Talk:Self-hating Jew/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Self-hating Jews as an anti-Semitic stereotype

I've noticed the discussion above about whether shj should be in the anti-Semisitm template. An aspect that i didn't notice being covered was how the concept of a shj embodies anti-Semitic stereotypes. This article [1] by a left-leaning Jewish academic argues that actually right-wing Zionists and some old-fashioned anti-Semites share a common ground which is the basis for the idea that all right-thinking Jews share a viewpoint and that Jews who deviate from it must be self-hating.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The antisemitism category at the bottom of the page is more than enough. Probably even that is unjustified. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

eh?

The opening section of this article spends a lot of time defending the accused and discussing what some people think about the word. It makes no mention as to what a self-hating jew even is. I understand it's an offensive word and a sensitive article, but this is about information and this article isn't very informative if it walks on eggshells.

I'd like to suggest a revision of the article so that it starts with the facts before worrying about the context of the word and various opinions. It can start simply by saying something like

"Self-hating jew is a derogatory word used to describe someone of a Jewish background who does not follow a traditional Jewish life-style"

Regardless of whether it's subjective, ignorant, etc... that's what the word is used for, is it not? We can then spend the entire article discussing the problems with the word Thadeuss (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality problems

The lead says: "The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity...", but no other use of the term is properly discussed. Considering that almost the entire content of the article is dependant on just one source (a single essay by W. M. L. Finlay) the unbalanced result is not surprising. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, other uses are discussed - just not in the lead - look further down. According to Finlay, the usage is most common in the debates mentioned in the lead. Yes the whole article relies heavily on that one source (Finlay); but it's a good academic peer reviewed source which draws from all the major work done in the area - and some of the points cited are from that major work, with attributions given. Anyway, if you have other reliable sources please add them. Also please remove the POV tag because I don't think your justification for adding it is sufficient. You could add {{Onesource}} instead. Rd232 ^talk 20:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the tag is more than justified. The article focuses almost entirely on the political issue, ie criticism of anti-Zionists. The issue is NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

What? Please explain that a whole lot more. Ideally back it up with reliable sources. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 20:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this really what the NPOV tag is for? The content itself is neutral; you're just saying it's not broad enough. Quite different. -_jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am wrong, I will respect your judgement and remove it. But my understanding is that if, essentially, only one POV to the topic is presented the problem is NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One source is not the same as one POV. You haven't given any evidence that there is some other POV held by anyone other than yourself. (Nor have you explained what that POV might be.) I'm not saying if there is or isn't, but WP:RS are needed. Rd232 ^talk 22:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed the tag since no explanation for it forthcoming. If re-adding please explain clearly the nature of the problem, ideally backed up by WP:RS. Rd232 ^talk 23:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The explanation is there (above), and the problem of just one source is still unchanged. This article has remained in such a deplorable state for so long, that I think it would be better to do the same as was done with the Self-hating gay article and redirect it to Self-hatred. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If the explanation is "there (above)" then clearly I do not understand it; perhaps this is why I asked repeatedly for clarification. The article has a substantial number of sources, but relies too heavily on one academic source which surveys the literature, with key points from the literature taken from that source; going directly to the literature would be better but requires substantial library work, which somehow I doubt is about to happen, so this will have to do. Of course you could look more at the other online sources and add more from those, or find new ones. Finally, I don't think merging to self-hatred is either necessary or helpful, especially since the target article has so little substance. Rd232 ^talk 12:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That one source has a particular POV, interpreting the usage of the word only in its political significance for the debate over those Jews who are anti-Zionists. But, of course the term came into use before that debate started. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, no evidence given, just your assertion. And the article body has evidence that the term originated in a political context. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I "google.book-ed" for the expression "self hating Jew". There are numerous references of its use in relation with Freud (and other scientists). It seems that he tried to fit his works with the racial theories. Eg, they claim that antisemitism was a mental disease from which even Jews (due to their higher sensitivity (or weakness) could suffer...

Ceedjee (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, can you add something based on those sources, or at least add the sources? Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you do not understand the issues of this article, nor the unfortunate history. You have followed me here from another article (which is okay), but do not understood the issues. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN. And if I haven't understood, it's because you haven't tried to explain. Nor, after my extensive additions from one excellent source, have you tried to edit the article, except now to remove the intro which perfectly well summarises the current version. You're entitled to your view, but you need to support it, not loftily claim that well-sourced material is wrong. Rd232 ^talk 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:OWN? Bullshit. If you think that is true, why not take it to AN/I? I will not again be inclined to trust you as a neutral party, as I did until today. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Okayyy... Why did my reminder that editors don't own articles upset you so? It seems increasingly relevant in the face of your unwillingness to discuss this issue in the usual way (relying on verifiable reliable sources). Instead you (until now, I'm stil hoping this will change) assert, claim, and, frankly, borderline bully. Rd232 ^talk 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malcolm,
I think this source permitted to improve the article content very much.
As Rd232 states, there is no -pov problem as long as no other pov is suggested from "wp:rs secondary source", such as the one currently used.
I agree with you that it (only) focuses on the use of the term in a political context but is there any other ? If so, we have to provide first references for that...
Ceedjee (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

