self-hating Jew" is used already in other communities around the world. If you like, you can say "in the US, UK and Pre-Nazi Germany"; but I think it's better to say "in other Jewish communities in the world".

2. In Israel, where I live, 99% of the Jewish population is "critical" of Israel (one doesn't like the tax policies, other the bad traffic, others the government expences, the anti-religion movements, the policies in the west-bank, the pull-out from Gaza strip, and so forth). Nevertheless, no one of these 99% Jews are called "self-hating" solely because of this criticism. As the *source* of Lessing describes, self-hate is only attributed to pathological hate, and today to those who *delegitimize* Israel (gently saying, they are "severe critics"). Saying otherwise is contradictory to the usage of the phrase. Hence, the phrase "..solely because of their political views" is misleading.

Best wishes, Elad Afek Israel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elad Afek (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) The article has a section titled Historical origins of the term. Please feel free to add additional historical information to that section.

(2) As I wrote on your Talk page, one of Wikipedia's core principles is that information must be attributed to verifiable reliable sources.

(3) The sentence you are trying to change says that "some Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel or Zionism have reported the phrase being used against them solely because of their political views". That is a fact, and it is supported by a reliable source. You are also trying to delete, without explanation, a paragraph that describes the use of the phrase "self-hating Jew" in the political context. That paragraph is also supported by a reliable source.

(4) In support of your proposed changes to a section on current usage of the phrase "self-hating Jew" you offer a book about its usage in Weimar Germany? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Dear Malik,

1) Lessing's book is not merely an "historical origin". It is one of the most reliable and authoritative sources for the analysis of the phenomenon and phrase "self-hating Jews".

2) In contrast to this, the article cited as a "source" (by W. M. L. Finlay) is a *self-proclaimed polemic* article -- and should be taken as such. Even, Finlay himself, cites Lessing. In other words, Lessing's tract is the one expressing the "consensual" view, while Finlay is the "revisionist". The entry, as you suggest, is totally inaccurate as it brings solely the view of Finlay as the "objective" one.

3) The fact that "*some* writers ... have reported..." is irrelevant to the definition and usage, unless this is the regular and most common phenomena. But as the sources only support the fact that *there exists some writers* who feel that they are criticized because of their political views...", we don't have support for the claim that this is the most common use. There are some other who feel differently, for instance.

4) The 3rd paragraph is irrelevant. It is polemic (what one person (i.e., Finlay) says is not that central), and if you like you can put it in the controversy section, not it the main entry.

Best regards,

Elad Afek — Preceding undated comment added 22:01, March 13, 2008

(1) Regarding a contemporary phenomenon, a 70-year-old book is of historic interest only. Lessing cannot speak of the experience of Jews who criticize Israel, and Zionism was a view held by a minority of Jews in 1930.

(2) Neither Finlay nor the British Journal of Social Psychology are polemicists. Finlay cites Lessing as an example of the concept of "Jewish self-hatred" in a historical context; he doesn't use Lessing as a contemporary source.

(3) By many accounts, the most common use of the phrase "self-hating Jew" is against those who criticize Israel or its policies.

(4) Finlay's paper includes a survey of the literature on the use of the phrase "self-hating Jew" and an investigation of its current usage, which included a review of The Jewish Week and The Jerusalem Post. It is a peer-reviewed paper and a reliable source and not just "what one person says". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

============

(1) Without concerning your personal view on Lessing book ("historical interst only") it gives precise evidence that the phenomenon of self-hating (whether subjective or objective) was in use in other Jewish communities around the world. Hence, this entry must reflect this fact.

(2) Finlay's article is certainly polemic and goes hand to hand with the current political trends practiced in liberal western societies. Hence, we should cite it as what it is not as an absolute authority as you suggests.

(3) There are no empirical support for this contention. There are not many accounts, and anyway, there are "many accounts" that says the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elad Afek (talk • contribs) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's Law needs a corollary

Godwin's Law says, "Whoever compares the other side to Nazis automatically loses the argument."

The same should apply in reverse:

Whoever calls a jew "self hating" automatically loses the argument. The person saying "self hating" need not be jewish for this to apply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.64.232 (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Auto-Anti-Semitism merger proposal

Auto-Anti-Semitism is a new article about the phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred. "Auto-Anti-Semitism" is a neologism that has 21 Google hits including its Wikipedia article and 2 hits at Wikirage. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• I never heard about that. On the other side Self-hating Jew is a well-sourced article. So I suggest to merge the (new ?) information into this last one. Ceedjee (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed - clearly the same thing & S-h J is surely the better known term. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge by making the new article a redirect. No other changes necessary. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agree, Auto-Anti-Semitism should be merged here. Re the discussion below, it doesn't matter how these terms are used in other languages, "Auto-Anti-Semitism" is hardly ever used in English, so Auto-Anti-Semitism should be replaced by a redirect and its contents merged here. NSH001 (talk) 11:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have reached concensus on this, with one objector below. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Here is a Hebrew Google search for "Auto Antisemitism". It does have several hits. The reliable (or, at least, semi-reliable) sources, such as [1][2][3] seem to consider it pretty much synonymous to "self hatred". So I support the redirect. -- Nudve (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge In my decades of political awareness, the term "Auto-Anti-Semitism" has never been heard, whereas the term "Self-hating Jew" is much more common. -- Avi (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Note to prposel of merge

Providing addtional citations

Providing more citations:

besides the usage in Hebrew wikipedia (Only "Auto-Anti-Semitism", not else), the Hebrew google shows [4] 22,600 result for - אוטו אנטישמיות (two seperate words), and 1,790 for אוטואנטישמיות (as one word)[5]

And I have other sources - also relating the term to "self hating Jew" (In English language):

• Drama and Ideoligy in Modern israel (e-book):

[6] - connecting both terms side by side.

And a book containing parts of Benjamin Netanyahu:

• The Jerusalem Alternative

A major news paper story:

• Article in haaretz - determinig this basiclly an Antisematism : In other words, Antisematism

-Besides off course the ref to Nativ,Lishkat hakesher, official branch of the government responsible to ties with jews, known for operating during the cold war and jews in the soviet union (see:Auto-Anti-Semitism ref).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

1) This is English Wikipedia and we've already established that "Auto-Anti-Semitism" isn't an English word.

2) Don't associate the right-wing extremist website Nativ with the Israeli government agency Nativ. The "source" of yours is a book excerpt by a member of the editorial board of Nativ; her book is published by the owners of the website. In other words, the source is self-published and not reliable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 07:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Nativ is not a politiclal force, it it's a government agency, sorry.

And I have provided the links in Englsih. --Shevashalosh (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

And oh By the way, Haaretz is identified not only with the left wing, but rather the far left wing. --Shevashalosh (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're mistaken. NATIV online is run by מרכז אריאל למחקרי מדיניות (the Ariel Center for Policy Research), not the Israeli government. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could be that it was published thorugh them, I'll have to check it more deeply after the weekend. By any case, even if it's only theirs on the contarary it shows the academic of it:

This article is an excerpt from the book, ISRAEL AND THE POST ZIONISTS: A Nation at Risk, edited by Shlomo Sharan, Sussex Academic Press with ACPR Publishers, 2003, 256 pages.

besides, I have provided the ref to Haaretz, by no means right or even center, and by any case, this only shows you how much this term is in use (and explains why Hebrew Wikipedia only uses this), and why this is such an important political dialouge within the Jewish Society. --Shevashalosh (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

---

here is what I (shevashalosh) and Shabazz wrote on Talk:Auto-Anti-Semitism

the term in use is "Auto-Anti-semitism", I don't know about "self hating jew", which is more of a description of one ("self hating Jew" only ) or both (The academic term in use - "Auto antisemitism" and it's description "self hating jew"), merge is possible into this article, both because this is the term in use (see Hebrew Wikipedia), and also the fact that this term is more "gentle", so to speak. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:Self-hating Jew#Auto-Anti-Semitism merger proposal.

Also, please note that this is English Wikipedia. The most common English-language term is used, regardless of what's used in Hebrew. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about English. Jews not only live or lived in Israel, like those who non-living people i've pointed to like Otto Weininger (1880, Vienna) who's work, the Nazis used, as well as Nicholas Donin (1240, france), who lead to the burning of the jewish liturgy, the Talmud. It's part of History, what can you do about it. --Shevashalosh (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Another remark: "Auto-Ant-Sematism" is the acatemic term-title, "self hating jew" is the academic description-explantion of it (see Hebrew Wikipedia). --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about your reference to Hebrew Wikipedia. There's a Category:Auto-Anti-Semitism on Hebrew Wikipedia, but I can't find any article on the subject. Can you provide a link to it? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

First I have provided a ref to Nativ, and second all the people (dead), I put in the article are mentioned in their category, in use of this term. --Shevashalosh (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is that a round-about way of acknowledging that Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the subject of Auto-Anti-Semitism? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No. to the contarary, "Self hating Jew", does not exsit in use in Hebrew Wikipedia, but rather the only term that is in use is "Auto-Anti-Sematism" - which is how Jews refer to it. There is a whole category pointing at (dead) people --Shevashalosh (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But no article. If there is one, you should interwiki link it. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about an article, but rather more important - a whole category refering to such people (not living in Israel) -"Auto-Anti-Sematism". The only term that does not exist both in article, and more so in a whole category, is "self hating Jew".

Each langage can use different expression to refer to the same concept. "Auto-Anti-Semitism" sounds very bad in English and therefore is not used. "Self-hating Jews" sounds better, refer to the same and can easily be sourced. Both articles should be interwiki-ed, nothing strange that litteral translation do not fit each other.

eg. fr:négationnisme in French is linked to historical revisionism and whereas in French, fr:Révisionnisme is not pejorative at all, negationnism is forbidden by the majority of laws and negationnists are sued in justice. Ceedjee (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

AS I said, I was talking about English, Jews don't just live or lived in Israel. The term in use is pointing back at (dead) like Otto Weininger (1880, Vienna) who's work, the Nazis used, as well as Nicholas Donin (1240, france), who lead to the burning of the jewish liturgy, the Talmud. The refs in the article, as I said, are doing alrghit, the only difference is that "Self hating Jew" is the Academic descrption, and "Auto-Ant-Sematism" is the Academic-term, not description. --Shevashalosh (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, Dan Burros, was an English speaker Jew in the United states, who became a Nazi. --Shevashalosh (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic titles

Throughout the article there are references to people that include academic or other titles (Professor Sander Gilman, Rabbi Michael Lerner, etc). Should these titles be removed?

The only guidance I can find in the Manual of Style is with respect to biographies: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Academic titles.

Other editors' opinions would be appreciated. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Where they are relevant, as they are here, they should be used the first time the person is mentioned, but not in subsequent mentions, imho. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• From my point of view, people should not be considered or deconsidered for their title but for what they say or what they did. We have the chance to have hyperlink. So, what in a book would be Noam Chomsky, is on wikipedia Noam Chomsky. If we write Professor Noam Chomsky, why not write, Professor of Linguistic Noam Chomsky and if so, why not Professor of Linguistic Noam Chomsky who wrote many political books opposed to Israel policy... Everything is true but the first one doesn't mean at all the same as the last one... WP:NPOV prevents the use of title, but in very special case, when it really is important to understand the information or the sentence. It is also opening the door such sentences as "Prof Dr Benny Morris of the university of BeerSheva disagrees with Dr Masahla for the causes of the Palestinian exodus" from which we can easily deduce who is right and who is wrong even if nothing has been said... Ceedjee (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes why not give his address too... It is standard to use relevant titles like "Rabbi" precisely to avoid having to follow the link unless one wants to. AFAIK there is nothing at all in WP:NPOV to prevent this, as you imply, and indeed it is often insisted on at WP:FAC. Is "such sentences as "Prof Dr Benny Morris of the university of BeerSheva disagrees with Dr Masahla for the causes of the Palestinian exodus" from which we can easily deduce who is right and who is wrong even if nothing has been said... " a joke? Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, for Rabbi, I don't mind much, because it doesn't give credit or discredit to the reported analysis.

But between a Prof Dr working in a famous university and an Arab Dr, I can guess who is right and is not.

FYI : in the article "Noam Chomsky" was described that way and that is why Malik Shabazz started this discuss after I removed his titles and the name of his university...

Were would you suggest we stop and why ? Could give references to wp:policies that answer this question ?

Ceedjee (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, but they may well be there somewhere. But FAC practice is always to "introduce" names, whether linked or not, with some brief explanation, which a title such as Rabbi or Professor is a start on. A description such as "historian", "professor of psychology" etc would be better. Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

References to Self hating Jews

The refs in "Self hating Jews" article are doing alright, the only thing is this is the Academic-description of the phenomenon, whereas "Auto-Anti-semitism" is the Academic-term, not description (see Hebrew Wikipedia - it gos as far as Otto Weininger (1880, Vienna) who's work, the Nazis used, as well as Nicholas Donin (1240, france), who lead to the burning of the jewish liturgy, the Talmud) --Shevashalosh (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some citations for this assertion? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

These were all I could find, and they're hardly enough to support "widespread academic use". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Providing more citations:

besides the usage in Hebrew wikipedia (Only "Auto-Anti-Semitism", not else), the Hebrew google shows [7] 22,600 result for - אוטו אנטישמיות (two seperate words), and 1,790 for אוטואנטישמיות (as one word)[8]

And I have other sources - also relating the term to "self hating Jew" (In English language):

• Drama and Ideoligy in Modern israel (e-book):

[9] - connecting both terms side by side.

And a book containing parts of Benjamin Netanyahu:

• The Jerusalem Alternative

• Article in haaretz - determinig this basiclly an Antisematism : In other words, Antisematism

-Besides off course the ref to Nativ,Lishkat hakesher, official branch of the government responsible to ties with jews, known for operating during the cold war and jews in the soviet union (see:Auto-Anti-Semitism ref).