this version has consensus and has been stable. dr smoo and malcolm need to stop edit warring. untwirl(talk) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. This version may have majority, but certainly not consensus. Jayjg and others aside from me have disputed this version, as you well know. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg hasn't edited the article or commented on Talk since mid-Feb - well before my revision. (And his contributions on Talk then [2] don't seem obviously supportive of your position. Perhaps Jayjg has commented elsewhere on this version, in which case please provide a link. Also regardless of dispute, neither you nor Drsmoo have even attempted to provide a shred of evidence in support of your position. Have you forgotten how Wikipedia works? WP:V, WP:RS... Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you how Wikipedia doesn't work, it doesn't work by having an article introduced saying such and such is "used by rightwing Zionists against anti-Zionist Jews" Even if that were the most common usage(which it is not) it is completely POV and blatantly unencyclopedic to begin an article with that. The meaning of self-hating Jew is a Jew who is antisemitic(ie Benjamin Freedman, Bobby Fischer). Like any other term it may be used incorrectly, that is no grounds for a purported encyclopedia article to redefine the term. Secondly do not accuse me of a "tag-team" with anyone. I looked up this article, saw blatant POV and reversed it, I am not working in conjunction with anyone and don't accuse me of doing so. If an editor agrees with me on this issue he/she is right. The current phrasing is completely POV and only serving to further a particular agenda/alter discourse, the last thing Wikipedia should be doing. Drsmoo (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please remove the names—at least that of the living person—from your comment. WP:BLP applies to Talk pages as well as articles. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you (Drsmoo) saw something you really didn't like (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) and deleted it. I note, with decreasing optimism that this might change, that neither you no Malcolm has yet to present a shred of evidence to support your view. I say this in a somewhat depressed tone because I'm perfectly open to discussion, but I can't discuss it with myself. Rd232 ^talk 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The statement "The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity, where it is used by rightwing Zionists against anti-Zionist Jews." is an opinion, it is not a factual statement. Similarly, the usage of the word "discredit" is also an opinion. The heading to this article is built around a perceived (by Finlay) misuse of the term, as oposed to being an article about the term itself, which is far broader and has a distinctly different meaning. Drsmoo (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is more than opinion, it is backed up by some research. Read the Finlay article. "Discredit" doesn't appear in the WP article; you mean "discount". Again, this usage of the term is backed up by Finlay, drawing on all the relevant literature (that I can find anyway). On the other hand, your claim that it is "far broader and has a distinctly different meaning" is unsupported opinion. Any chance at all that you might consider attempting to support it? Is there some reason you don't even try? (Or have you tried and failed and don't want to say so?) What's up with that? Rd232 ^talk 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this is the opinion of one researcher, which is tangential to the meaning of a word which has been used for over a century to describe born Jews who were engaged in antisemitism. Citing one particular study isn't sufficient to change the meaning of the word. And more so, the point you have conveniently ignored, is that alleging that a word is commonly misused is not grounds for the proper definition of the word to be changed in the article heading. Right now this article is being abused for blatantly political purposes. It is massively POV as you well know. When Bobby Fischer is described as a self hating Jew it is not by "right wing zionists" Drsmoo (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no sources for your views? Still ignoring Finlay's review of the literature? Have you even bothered to open the article? Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have viewed the article (for what it's worth)

You continue to conveniently ignore what I'm saying(ie changing the subject) This article is massively POV. More so, it doesn't matter if "right wing zionists" are using the phrase in a certain way. It's completely tangential to the meaning of the phrase. It would be the same as having an article on Uncle Toms beginning with the header "such and such people are referred to as uncle toms by such and such politically aligned people" the phrase has more meaning than that. Individuals are reffered to as self-hating Jews for issues completely unrelated to Zionism. This article primarily deals with a certain usage of self hatred, but it is not an exclusive usage, it is not even a majority usage, and even if it were(which it is not) it would be irrelavent to the article which is seeking to define the term self-hating Jew. If a right wing zionist calls someone a self hating Jew, what they are calling them should be explained by this article, they are certainly not calling them an anti-zionist rather than the article completely skipping gthat point and going into explaining the usage of a word it doesn't even define. Right now this article is blatantly POV and being used for political purposes and is completely unencyclopedic.

P.S. I am not a "right-wing zionist" it is not hard for anyone to see that this article is being abused. Drsmoo (talk) 02:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? Please? I am perfectly open to the possibility that you are right, but I'm not going to accept your unsupported assertion, however often you repeat it. Rd232 ^talk 02:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To use an article entitled "Identity politics, Zionism and the ‘self-hating Jew’" and thereby make the erroneous claim that the term self hating Jew only applies to Zionism because of this one article is absurd. The fact that there aren't other online journal articles dealing with the concept of Jewish self hatred should not mean that the articlee bases itself solely on a paper which purports to examine a very particular angle of the issue. Drsmoo (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is based on a wideranging survey of the academic literature. Now is there some actual reason you don't want to present sources for your views? I'm mystified. Rd232 ^talk 03:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Which view would you like a source for? The view that self hating Jew means more than anti zionist or the view that the article is blatantly POV.

A good article on Jewish self hatred from the Southern Poverty law center with some examples of self hating Jews. "Around the world, there is a sad and troubling history of Jewish self-hatred that has played itself out in a variety of ways. To even start to understand this history, it is necessary to understand the basic mythology of anti-Semitism.

As described by Norman Cohn — a leading scholar of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a classic anti-Semitic text — the political myth about Jewish world domination can be summarized as follows:

[T]here exists a secret Jewish government which, through a worldwide network of camouflaged agencies and organizations, controls political parties and governments, the press and public opinion, banks and economic developments ... in pursuance of an age-old plan and with the single aim of achieving Jewish dominion over the entire world.

On a more individual level, Jews are often stereotyped as unethical, dishonest, socially aggressive, conceited, clannish, stingy and obsessed with money.

Historically, these myths have been pervasive — so pervasive that they seep into the consciousness of many Jews as well as non-Jews.

"It is important to remember that western society has a heavy anti-Semitic underpinning, and negative stereotypes about Jews are part of the culture in which everybody grows up, Jews and non-Jews alike," says Sander Gilman, a University of Illinois at Chicago liberal arts professor and the author of Jewish Self-Hatred, a key text on the subject. "

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c36_a4188/News/New_York.html

Another scientific source dealing with an empirical study stevebaum.com/pdf/selfhate.pdf

http://www.indopedia.org/Self-hatred.html

Professor Sander L. Gilman of the University of Illinois-Chicago defines Jewish Self-Hatred as: "In general, self-hatred is the internalization of the negative stereotypes about who you are--the identification with the reference group's image of you as "the other" in society. The person who is labeled as different wants to find out why he or she fits the stereotype, or to prove that he/she does not. But the more one attempts to identify with societal definitions in order to fit in, the more one accepts the attitudes of the determining group, the farther away from true acceptability one seems to be." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 04:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That's rich: an article about Jews who engage in antisemitic acts (some out of genuine antisemitism, but most for the purpose of trying to draw attention to genuine antisemitism), a survey of 100 people, and a copy of an ancient Wikipedia article. Anything specific about "self-hating Jews", the subject of this article? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

All three of them are specifically about self hating Jews. How can you possibly argue that they are not? This is getting ridiculous. They are certainly far more on subject than the article which discusses a very specific aspect of self hatred upon which this entire article is built for political and POV reasons. I am curious to see your reasoning as to how " Jewish Self-Hate: An Empirical Approach and Update" and "The New Jewish Self-Hatred" are not relavent to this subject. There is actual Jewish self hatred, this article is about the so called attacks by "right wing zionists(there aren't in fact many right wing jewish zionists), as opposed to being about the actual phenomena of self hating Jews, which these articles deal with. As opposed to the article this page is peculiarly based on which deals with Zionism. And the article you said was about about "most" trying to attract attention to antisemitism? That was example in one paragraph out of 37. Please explain why you erroneously said most and used that to define the whole article? Drsmoo (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see I didn't include the link to the Southern Poverty Law Center article on Jewish Self Hatred. http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=73 though I did quote from it.

Drsmoo (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article—or a mirror of one—is never a reliable source. Have you got an alternative suggestion for the first sentence, that can be supported with reliable sources? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for Revised first sentence: In "Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews" Sander L. Gilman defines Jewish self-hatred as "a label for a specific form of self-abnegation that has existed among Jews throughout their history." Drsmoo (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Malik,

The material suggested by Drsmoo can easily be found in google book, as I pointed out here above.

If you want to prevent an evolution of the article, go on.

If you want to develop the article because you consider you collaborate to the development of an encyclopedia, you can use google.book and try to improve the article.