--Shevashalosh (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Given this, I suggest we transform Auto-Anti-Semitism to a redirect to Self-hating Jew and that we just add a section in this last article that explains that in hebrew, A-A-S is the used expression. The link to the Ha'aretz article is a point for this. Ceedjee (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

History section

This entry suffers from a lack of context. In particular, this section is much too short and not very informative, in addition to needing citations. There should be references to documents such as "O Woe that I am a Jewess". If anyone had more info or citations that can situate this term better, great. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism

The main article is published under the category Category:Antisemitism. Is this an endorsement that "self-hating Jews" are anti-semites or "self-hating Jews" are really in the same category as David Duke or Hitler? Tagging the article as part of the broader scope on antisemitism might be pushing POV, when the consensus of what constitutes a "self-hating Jew" is no consensus at all. We may consider removing the categorization of this article from such labels. This entry is highly subjective.--Son of More 19:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is considered in the Category of Antisemitism. I agree it does not belong in that category. I agree that such categorization is not an endorsement that "self-hating Jews" are antisemites. Certainly not in the category of the two people you mentioned. I nevertheless don't think what is called for is the severing of that categorization. That is because, in my mind, the concepts are related (though different), and the words are related, so that a person exploring these subjects with a lack of focus, can perhaps find their way to this article, if this seems like something that may be of interest to them. But I can respect your point of view. There is an argument to be made that this article does not fall under the category heading of "Antisemitism." Bus stop 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the category's name was poorly chosen, and unfortunately it appears to be making implications about this article (or about "self-hating Jews"), but the category encompasses a wide range of articles, from the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee to the American Nazi Party and Ku Klux Klan. I know it's contrary to naming conventions, but maybe it should have been named "Articles related to antisemitism". — Malik Shabazz | Talk 05:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The term is an anti-semetic term. Accusing someone of being a self hating jew unpacks to the commandment "You are Jewish therefore you may not hold this view", which is antisemetic and ignores the fact that , like any other ethnic community, there is a diversity of political and social opinion within the the Jewish community. Obviously if someone is completely broken in the head like a holocaust denier, or a 'push the jews into the sea' type then they are well I guess self-hating. But when the term gets used against people who criticise of sections of israels political establishment or policies , then the term is anti-semetic, and anti-democratic. Duckmonster (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have redirected the article here. Having a list of people is most likely a NPOV violation unless they are self-admitted, and even so, that list belongs here. To have a separate article just for the neologism is inappropriate--that is what redirects are for. -- Avi (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some problems

Having never attempted to edit a "controversial" article before, I come here with some trepidation. I stumbled upon this during one of the ANI threads that Shevashalosh started, and more importantly, from some related comments by Bishonen in an unrelated thread; it's probably about to be archived, but a copy of the current thread is here. (topic changes drastically about 4 paragraphs down) If you haven't seen her comments, I suggest you follow the link, as they give an excellent insight into my motivation here.

Bishonen's comments made sense, but at the time, I nodded my head slowly and said "no way am I getting involved". However, I can't get them out of my head, so I thought I'd take a shot at discussing.

Sorry if I'm stepping on someone's toes here (I don't know if everyone here is relatively happy with the state of the article, and I don't know if there's any one editor mostly responsible for its current state), but I think this article is currently too skewed toward the POV that "Self-hating Jew" is a legitimate term, when it has been my experience (as an observer only; I haven't used the term, and (not being Jewish myself) never had it directed at me) that is is more like a content-free insult with little basis in reality. This article seems analogous to having the article Uncle Tom start out:

Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures.

It also seems analogous to having the article Cracker (pejorative) contain lots of information on poverty in the southern U.S.; information on poverty in the southern U.S. belongs somewhere, but putting in Cracker (pejorative) would give too much legitimacy to the POV that such a phrase is used by reasonable people having reasonable academic discussions.

I haven't look thru everything yet, but just so I don't bite off way more than I can chew, I've got two suggestions to start with.

1. Change the introduction to more closely match the phrasing in other articles about pejorative phrases.
2. Remove the first paragraph of the "Usage" section; not only have I never heard "self-hating Jew" used that way, but the reference for that paragraph does not support the claim. It describes people hiding or downplaying their Jewish identity, but nowhere in the reference does it refer to this as self-hatred.

I'm about to go ahead and change these first two issues to what I think they should look like, but am perfectly willing to have them reverted and discussed more; the changes are intended as illustrations of how I'd like it worded, not as trying to impose something ahead of time.

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I like even better, as an introduction, the entire stub Bishonen quotes from 2005:

"'Self-hating Jew' is a derogatory polemical label typically used by politically conservative Jews in the United States to describe left-wing Jews who publicly criticize the government or policies of Israel"

Just so you know where I'm coming from. That's not the version I just changed the article intro to, but I'd be interested in hearing people's reaction to it. --barneca (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored an old, vastly superior but still not great, introduction. I've also commented out the "psychological basis" paragraph - it doesn't make sense to first state that this is an epithet or pejorative description, and then try to describe it as though it were a valid phenomena. One or the other, folks, and personal preference doesn't determine the answer. Avruch ^T 22:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Self-hating Jew" differs from those pejoratives in one significant way: once upon a time there was genuine psychological research into the phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred. Today the phrase is used — almost exclusively, I think — in an attempt to pathologize dissent. See #"intended to insult Jews" and "used mainly by other Jews," above for a summary of a recent paper on the phenomenon. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What would make sense, then, is to characterize it by its current usage (as an insult without much basis in fact or academic research) and then include a "historical usage" or some such, or perhaps "early research." Psychological basis seems to be giving some sort of scientific justification to the term as its currently used, which is patently not acceptable. Avruch ^T 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too; the current wording (as of this timestamp) is better, IMHO, but still emphasizes the pathology aspect, when it seems to me the current usage is what should be emphasized in the lead. It isn't POV to clarify that this is used as a perjorative term; indeed, it seems POV to me to omit that fact. --barneca (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I put in the rating of "Start" as well, not that I think it will make much of a difference in drawing some much needed attention from the WikiProject that claims this article. As it turns out, the project does define a "C-Class" but for some reason doesn't list it as an option under its rating parameters. Avruch ^T 22:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The psychologists who defined the term didn't do it as a pejorative, but as a pathology. Daniel Burros would be a recent example. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Plainly, the historical usage should be mentioned in the lead, on normal WP:LEAD considerations. The term also had, and probably has, a considerable usage, not yet mentioned, for secular Jews who were perceived as underplaying/denying their Jewish identity, by changing their name for example. The current lead and article does not give a worldwide view & is too recentist. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Group loyalty

It seems to me that this article deals with what is just one particular case of a larger issue: loyalty of individual members to groups. (There art few words more highly charged emotionally than "traitor".) In the case of this article, I have some concern that the focus is so specific that the general issues will get lost in the particulars. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

A major authority in this source

Antony Lerman Jews attacking Jews Haaretz 12/09/2008. he is dismissive of the notionNishidani (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Szasz's (apart from Timms' 2 vol.bio, which has extensive material as well) on Karl Kraus, who copped heavy stick as an ostensible 'self-hating Jew', one of the first, ironically, to be diagnosed with this 'condition'. Thomas Szasz. Karl Kraus and the Soul-Doctors:, Louisiana State University Press, 1976, p.12, has an incisive dismissal of this silly cant term, as a rhetorical gambit among leading figures in an inter-Jewish polemical milieu. So does

Hannah Arendt, introd. Walter Benjamin, Illuminations tr.Harry Zohn ('Nothing could be more misleading (than raising questions of 'self-hatred', Nishidani) when dealing with men of the human stature and intellectual rank of Kafka, Kraus, and Benjamin'. p.32)

The same goes for the nonsense about Israel Shahak and so many other trenchant minds within the Jewish intellectual tradition of modernity.Nishidani (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

But, as I've commented above, this sort of usage of the term, as opposed to that in C19 religious polemic & modern political polemic, is not adequately explained in the article, and should be, silly or not. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite true, and no contentiousness implied in remarking on the silliness of the modern usage. It is deeply offensive, apart from jejune, to call someone who happens to disagree with you, who happens to share a similar ethnic background, a self-hater, since this means that ethnic identity does not allow dissent within its ranks. The totalitarian implications are lost on those who throw the term around. Nishidani (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What makes Antony Lerman "a major authority" on this subject? The fact that you agree with him? The major authority on this subject is Sander Gilman, who literally wrote the book on this topic. As for the Jewish community, it seems remarkably tolerant of internal criticism. In any event, what do you personal views have to do with article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be late in replying. I had more serious things to do, like watching Vettel win at Monza.