Ceedjee (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

synth of jc article

malcolm, your sentence was redundant and not directly about the topic. an op ed in the jc with 'self-hating jew' in the headline only doesn't qualify for the lead here. untwirl(talk) 01:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The source meets WP:Reliable standards, and there are many others that could be added to that one. Certainly, the sentence could use some rewriting, but the way to deal with that is to rewrite it...not delete it.

By the way, the W. M. L. Finlay paper, that this article depends so heavily on, was published in a very minor journal, that does not have its own web site. Of course it is acceptable, but not particularly impressive. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the British Journal of Social Psychology? Published by the British Psychological Society here? From their website: Impact factor: 1.987 - ranked 9th in social psychology (2007 Journal Citation Report). Rd232 ^talk 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a very minor player in either the field of sociology, or psychology; and a minor player in social psychology. It appears to be run by two volunteers, one in England (John Dixon at Lancaster University)and and one in New Zealand (Jolanda Jetten at the University of Queensland). As I said it is an acceptable source, but not particularly impressive either. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you conclude that it's a "minor player"? It's been around since 1981, and is ranked 9th out of 49 social psychology journals.[3] Also Finlay is a respected academic, he wasn't born yesterday. [4] Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As a source it is clearly minor, and barely WP:notable. I don't see why you are worried about that since I have conceded it it WP:reliable. However it is not really very important, and its author's publications in general have been as an apologist for the British Islamic community, so there are justifiable concerns that it be balance by other sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not "clearly minor". 1.987 is a very respectable impact score - higher than certain journals that are core to my area of research. It is fully peer-reviewed as of international standing having an editor from outside its home territory. Your remarks indicate that you may not be au fait with the world of academic publishing.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I found another academic source (added). And there may be more - "Jewish self-hatred" is a much better search term. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

according to malcolm - finlay's "publications in general have been as an apologist for the British Islamic community." huh? all of the publications i've seen are in the field of learning disablities, mental retardation, schizophrenia, etc. so, finlay is an apologist and the jewish chronicle is neutral? good luck with that one. untwirl(talk) 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

the psychological aspects of ""self-stigmatization", "internalized oppression", and "false consciousness" and the pejorative term "self-hating jew" are not the same thing. attempting to justify this term as a currently accepted 'real' psychological phenomenon is not acceptable. untwirl(talk) 20:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The link with those concepts came from Finlay. Check back there if you think I may have garbled something. Rd232 ^talk 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

sorry if i was misunderstood, i have no problem with the disambiguating phrase that says that "Modern social psychology literature" uses other terms to refer to an actual phenomenon that may have once been referred to as self-hatred. my point was that malcolm's edit was an attempt to inaccurately and inelegantly synthesize the jewish chronicle's opinion piece into a lead sentence that legitimized the term. it's not there anymore, but now he's trying to set this up as 'british apologist finlay" vs "the other side" (presumably polemecists, as that is the opposite of apologist). that isnt going to work because there is no legitimate source stating that 'self hating jews' are a category of people separate from 'self hating blacks" "self hating christians" etc. in fact, the majority of quality sources we have say the opposite, that its a way of "rhetorically discounting" or "pathologizing" people for having dissenting views. untwirl(talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

This has been reverted but anyway, I suggest you consider this suggestion. That could be a basis for you to find a consensus (maybe)...
Ceedjee (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Self-hating Jew refers to a Jew who is or would be antisemite or reject his Jewish origins or culture.

It is "often used rhetorically [as a pejorative term] to discount Jews who differ in their life-styles, interests or political positions from their accusers" for example by rightwing Zionists against anti-Zionist Jews.

---

New lead sentence

Rd232, you now have "Originating in Jewish debates about political zionism in the early twentieth century..." That is not correct. It originated in arguments over allegiance to Jewish identity that had nothing to do with Zionism. Although Zionism in one form or another goes back thousands of years, the disputes we see now arose following WW2. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The term, which the intro sentence is describing, does originate with modern political zionism - see the body text (the pre-history of older zionism hasn't any relevance that I can see; WP:RS?). The concept goes back slightly earlier (see body text). Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that part of the reason for our disagreement is that you see Jewish rejection of Jewish identity, up to and including sharing anti-semitic stereotypes, as much older, which is true. But (according to our WP:RS) such rejection wasn't couched either conceptually or terminologically in terms of self-hatred until the late nineteenth century. The broader history of Jewish rejection of Jewish identity is written elsewhere on WP, I'm sure. Rd232 ^talk 19:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The dates that you think define modern Zionism are incorrect. I will add sources and make some changes later. Modern Zionism was effectively founded by Theodor Herzl, but the movement had very little traction with the majority of the Jewish community until following WW2, then there was a pressing Jewish refugee problem. Without WW2 there probably never would have been a Jewish state re-founded.

The use of the term self-hating Jew (and self-loathing Jew) to define anti-Zionist Jews is very recent, and in my view this article over-emphasises that aspect, and ignores all else. The reason for that balance problem is that anti-Zionist editors seem to have an interest only the aspect that effects there cause. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the best sources we currently have, you're wrong to say the usage is recent. I don't see how your reference to WW2 re the creation of Israel has any relevance to the article's tracing of the history of the term. I'm sure things can still be clarified and improved in the article, but you seem to disagree more substantially, which is fine, but you'll need to support your views with WP:RS. Rd232 ^talk 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I made the following changes to the lede:

1. I think the issue is that the so-called "self-hating Jew" is said to hold antisemitic beliefs, not that she or he shares antisemitic stereotypes.
2. I attributed the quote in the second sentence to Finlay.
3. In the final sentence, I clarified that the expression has been used against all Jewish critics of Israeli policy, not just anti-Zionists.

Feel free to revert, edit, or eviscerate as you see fit. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

this version is definitely better. untwirl(talk) 06:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This phrase in the lead, "Originating in Jewish debates about political zionism in the early twentieth century...", directly contradicts the Origins section below it. The term Self-hating Jew did not originate in debates about Zionism, but predates those debates. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The concept predates it, the term does not. This is clearly explained in the body text. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that statement, but it is not supported according the standards of WP:verify. It just seems to be assumed that Herzl's "anti-Semite of Jewish origin" is the same as "self-hating Jew". Rather it seems that Herzl was using the previously existing concept [5]. The effort to separate the term from the history of the concept is unjustified, and perhaps an effort to turn this article into an essay on the objections of anti-Zionists.....which may be understandable, but still WP:SOAP.

Some academic published work that is important because it puts the whole subject into wider context (such as this [6]) is ignored in the lead, because some of WP's anti-zionist editors are interested only in that part of the concept that concerns them. That is completely against WP requirements for balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

your sources both debunk the concept of jewish self-hate as being either antisemitic theories about jewish "mental illness and social pathology," projection of hatred by david mccalden, or note that lewin's "seemingly persuasive theory" neglects the fact that jews had not historically exhibited those traits despite their having been 'low status' minority groups. untwirl(talk) 16:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

my point is that your preferred version presents "self-hating jew" as a legitimate description of people making anti-zionist statements. that is pure OR and not supported by the sources you provide. in addition, nowhere do your sources say that the term "self hating jew" predates the early 20th century. untwirl(talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The source [7] is a better than Finlay, published by a university press, and certainly WP:RS. On the other hand your objection to using it seems to be nothing better than WP:JDLI. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not "better than Finlay" as an RS. Unlike journal articles, academic books are not normally peer reviewed. Also the book is published by Associated University Presses, representing a group of universities which are not exactly Ivy League.[8] I suppose it's still an RS, but it rests on the reputation of the author, Avner Falk, more than a peer reviewed article by Falk would. Also, the book is ten years older than the article and presents a far broader sweep than Finlay's article, which is focussed on the topic in hand. Rd232 ^talk 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

what statement do you think that source supports? use it if you want to, but don't distort it. actually, strike that. that source doesn't use the term "self hating jew", the other one did, though. untwirl(talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the quality of a source that you have challenged. What does my previous edit have to do with that?