Permit me, Jayjg , to note that your ostensible point is rather jejune, in that it stands on the strength of a singular inability, for a native speaker of English, to distinguish the distinct functions of the definite and indefinite article in English.

I said, Anthony Lerman was a major authority on issues relating to anti-Semitism (a class of which ‘Jewish self-hatred’ is a subset). You come back and say, effectively, if ineffectually, 'No. You're wrong. Sander Gilman is the major authority'. Well, I would never deny that. So what's your problem, understanding elementary English? Neither of us introduced the word ‘academic’ as a qualifier.

Would you want me to insert ‘non-academic’ after ‘major’ to feel more comfortable, to introduce Lerman, director of the Jewish Policy Institute in London, who, after three decades of professional study and monitoring of anti-Semitism, the class of actions and statements of which so-called ‘Jewish self-hatred’ is classified as a sub-set, concludes as follows?

’Anti-Semitism can be disguised as anti-Zionism, and a Jew can be an anti-Semite. In principle, therefore, exposing an alleged Jewish anti-Semite is legitimate. But if you read the growing literature that does this - in print, on Web sites and in blogs - you find that it exceeds all reason: The attacks are often vitriolic, ad hominem and indiscriminate. Aspersions are cast on the Jewishness of individuals whom the attacker cannot possibly know. The charge of Jewish "self-hatred" - another way of calling someone a Jewish anti-Semite - is used ever more frequently, despite mounting evidence that it's an entirely bogus concept.'

'Serious discussion of current anti-Semitism - rational, objective, academically grounded - is virtually nonexistent. It is being replaced by internecine Jewish political battles and endless controversies over the alleged anti-Semitic implications of comments on Israel by public figures. Practically the entire business of studying and analyzing current anti-Semitism has been hijacked and debased by people lacking any serious expertise in the subject, whose principal aim is to excoriate Jewish critics of Israel and to promote the "anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism" equation.'

p.s. I’m more than familiar with Sander Gilman’s extraordinary output on the medicalization of stereotypes in this and other areas of 19th-century culture. I see no evidence on the page so far of a thorough understanding of Gilman's highly nuanced analyses of the phenomenon, not only in this monograph, but several other of his works that deal with the topic. I suggest you read closely, if you haven't yet, his monograph on Franz Kafka:the Jewish Patient, which shows just how inextricably assimilated these stereotypes were to the discourse of Jewish milieux, to the degree that ‘self-hatred’ interpretations can only be frivolously superficial, esp. with regard to critics or thinkers within that tradition, like Kafka, Karl Kraus, or Israel Shahak. Most of these were simply troubled by a ghetto mentality, which Kraus, like Shahak, insisted, must be fought durch Auflösung zur Erlösung. Lastly, though I have personal views, I do not, like many others, hide them. Unlike many others, if asked, I can footnote them, point by point, to quality academic sources, something you appear incapable of doing, vide your edits on the Shahak page, which look like an instrumental use of poor sources to back a personal take on the man, whom no source of quality would call a 'Jewish self-hater'. Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing lots of stuff

I'm sorry, but isn't it customary to discuss removing the majority of the text of an article? WP:BRD, for instance, outlines a process where a bold edit is made, its reverted, and then the editors proceed to discuss. At this point we've bad B, then R, and then inexplicably another R prior to D. Perhaps, Malcolm, you can explain in some detail why you think it should all be removed? Avruch ^T 17:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if the change came as a shock. I applied WP:be bold. When I compared this article with Self-hatred, it seemed pretty clear that the definition and explanation had gotten buried under layers of a political fight. That does nothing to help the article, rather the contrary. I tried to be fair, by leave enough explanation of the politics, and added ad hominem too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should add that I think the material I removed, although sourced was not balanced to create a neutral article. The problem is that a lot of Jewish anti-Zionists (and their allies) are pissed off over the term being directed at them, and as a result want to make the ad hominem point over and over. I understand the frustration, and the defensiveness, but making the point once should be enough. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

@malcolm - according to your own comparison, the wiki article on self-hatred, "The term "self-hatred" is used infrequently by psychologists and psychiatrists, who would usually describe people who hate themselves as "persons with low self-esteem."

this is in the lead paragraph.

this only enhances the point that "self-hating jew" isn't used as a psychological term, but an epithet. do we have self-hating hindus listed as well? do self-hating blacks, gays, or any other self hating group have a page on wiki? its perjorative nature needs to be clearly stated in the lead, in much the same way an earlier editor compared to the wording of the uncle tom entry. i was under the impression that this was resolved already in the previous discussion but i will go ahead and change it. i am new here so please excuse if i make a mistake with protocol. Untwirl (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

as referenced ealier - the statemnts of barneca (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC) were widely agreed upon. this is an epithet and should be announced as such, unless you believe other inflammatory terms such as "nigger lover" and "oreo cookie" deserves status as a psychological condition? Untwirl (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you change is more difficult to read, and adds nothing that was not there already. The reason I made the changes I did was to get rid of layers of defensive stuff that hid the simple meaning of the term. I think that "ad hominem" makes it clear enough that the term is often used a a verbal weapon. My inclination is to revert back your change, but will wait to see if other editors have any comments they would like to make. (You might find this amusing [10]) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use a latin phrase, even a common one, in the lead - especially if the grammar is wrong. (The English grammar, not the latin). If the primary facet of this phrase is its use in a pejorative and political manner, which it seems to be, then reducing the part of the article addressing that facet into a "sometimes used as an ad hominem attack" grants undue weight to other uses. Making the primary focus of the article the "psychological" meaning of self-hatred, as interpreted by the editor for its application to the phrase, wrong legitamizes the term and its usage and introduces a form of original synthesis. Self-hatred, and a self-hating Jew, are not necessarily connected or part of the same phenomena. Avruch ^T 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way - bold is fine, but if you notice in WP:BRD it goes like this: Bold, revert, discuss. Not bold, revert, revert and challenge others to discuss if they don't like your change. Avruch ^T 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Avruch, could you spell it out a little more? Is your objection to "ad hominem"?

Your criticism of the psychological term seems justified, to the extent that it is under the heading of "Usage", which gives some implications I did not intend. I will change that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

Untwirl has just left a message on my talk page.

Malcolm Schosha,

• you cannot remove this material claiming it is in the lead given one cannot put material in the lead that is not in the core of the article.
• you cannot remove material claiming it is soap if you don't have at least one source of higher prestige or relevance that claims rather the contrary or at best, that such theories are propaganda. In the current case, you remove material from scholars arguing it was soap.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the lack of full description

Once again, this has been legitimized with the extra definitions. Saying that "self- hatred means..." is equivalent to defining uncle tom by saying "an uncle is the brother of your mom or dad" or "a cracker is a bite-sized crispy baked good."

I also don't see how the usage against Eastern European Jews is an acceptable addition but its usage against Jews who oppose Israeli policy isn't. This is obviously an attempt to water down a politically charged term by avoiding and calling insignificant its connotations.

I'll wait awhile before editing to see if Malcolm and Jay have a convincing reason why this differs from Uncle Tom. Untwirl (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Anti-Zionism has nothing particular to do with the term "Self-hating Jew." The term can be used, for example, for a Jew who is fond of German music [11]. Please stop trying to turn this into an Israel/Palestine issue. (What Jay added was an explanation of origin, not of current usage.)Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

each of these pages use self-hating jew to describe to people who are against israeli policy. how can you say "Jewish Anti-Zionism has nothing particular to do with the term "Self-hating Jew" when it is so widely used to describe exactly that? Untwirl (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, many Jews who opposed Israeli policies are called self-hating Jews. But that is only a single example of one group of Jews who are called self-hating Jews. Other examples include Jews who date non-Jews, Jews who don't observe Shabbat, Jews who change their names to sound "less Jewish", etc. Why should we limit this article in scope to only one sub-group of Jews who are called self-hating Jews?

As far as "Uncle Tom", there is a big difference. Jewish self-hatred was once a serious topic of research among psychologists. The same was never true of "Uncle Tom"-ism. Follow the link and read what you can of Finlay's paper. "Self-hating Jew" isn't a colloquialism like "Uncle Tom"; it's the application of a theoretically legitimate psychological term to quash dissent. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

phrenology was once a serious topic of research among doctors. that doesn't make it one today. do a quick search and you'll see that every hit uses the term to refer to jews against israeli policy. Untwirl (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Nobody would use the expression in any other sense these days. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm sure i could find a book touting the benefits of phrenology or palmistry or any other junk science. The existence of that book doesn't make this a "legitimate psychological term." if your argument is that all of those people fall under the description then the first line "a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews" should be changed to " Jews who date non-Jews, Jews who don't observe Shabbat, Jews who change their names to sound "less Jewish," Jews who are fond of German music (per malcolm), and Jews who oppose Israeli policy. None of these suggest a hatred toward Jews. Let's make it perfectly clear who this epithet is levied against.Untwirl (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

This article, the way it is now, says enough. If you want to discuss particularly the aspect of what you are interested in, it would be better to create a new article for that. Just link it to this article.

The book that Malik Shabazz linked to, The Jewish American Princess and other Myths: The Many Faces of Self-Hatred, seems to deal with Jewish desires to assimilate into American WASP society, and nothing mat all to do with Jewish New Left manifestations of Jewish anti-Zionism. The book, therefore, fits what is described in this article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

now you're deciding which aspects of "jewish self hatred" belong in this article (ie " Jewish desires to assimilate into American WASP society") and which do not (what you call "Jewish New Left manifestations of Jewish anti-Zionism"). even your wording is inflammatory, where as mine was simply informative (jewish anti-zionism vs. Jews who oppose Israeli policy). my suggestion -as well as ceedje's edit which you deleted- is to include all of the connotations. isn't this what wikipedia is about? your own example - fond of German music - isn't even included. you are the one pushing the view that the most widely used meaning shouldn't be included and this appears to be in support of your political agenda. Untwirl (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

btw the first paragraph of finlay's paper disputes the "psychological term" theory - "This article critically reviews Jewish self-hatred as a psychological concept, examining in particular the criteria used to identify its presence in individuals. A lack of clarity over this issue means that the term is often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their lifestyles, interests or political positions (particularly with respect to Israel) from their accusers." it CRITICALLY reviews the concept. it is used against jews who differ PARTICULARLY with respect to israel. your own source disagrees with you.

the next two paragraph are equally telling "The behaviours which he(Lewin) singled out were not unequivocal rejections of Jewish identity, nor were they necessarily anti- Semitic. The Jews he identified as displaying self-hate to varying degrees were those taking part in mainstream activities and associations, those who had negative attitudes to particular groups of Jews other than their own, those who did not assert their Jewish identities in the public forum, and those who did not support the organizations that Lewin favoured.

The problem with Lewin’s identification of who is displaying self-hate arises firstly because of the assumption that there is a correct manner and degree to which people should express their Jewish identities in public, and secondly that there is a set of core values and institutions to Jewish identity. With regards the latter, Lewin assumes that people who do not support the values or institutions he sees as central are purposefully rejecting their Jewish identities. But people may decide not to follow old customs or ascribe to beliefs for many reasons: because of a more general secularisation in Western societies (see Pollak, 1987); because previously close-knit communities (such as the ghettoes of Eastern Europe) became dispersed through urbanisation or emigration (Goldstein, 1995); because younger generations were more critical of the aspirations or values of an older generation (Diller, 1980); or because large-scale immigration meant that people were often born into a different country or society to their parents. To adopt the practices of the majority culture, to take part in its institutions, or to be part of broader social tides does not necessarily imply a hatred of one’s ancestral culture. Lewin’s claim was that there is a correct way of being a Jew, and people who deviate from this are therefore distancing themselves from their Jewish identity. The problem with this is that who is and is not exhibiting self-hate depends on how the commentator represents the category, what they define as its essential properties, institutions and political positions, and what level of public identification they judge to be correct. However, these issues are often disputed within social categories. Definitions of Jewish identity have changed over time and have been the subject of much debate. Examples include the changes in the centrality and meaning of the Holocaust for Jewish identity in the last half of the 20th century (Novick, 1999), the debates between spiritual, religious and political Zionists over the nature of the Jews (Hertzberg, 1959), and the controversy of Zionism and its changing relation to Jewish identity over the last century (Wheatcroft, 1996)."

at this point i am going to change the lead as well because it seems that you are trying to censor this information and continue to legitimize the term instead of providing a balanced definition Untwirl (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

discuss addition

Since there is a disagreement concerning this addition I am moving it here for discussion.

=== Usage ===

Individuals sometimes use the phrase "self-hating Jew" against a Jew who is considered to be actively working against what they perceive as the interests of the Jewish people. It has been used in this manner against Jewish reformers and anti-Zionist, non-Zionist and post-Zionist Jews. For example, some Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel or Zionism have alleged the phrase being used against them solely because of their political views. This usage is hotly disputed by those so labeled, who often come from a differing point of view concerning what is best for the Jewish people.

Mick Finlay of the Psychology Department at the University of Surrey writes that "an accusation that an individual is distancing themselves from the group can be a rhetorical attempt to silence dissent, to cast some possible members as inauthentic, and to represent particular political positions as somehow essential to the categorical identity." He also notes that "the concept of the 'self-hating Jew' illustrates the importance of recognizing that psychological concepts often develop in particular political contexts and are used by people to give those projects a supposed legitimacy outside of the political."

it is obvious that this term is used against jews who don't support israel. What reason (other that your personal belief) can you provide that it shouldn't be included? i am fine with including the outdated and discredited information about its 'psychological' origin but i insist that the current and most common use be cited as well. what problem could you possibly have with that? Untwirl (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, the term is used that way, and I had an sentence about that that which was removed. But you can not add a section to the article to discuss your gripe, and stop there. Doing that is both WP:SOAP, and POV pushing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

from "Focus on content" - dispute resolution - "if you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral." Untwirl (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

also "POV pushing is a term used on Wikipedia to describe the aggressive promotion of a particular point of view, particularly when used to denote the undue promotion of minor or fringe views. While calling someone a "POV-pusher" is uncivil, even characterizing edits as POV-pushing should be done carefully. It is generally not necessary to characterize edits as POV-pushing in order to challenge them."Untwirl (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why should I be responsible for balancing your POV additions? I think this article is better short.