I have not restored my previous edit to the article, and am waiting because Malik has been trying to develop a compromise version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Also it's not at all clear what part of these sources supports your position. Please provide quotes. Rd232 ^talk 01:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, could you summarize the changes you would make to the lede based on this source? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Rd232, the book was published by Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. The fact that their books are printed and distributed by Associated University Presses just means that their budget isn't as big as some of the larger university presses. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence has become far MORE POV. It has gotten worse, not better. Not only that but it is wrong, and blatantly basing the definition of the word on two articles which have very specific meanings, and do not relate to the entire scope of the phenomena of self hating Jews. There ARE self hating Jews. This article is choosing to not deal with them, we should use books thata re considered essential to the subject. Not base the article in an incredibly POV way on two essays that are more about Anti-Zionism than they are about self hating Jews. Since there were no comments regarding my proposed intro, despite being asked to provide one, I'm going to insert it. Drsmoo (talk) 10:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Malik, the problem with the article is that, the way it is presently written, it exists to serve only the interests of anti-Zionists who find the charge against Jewish anti-Zionists, of being self-hating (or self-loathing) Jews a problem for making their case against Zionism. I understand their frustration, but that is not a cause to use this article as their soapbox. There are authors who have studied the issue of Jewish self-hate as a genuine psychological and social problem, and that needs to be in the lead. Also, the lead sentence confuses anti-Zionism with criticism of Israeli policy. Anti-Zionists are against Zionism as a movement, and (basically) against the existence of Israel (at least in its present location). If being critical of Israel, was anti-Zionism, then most of the Zionists I know are aggressively anti-Zionist. If being critical of "Israeli policy" as the lead says, is anti-Zionism, then I must be anti-Zionist; and, in fact, if being critical of "Israeli policy" makes someone an anti-Zionist, then there are no Zionists, because every Zionist has substantial criticisms of Israeli policy and actions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If you feel the article is missing things, find reputable academic sources and add the material in. This does not mean, however, that well sourced material that you dislike should be removed from the lead or anywhere else.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Now we're deleting sources because Malcolm can't access them free online? [9] I don't think so. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No. The claim is quit exceptional, and needs exceptional support. That is a WP principle. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I found the page on the NPOV Notice Board. My goy perspective, having read through all the comments here but few of the links, is that the opening paragraph should be as broad in defining the term as possible such that any anticipated subheading falls within it. I dislike the anti Zionist connection being in the opening, simply because entire pieces are written around the subject that make no reference at all to Israel. New York Times "Acting Against Type: The Self-Hating Jew "[10] Some references are about Jews accepting stereotypes about Jews and money. [11] My first thought on seeing the topic was Bobby Fischer. Judging from the most recent edits, its Israeli policy definition is creeping back into the intro. I believe part of conflict may be related to editors here being Jewish and the objection to Israeli policies is the context in which Jews most often use the term. Otherwise, I think the editors have done a great job with the article.--Eudemis (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have reworked the intro so that the first para gives a simple defintion and the second discusses how the concept has been abused by feuding groups. There is a stong argument for including material on pathological cases such as Fischer, as well as less extreme cases - many Jews, for example Robert Maxwell, Michael Howard and Leon Brittan, who have featured in public life in Britain in the post-war period have had names that hide their Jewishness. I would be surprised if there were no published material on this phenomenon, or on how in the nineteenh century Karl Marx and Abraham Mendelssohn Bartholdy distancedemselvs from their Jewishness. However, the most frequent usage of the term in recent years has been by Zionists against Jewish critics of Israel and that does need to be reflected in the lead.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there nowhere else where Jewish rejection of Jewish identity is covered? I think it is problematic to cover this wider topic within the confines of an article on a specific pejorative term alleging a particular emotion as the basis of that rejection, and which has been used to conflate a rejection of one Jewish person X's beliefs by Jewish person Y as a rejection of Jewish identity by person Y. We already have confusion arising from the article discussing the term and the concept that preceded it (Jewish self-hatred), it will get much worse if we now want to make it an article about Jewish self-hatred (which redirects here). Rd232 ^talk 12:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

with all this in mind, i'm now thinking maybe "self-hating jew" should be short and sweet, "a pejorative . . ." and the bulk of this article could go into "jewish self-hatred" with the views of all the authors we have quoted already. untwirl(talk) 19:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Although there is plenty in the article, including the lead, that I am unhappy about, with Peter cohen's change to the lead I could live with the article as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Finlay

I have moved this here to the talk page for discussion:

The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity,where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli government policy.

The problem with Finlay is that pretty much everything he has published is as an apologist for the English Islamic community, making the extent of his use as a source for this article something of a problem for WP:NPOV. If the above content is to stay in the article, for the purpose of article balance, it should be moved out of the lead, and it should be attributed as a view of Finlay that apparently is not supported by a statistical study. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Your bizarre "apologist" assertion has been refuted above previously. Unless you have a source to say otherwise, your opinion does not invalidate a WP:RS. Rd232 ^talk 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have noticed that, instead of discussion, Rd232 has simply reverted the move to the talk page and request tor discussion. Please re-revert. You should note that a recent arbcom decision has come down hard on edit warring in I/P articles, and if intelligent discussion is not forth coming I will consider taking this to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Surely by your own logic (removing the claim [12] that the term isn't most common in I/P debates), this isn't an I/P topic anyway? Seems like trying to have your cake and eat it. Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• This a pretty typical Finlay article [13]. It is true he has published on unrelated subjects, but in this area he is certainly an apologist for Islam (which is perfectly okay, but not as such a major source for this article). NB: My previous assertion that Finlay is an apologist for Islam was denied by you, but not refuted. Denied and refuted are very different things. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

the previous version has consensus. you must try to change the consensus before you remove it, and that hasn't happened. "moved to talk" isn't good enough - leave it and try to get support to remove it.

no one has to prove to you that finlay isn't an "apologist" for islam, that's a ridiculous statement. he is a respected academic published in a peer reviewed journal. that is what is required for a WP:RS. untwirl(talk) 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

1. You confuse majority with consensus. There was never any effort by the majority to compromise with other editors.
2. As for what you dismiss as "ridiculous," that does not justify the unbalanced overuse for this article. I did not request his removal as a source, but asked for some sensitivity to the issue of balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how the link you provide backs up your "apologist" claim. GregorB (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, that paper is (a) far from typical of Finlay's work and (b) hardly suggests he's an apologist. This is a list of Finlay's publications. Editors can judge for themselves whether he's an apologist for Islam.