Would you be willing to compromise? At one time I had this in the article: The term self hatred has its origin in psychology and refers to extreme dislike of oneself, anger at oneself. The term is also used to to describe individuals with a dislike or hatred of a group to which they belong[2]. The term Self-hating Jew, takes that phrase and and turns it into an accusation. The last sentence was remove (by you?) because it was unsourced. Would you be will to return a similar sentence, with sourcing? That would keep the article short, but still contain your point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take back the offer. Since the lead already contains this (that I had forgotten about): Several Jewish writers and activists critical of Israel or Zionism have challenged the phrase as being being ad hominem attacks, based on their political views.[1], I do not see why more should be necessary. If you want to add another ref or two, that is certainly ok. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

you think the article is better short? where does wikipedia say to choose brevity over balance? they actually suggest the opposite. please refer to the wiki guideline i copied above. Untwirl (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are you repeating the exact same point in the first two sentences of the lede? A point, I might add, that only discusses a small aspect of this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

discuss lead

Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews

so it is okay for you to remove something for discussion but no one else?Untwirl (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

my revisions are sourced. is it pov pushing just because it isn't your pov?Untwirl (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

i don't appreciate the accusation of soapboxing when i am simply adding more relevant information. please refrain from incivilityUntwirl (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

this revision is sourced from the same author and article as the first footnote and is more to the point of that article. none of the examples suggested of people who are called self hating jews show that they hate themselves or other jews, but you insist on leaving this in. also, since when do we define a term with the same word? Untwirl (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Red-link user trying to narrow the focus of the term to something having to do with Israel. I'm not Jewish, but I don't know that that's the point of the concept. In any case, edit war going on and some kind of assistance is needed to put a stop to it. So I've reported this to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

if you "don't know that that's the point of the concept" why would remove a quote from a scholarly article? is there a reason for your preference of "a jew who feels hatred" as a definition of the term (which seems to be a much more narrow focus that the version you changed as well as defining a word with the same word)? Untwirl (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we centralize the discussion, which is now going on at WP:ANI, WP:3RRN, and WP:EAR? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I posted at ANI to alert a broader audience to the edit war. If the edit war stops and the discussion is confined to this page, that would be fine. If it doesn't, both users are liable to get blocked for awhile, and what good will that do? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My only concern was that there would be three or four simultaneous discussions of the same article. There are notes at WP:3RRN and WP:EAR now that the matter is being discussed at WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

With enough attention being raised, maybe that will lead to some productive effort. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for helping on this - we were getting nowhere. there are 2 main issues here. first - the definition is confusing, redundant, and it seems to be original research. i had replaced it with a direct quote from the scholarly source listed. are there any other suggestions? second - the wholesale deletion of another user's addition. is there a reason why this verifiable and sourced info shouldn't be included? the second question was responded to with a curt "I like the article better short." and the first one hasn't been addressed at all -see section above titled "discuss lead". maybe we can focus on the article instead of all this nonsense.Untwirl (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Treachery

Theere seems to be some confusion between the concept of self-loathing when directed at oneself versus the idea of being a traitor to one's ethnic identity and nation. It seems rather like the term white guilt - another political football. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hatred describes a psychological problem. Saying that someone is a "Self-hating Jew" is a cheep shot.

At one time I had a sentence (the last one in this paragraph) to clarify that: "The term self hatred has its origin in psychology and refers to extreme dislike of oneself, anger at oneself. The term is also used to to describe individuals with a dislike or hatred of a group to which they belong[2]. The term Self-hating Jew, takes that phrase and and turns it into an accusation." It was removed because it was unsourced, although I think the sourcing supported it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Non relevant and wp:pr

I have moved here this sentence:

"The term self hatred has its origin in psychology and refers to extreme dislike of oneself, anger at oneself. The term is also used to describe individuals with a dislike or hatred of a group to which they belong."

This articles deals with "self hatred jews", which is a consistent expression. Providing here a definition of "self-hatred" from a source that does not deal with "self hatred jews" is a WP:PR. More this is not relevant for the article. The lead is clear by itself. Ceedjee (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a key part of the term "self-hating Jew." Perhaps you could explain further why you think defining that in the article is "not relevant." Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are convinced by the first argument, no need to develop the second one, that remains true. Ceedjee (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That does not follow. See my edit under Treachery, just above this section. On reconsideration (again) I would be willing to add a sentence to make clear that the "self hating Jew" accusation is a cheep shot, not a medical diagnosis. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

defining a word with the same word

the first sentence in this article

"Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term most widely used as an epithet for a Jewish person who is perceived by others as a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews."

is meant to define the term but uses only the same words (" a Jew who feels hatred toward" )

my suggestion is

"Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term most widely used as an epithet for a Jewish person who is perceived by his accusers as being disloyal to their Jewish heritage."

this is a compromise to what malcolm stated earlier was "one particular case of a larger issue: loyalty of individual members to groups."

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs)  

this gets to the heart of the insult without repeating the word 'hatred' which doesn't accurately describe what action or behavior is responsible. i would like to see it followed by the finlay quote i tried to add earlier - which was reverted without discussion and labelled by malcolm as pov pushing and soapboxing.

"holds different views regarding "their lifestyles, interests or political positions (particularly with respect to Israel) from their accusers."

btw this quote is from a peer-reviewed scholarly article. Untwirl (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No. This seems too POV. Words like "epithet" (not quite accurate either), and "accusers" are problematic here. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

epithet is in the version you reverted to multiple times. perhaps you would prefer 'racial slur.'

please address the issue of using the same word in the definition (hatred) and provide an alternate. i don't see how any of the behaviors discussed can be accurately described as hatred. maybe 'opponents' instead of 'accusers' would be more neutral. also, i appreciate your attempt to discuss rather than accuse me of nefarious intentions and hope that you will assume good faith from this point onward and we can work together to improve this article. Untwirl (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew is abrasive wording. That's all it is. I have no idea what, if anything, you know about Jewish culture, but in the context of that Jewish culture, "self-hating Jew" is not all that big a deal. This is one of my favorite quotes from the book of Jewish humor, called Zen Judaism: "The Tao has no expectation. The Tao demands nothing of others. The Tao does not speak. The Tao does not blame. The Tao does not take sides. The Tao is not Jewish." That is how Jewish culture is. Judgmental.

Sure calling someone a self-hating Jew is an abrasive cheep shot. But I do not see it is that big a deal in the context of how Jews express their criticisms to each other. I remember hearing an interview with Amos Oz, concerning a book in which he interviewed Israelis across the political spectrum. Sometimes there would be a big argument, and the person he was interviewing would call him such things as "a self-hating Jew", a "traitor", and some other stuff too...all while yelling at full volume and pounding to the table. Then, when Oz was leaving after the "discussion" was over, there would always be the invitation to drop by again if he was near by. Abrasive speech, sure. But no grudge. Its part of Jewish culture. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the lesson in jewish culture! i still would like for you to address the questions above. if this is your response, then i'll assume you want the definition to be "an abrasive cheap shot that doesn't really mean anything because jews are judgemental but they don't hold a grudge."

i'm going to resist the urge to state the obvious anti-semitic properties of this argument.

i will adjust my suggestion to your concerns,

""Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term most widely used as a racial slur for a Jewish person who is perceived by his opponents as being disloyal to their Jewish heritage."

i am requesting for the fourth time that you please address the issue of using the same word in the definition (hatred) and provide an alternate. thanks. Untwirl (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this was, and is good

Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a term used to describe a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews. Several Jewish writers and activists critical of Israel or Zionism have alleged the phrase being inaccurately used against them, based solely on their political views.

You are the user who wants a change to the lead, but as far as I can see you have provided no justification, much less a better version. Nevertheless, if you want something different I would be willing to agree to this

It is implied that the term Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) describes a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry, or to other Jews. However the phrase invariably has an accusatory aspect, and is most frequently used as an insult directed at a Jew who seems to have, in one respect or another, abandoned Jewish heritage.