Your disruptive editing on this article and many others is getting tiresome, and I'd hate to have to bring this matter to WP:ANI. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Disruptive editing"? If you think this edit disruptive, take it to the appropriate noticeboard, and we can discuss it further there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly suggests that you are not here to construct an encyclopaedia but rather to push a particular point of view, not stopping at blatant distortions of the truth and the libelling respected academics as you go. You know well that Arbcom has lost its patience with a number of edit-warriors and topic-banned them. Do you want to be next?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think your accusation against me is true, there are noticeboards for such complaints. Otherwise, stop pretending that your accusations against me are a rational discussion of the topic of this thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the point that those noticeboards exist for dealing with editors who can't get on with others. Before going to those boards editors should always try discussion first. So when a number of other editors are suggesting that you're being disruptive, dismissing those comments without addressing them or showing contrition reinforces that impression, and it makes it more likely that escalation becomes necessary. (And if it actually happens, this sort of attitude won't play in your favour.) Rd232 ^talk 08:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread contains a violation of WP:BLP. I'm off to the board to have the initial edit deleted.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. First off, I don’t see how Malcolm is being disruptive by trying to at least ameliorate the Finlay quote. Indeed, using that term could itself be considered disruptive here, and I would advise caution in its use. Second, the question has been asked, and I will ask again: has everyone actually read the article? I quote: “Currently, it is in debates over Israel that the idea of self-hate is perhaps most often found.” (bold added.) Even without the “perhaps,” this would have no place in the WP:LEAD: it is not, AFAIK, a well-supported position. If you can find, say a half dozen people who agree, we might have something. But so far we don’t even, really, have one. Repeatedly jamming a fudged version of this quote into the lead… speaks for itself. It is an extraordinarily bad idea. IronDuke 04:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"The problem with Finlay is that pretty much everything he has published is as an apologist for the English Islamic community" - that is what he said. don't try to pretend he is "ameliorating" anything; a glance at Finlay's published works shows this to be a blatant falsehood and possible blp violation. your statement and position on the issue is appreciated, your 'backing up' someone who is a well known polemicist and instigator is not. if only the reasonable editors could overcome this team mentality maybe wp would stand a chance. untwirl(talk) 05:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to read what I wrote again. I am speaking of whether the quote in question is/was useful as written. Malcolm is entirely correct that it is not. As to whether Finlay is an apologist for Muslims of any sort, I have no opinion. Indeed, I hadn't previously even heard of him. Is he some sort of expert on antisemitism or antizionism? A quick check seemed to indicate that he's mostly an expert on things like mental retardation, but I may be wrong on this. I'm glad you appreciated my statement, as I feel I'm often underappreciated ;(. However, I'm happy to support any editor -- Malcolm, you, whomever -- whenever they are in the right. IronDuke 18:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

His research is in the social psychology of identities. He's spent time researching psychiatrically stigmatised identities such as leartning disability and schizophrenia looking at how these identities are regarded both from within and without. His work on the use of self-hatred as a rhetorical tool and on Neo-Nazi construction of what it is to be Moslem is again looking at how identities are constructed both from within and from outside groups. There is not a great deal of difference in what he is doing in and around race and religion from what he is doing in and around learning disabilities and schizophrenia.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I had predicted that the recent arbcom decision would change nothing, and the discussion that has taken place here yesterday and today proves that. The reason that the decision will change nothing is because arbcom has no power to produce collegiality when that is lacking. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You make it sound as if this lack of collegiality has nothing to do with the actions of particular editors including yourself. When you repeatedly distort the writing record of Finlay, whether deliberately or through poor research, and at no point acklowledge that you have done so. When you stonewall the comments of editors, (including the likes of User:Malik Shabazz who is by no means a partisan editor,) after they point out the untruths in what you claim, then this leads people to think that you want nothing to do with a sense of collegiality where editors, no matter their differing POVs, are prepared to present the evidence without distortion. Instead you come across as someone who puts partisanship above all other considerations.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I have gotten plenty of accusations, such as "you repeatedly distort the writing record of Finlay." Normally, on WP, assuming good faith, would suggest a reply that you disagree and think I may have made a mistake.

Concerning Finlay, the focus in his article about self-hating Jews, this article [[14]], and this ref to him [15] (and other material), strongly suggests that his sympathy is for one side in the I/P dispute, and has antipithy for the other. There is nothing wrong to use him for a source, but it is wrong to say that his views do not need to be balanced with other views. I really do not think asking for a balanced article is "disruptive" (as some here have suggested), and balance in the use of sources is considered a normal part of NPOV.