I could live with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm sorry, you seem to misunderstand the major problem - the title of this section - "defining a word with the same word"

can you address this issue, pleas? both of your suggestions contain the same wording with regard to hatred. perhaps it would help if other editors chimed in on this point, as you seem to not have an opinion on it. thanks Untwirl (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I do understand, but I do not think there is a problem with that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Malcolm here. I don't think the definition is circular (which is the reason we don't say, for example, "a Ridiculous Schmegegge is a Schmegegge who is Ridiculous.") We assume the reader knows what "hate" and "Jew" and "self" means; the sentence serves to make it clear that the hatred is not a personal thing; that is, we're not necessarily dealing with a person with low self-esteem, but rather a person accused of loathing his own ancestry and cultural milieu. The objection is technical and in this case with little merit. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

my opinion on the specifics of how a racial slur should be described has been informed by the discussion of uncle tom that's archived now. (Uncle Tom is a pejorative for a black person who is perceived by others as behaving in a subservient manner to White American authority figures, or as seeking ingratiation with them by way of unnecessary accommodation.)

it doesn't say "who hate their blackness," it decribes the perceived actions and /or behaviors which lead people to use this perjorative term for them. we should not presume to know what they are feeling.

however, this point of circular definition here is, as you say, technical as well as undeniable. this technical error should be remedied. Untwirl (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you really have me puzzled. How do you figure that the term Self-hating Jew is a "racial slur"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry, not trying to widen the issue here - i only use that because you disagreed with epithet and i looked it up and then racial/ethnic slur (which was linked on the epithet page). it was defined as "insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or to refer to them in a derogatory (critical or disrespectful), pejorative (disapproving or contemptuous), or insulting manner." it definitely appears to apply here. unless you think the term isn't derogatory, pejorative, or insulting (just one will do - per "or") or that it isn't about members of a given ethnicity?

regardless of that (maybe should be a different section here), the circular definition doesn't describe actions/behaviors, it just restates the phrase. Untwirl (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew is an accusation of disloyalty, and (frequently) as an insult; used by Jews against other Jews. It may be insulting, but it is not "racial/ethnic slur" -- as you call it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

are you saying that because it is used by jews it isn't a racial/ethnic slur? uncle tom is used by blacks against other blacks and is listed on the racial/ethnic slur page . . . your point of view isn't backed up by definitions of those terms on wikipedia Untwirl (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I said as clearly as I know how that Self-hating Jew is not an ethnic slur. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry - i must be thick because i still dont see your point. is it not racial/ethnic or is it not a slur? Untwirl (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not what's generally thought of as an ethnic slur, no. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

i'm not necessarily advocating for that wording, so i'll agree to disagree with you that the definition is accurate and leave it at that. however, the point remains that the circular definition basically restates the insult instead of describing the actions/behaviors that are interpreted as 'hatred'. for that reason, i strongly believe "feels hatred toward" needs to be changed. "seems to have abandoned jewish heritage" as malcolm suggested is fine, but it needs to replace "feels hatred toward..." not just be added as a line after a circular def. i hope we can find something mutually acceptable. Untwirl (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a circular def. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree. circular def. refers to 2 defs leading back to each other. i was just using that term because you did. actually it is redundant and non-descriptive. that remains the problem. do you disagree with "seems to have abandoned jewish heritage"? Untwirl (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, actually, circular definition means (in our own words) A definition that assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined, which seems to be your original objection. And perhaps we are using a circular definition, but only inasmuch as we can properly assume people know what "self", "hate", and "Jew" mean in common parlance. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i meant, i agreed that circular def isnt the best way to describe my problem - its the redundancy and non-descriptiveness that is the issue (hence the title of this section- defining a word with the same word) Untwirl (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

right, and we Malcolm and I (so far) disagree with you that it's an issue that need to be addressed. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that abandonment of Jewish heritage is always implied. As in the YouTube link. The guy is taking flack for liking the music of Richard Wagner. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ok then lets think of something even more descriptive. per your own example -how could liking wagner imply "hatred of jewish ancestry or other jews"? do you see my point? if that is how it is sometimes used then it proves the stance that 'hatred of jewish ancestry" is entirely inaccurate. Untwirl (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have the idea, I hope incorrect, that you started this discussion to change the lead only so you can redefine the article in a way that will justify returning this [18] to the article. Why are we discussion the lead, when the other came first? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that, when I moved that addition to the talk page for discussion, I forgot to sign. Sorry. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

please don't assume bad faith. i wasn't aware that we should only discuss one aspect of the article at a time. i am a novice and i would appreciate your guidance as an experienced editor. the addition you refer to wasn't mine, i just supported it. i think i was clear with my reasoning, and when the "psychological origin" was removed, i was happy with that and didn't press the issue further. you have accused me several times of pov pushing, and being a sockpuppet, and i have politely stated my innocence. i don't believe i have done or said anything to justify your bad faith assumption. if i assure you that when we fix the definition to be more descriptive i won't revert those 2 paragraphs will you address the problems with the lead? Untwirl (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop complaining. You were edit warring over the material I moved here to the talk page; and then, instead of resolving that, you decided that you needed to change the lead first. Let me know if this solves your problem

It is implied in the term Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) that it describes a Jew who dislikes his or her Jewish ancestry, his or her own Jewish identity, or other Jews. However, the phrase invariably has an accusatory aspect, and is most frequently used as an insult directed by one Jew at another Jew who seems to have, in one respect or another, abandoned Jewish heritage.

Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

it takes two to edit war, and i see from your block log that you have been sanctioned several times for that. i stated my reasons for leaving the material you edit warred with me over in my last reply,

"the addition you refer to wasn't mine, i just supported it. i think i was clear with my reasoning, and when the "psychological origin" was removed, i was happy with that and didn't press the issue further."

i would think you would be happy that i accepted that, instead of continuing to patronize and insult me. i think i will request a comment as you feel it necessary to ignore and avoid my good faith arguments, and instead attack me and my motives.

and again, "per your own example -how could liking wagner imply "hatred of jewish ancestry or other jews"? do you see my point? if that is how it is sometimes used then it proves the stance that 'hatred of jewish ancestry" is entirely inaccurate." Untwirl (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the material to the talk page exactly to avoid edit warring, but you did not want to give up. Now you are saying it takes two. (My recollection is that Ceedjee -- on his talk page -- told you saying "it takes two to edit war" was a good defense. Or was it Barneca? I will have to check back later to refresh my memory.

You have not responded to the revised lead I suggested. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You have, also, not explained why, after I moved two paragraphs you were edit warring over to the talk page [19], you decided to argue over the lead instead of the material that was disputed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone address this, though 1) it could be archived or 2) I might have just missed it:
What's the reliable source for the first-line definition? To me it seems unduly inflammatory, as well as circular - but if it's original research as well, that puts it in a different ballpark. arimareiji (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for chiming in. i see the same problems but have only been reverted by material that doesn't meet npov standards. i am still kinda new and don't really know how to go about getting more neutral eyes on this. Untwirl (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV? As far as I can remember, you have not previously mentioned that. Is it your complaint de jour? Perhap, you would explain why you think the article has POV provlems? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

please refrain from belittling remarks and deal with the issues. inflammatory, unsourced wording (which i have "previously mentioned") does not reflect a neutral point of view. Untwirl (talk) 19:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you are not going to answer the question? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

perhaps you would care to read more closely. your question: "Perhap, you would explain why you think the article has POV provlems?" was answered by my response, "inflammatory, unsourced wording (which i have "previously mentioned") does not reflect a neutral point of view." Untwirl (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, as far as I know everything in the article is sourced. Of course, if there is something not sourced, a source should be added; or the unsourced material removed. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

btw i have brought up the way the source is not accurately represented above

"first paragraph of finlay's paper disputes the "psychological term" theory - "This article critically reviews Jewish self-hatred as a psychological concept, examining in particular the criteria used to identify its presence in individuals. A lack of clarity over this issue means that the term is often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their lifestyles, interests or political positions (particularly with respect to Israel) from their accusers." it CRITICALLY reviews the concept. it is used against jews who differ PARTICULARLY with respect to israel. your own source disagrees with you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Untwirl (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a point to make about that, it might be better if you start a new section to discuss it, rather than to confuse that issue with your complaint about a supposed circular definition of the term that is the subject of this section. I will add here, however, is that my opposition to those additions is based on a problem with WP:undue. That material presented Self-hating Jew only in terms of the Israel/Palestine dispute. It amounts to POV pushing.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

my edits have encompassed all aspects of the term - not just i-p. you are overly (and incorrectly) harping on this non-issue. refer to the new section. Untwirl (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

also, you have been the only one to bring up palestine.Untwirl (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My question still needs answering: What's the reliable source for the current first-line definition?

Please comment only if you're answering that question. arimareiji (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried clicking on the relevant footnotes? It is sourced. (There is no requirement to have a source at the end of every sentence.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So that sentence is a paraphrase of Finlay? I believe that's a gross mischaracterization of his article, one which can be easily corrected by quoting him directly. arimareiji (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you believe it's not a gross mischaracterization of Finlay, please support your assertion with quotes from Finlay. arimareiji (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

new lead suggestion (sourced)

This is a sourced definition

Self-hating Jew' (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term most widely used as an epithet for a Jewish person who is perceived by others as holding different views regarding their "lifestyles, interests or political positions (particularly with respect to Israel) from their accusers." drawn from the same citation (finlay)

if the "particularly" part bothers you, i would be willing to compromise on that, even though it is stated clearly in the source. Untwirl (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No. political positions (particularly with respect to Israel) from their accusers, is giving undue weight to the political aspect. The term is an insult used in a wide variety of situations. Additionally, trying to formulate a complete list of situations in which the term could be used would present a near impossibility. I think the lead is far better as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Snipping it in that way changes the meaning. The in-context quote is "lifestyles, interests or political positions (particularly with respect to Israel)." That encompasses the wide variety of situations you say should be included, and is not limited to political positions.

I'm honestly at a loss to understand your insistence on the definition as-is: "a Jewish person who is perceived by others as a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews." That's akin to saying that we should define "lazy ni***r" as "a ni***r who is perceived by others to be lazy," or defining "thieving S**c" as "a S**c who is perceived by others to do nothing but steal from hard-working non-S**cs." Wikipedia should never be in the position of giving credibility to racial slurs/epithets, even indirectly. arimareiji (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, i couldn't agree more. do you think we should go with the new (sourced) def. as is or do you have a suggestion to revise it? Untwirl (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be more appropriate to wait and give MS a chance to respond - the article has been in this state for a long time, and another day won't be critical. If he doesn't respond, though, then yes. arimareiji (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

no prob - i have not edited it myself because i was waiting to see if others shared my concern, and would like to agree on a version that won't be reverted. Untwirl (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've stayed out of this discussion because it's been so venomous, but I think a sourced definition is better. In Finlay's complete paper (as opposed to the summary), he writes that "a lack of clarity over this issue [Jewish self-hatred as a psychological concept] means that the term is often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their life-styles, interests or political positions from their accusers, and that such misapplications of the concept result from essentialized and normative definitions of Jewish identity". (Note that Israel is missing from the phrase.)

Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term "often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their life-styles, interests or political positions from their accusers".

It seems to me that such a definition might satisfy everybody. It doesn't emphasize Israel, and it includes the Wagner-loving Jew and the non-observant Jew. What do others think?

PS: The complete Finlay paper is available on the the author's website. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

this is the compromise i suggested as well. i support it fully. as a side note though, a full 6 out of 17 pages of that paper are devoted to israel/zionism and the uses of "self- hating jew" attributed to jews who criticize them.. Israel wasn't added by me, rather it is an essential part of finlay's paper. however i agreed to leave it out at the beginning of this section and i will not insist that it be added. Untwirl (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The Malik Shabazz version seems balanced and NPOV. I am willing to use it as a reasonable compromise. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is important to understand that Finlay is not a balanced source. Apparently, he has had no contact with the Jewish community even in England, much less world-wide, and his assumptions about how the word is used is without knowledge of usage by Jews in direct interpersonal contact. His sources seem to be through news media which more dominated by the political aspects. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

completely untrue. please read the source before making inaccurate comments like this one. out of nearly 100 references, less than 10 were from news sources, the overwhelming majority were scholarly articles and books. also, if you perceive a problem using news media sources i suggest you self-revert your last edit, seeing as it was from a weekly news magazine. if you have a problem with finlay as a source, you should start a new section to discuss that.

thank you malik, for chiming in, your presence seems to have brought reason to this page. Untwirl (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Untrue? What is untrue? Can you show me that Finlay has had any significant contact with living members of the Jewish community? He has an interesting viewpoint, but it is based on an abstraction of Jewish reality. That is why I already added another source. In any case, I did not say Finlay is not a reliable source, I said he is not a balanced source. All that means is that other sources are needed for balance. I do not think that many editors would find that an outrageous statement for me to make.

I might also add, as a note to this discussion, that I agreed to the Malik Shabazz version in a spirit of compromise. Since jpgordon was in agreement with me on the lead, I could have just as well decided to wait. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

again you misrepresent my response. i believe it was apparent from the rest of my response what i was referring to as being completely untrue.

once again,

your statement "His sources seem to be through news media which more dominated by the political aspects." is completely untrue for the reasons i stated above,

"out of nearly 100 references, less than 10 were from news sources, the overwhelming majority were scholarly articles and books."

Untwirl (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Over ten percent is not a small number, particularly if those were the sole basis for his slight emphasis on the use of the term "self-hating Jew" in Israel/Palestine issues; because news discussion tends to emphasize that, while other uses of that phrase make only occasional appearances in the media. Capice?Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

LESS than ten percent is a small number, especially when you used the generalization, "His sources seem to be through news media which more dominated by the political aspects." however, it seems to me you haven't read this article or you would realize that you are incorrect in saying "those were the sole basis for his slight emphasis on the use of the term "self-hating Jew" in Israel/Palestine issues." please refer to the sections of finlay's paper titled, "Jewish self-hatred and zionism" and "israel and the self-hating jew" and you will see that the sources used in those sections are dominated by scholarly articles and books. finally, no one other than yourself has brought up i/p, only israeli or zionist policies (from the source - not me) - many of which have nothing to do with palestine. Untwirl (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have made my thoughts on Finley clear enough for anyone who wants to understand to understand.

Just what point about Finley are you trying to prove? Is it your position that Finley, by himself, makes a balanced source for the article and that no other sources are needed? Unless that is you view, there is no reason for arguing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

where have i insinuated that "Finley, by himself, makes a balanced source for the article and that no other sources are needed?"

really malcolm, this is a little far-fetched.

i have not attempted to exclude your latest edit, i welcome it. i don't know if i would have put it in the lead, but i don't really care if its there. i welcome reliable, balanced sources for this article.

your contention that finlays article was sourced "through news media which more dominated by the political aspects" which "were the sole basis for his slight emphasis on the use of the term "self-hating Jew" in Israel/Palestine issues" was false. that is the point about finlay that i have been making. it seems to me this is an attempt to discredit finlay which i do oppose. unless you have evidence (as i have stated above) to the contrary, i welcome your retraction of those statements. if not, fine, i'm not the boss of you, but let's move on. anyone can click on the link to the article that malik provided and see for themselves how well it is sourced.

let's just change the lead to malik's suggestion and be done with it. k? Untwirl (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)