In my original edit, when I started this thread, the important points were: 1. if sentence that I had I moved to the talk page was to return to the article, it needed to be moved out of the lead, and 2. the sentence needed to be attributed in the text to its author per WP:ASF. In reply there were plenty of comments about me personally that are violations of WP:AGF, but there was nothing dealing with my actual point. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

All your citation of those two links proves is your own POV. In the first article, Finlay is deconstructing an externally-created "homogenous, culturally essentialist version" of a social group. In the other article (plus the one referenced in self-hating Jew), Finlay is deconstructing an internally-created culturally essentialist version of a social group. So the first case is British Muslims, the second Zionists + others; this proves what exactly? Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I want to establish, or need to establish, about Finlay is that as a source he needs to be balanced, and needs to be attributed in the text of the article. If you think that balance is not necessary, then it is you who need to justify that.

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed.[16]

As for WP:ASF, this sentence: "The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity,where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli government policy.", clearly is an opinion, and not a fact. He is entitled to his opinion, but if the statement is true (ie that critics of Israeli government policy are called "self-hating Jews"), then virtually every Jew in the world is called a self-hating Jew; not excepting even most members to the Israeli cabinet at any particular time. The statement is absurd. If you want it in the article, since it is sourced that is okay. But for you to claim it does not even need to be attributed to its author, in the text of the article, is both absurd and contrary to WP:NPOV. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Which brings us back to the beginning: you have yet to produce any WP:RS contradicting the factual claim; ergo, there is no basis on which to introduce any changes (WP:V, WP:OR). Absurdly misrepresenting the claim doesn't change that. This is desperate stuff; if it's so hard to produce a WP:RS to support your view, then you really should give up about now. Rd232 ^talk 20:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are you changing the subject? The issue is removing a problematic sentence; or at minimum, moving it out of the lead, and attributing it to the author on the text of the article. Have we agreed on removing the sentence? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If this were a verbal conversation I'd assume you'd drifted off somewhere. As it is... Earth to Malcolm... Rd232 ^talk 20:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You have established no such thing (that Finlay needs to be balanced because he represents an unusal point of view). Instead you have attempted to throw mud at a respected academic through misrepresenting what he has written. He is a social psychologist specialising in social identity and how different groups use it to try to impose their world view. The two articles you link demonstrate that he has researched how radicals within groups seek to stigmatise those they regard as traitors to the group, (for example in the first article you cited there is Nick Griffin and his Holocaust-denying pals attacking liberals - for them anyone to the left of Genghis Khan - as traitors to the white race through allowing Moslems to live in the UK). They do not demonstrate that Finlay is an apologist for Islam or any other of the nonsense you have been claiming.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:ASF. Because the sentence we are discussing expresses an opinion of the author, it needs to be attributed to the author in the text of the article and it needs to be moved out of the lead.

However, as I see it, the major problem with the article is editors focusing on the political aspect of the subject only. Sources such as this [17] and this [18] that discuss the real problems of Jewish self-hatred are not even mentioned. All that interests some editors is Finlay, to the point that it is tempting to think Finlay is serving the political agenda of some editors (heaven forbid). Its is okay if Finlay is in the article, but not to make this article into his soap box. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, the article is not about the alleged phenomenon of Jewish self-hatred, it's about the epithet "self-hating Jew". (Rd232 and untwirl suggested a separate article about Jewish self-hatred a month ago, but you didn't respond to their comments.) If you feel the political aspects of the expression are overshadowing other aspects, please bring some sources and make constructive suggestions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Who told you that? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence: "Self-hating Jew is a pejorative term used to characterise a person of Jewish origin as allegedly holding antisemitic beliefs." — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The name of the article is self-hating Jew, and is not Self-hating Jew is a pejorative term used to characterise a person of Jewish origin as allegedly holding antisemitic beliefs. The subject needs to be covered fully, and including the term's history, and the full range of uses. There is no justification for narrowing the focus of this article to its political use only, or even predominately. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you're the only person who sees that as a political use. But more importantly, how about those constructive suggestions? It's been more than a month since I first asked you about them. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

We spent the last two days arguing over this sentence, The term is currently most common in debates over the role of Israel in Jewish identity,where it is used by right-wing Zionists against Jewish critics of Israeli government policy, and you have not figured out the sentence as a political use of the term? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You just wrote that writing only about the use of "self-hating Jew" as an epithet was "narrowing the focus of this article to its political use only". Regardless, constructive suggestions, please? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Have you agree, then, that the article has an excessive emphasis on the political aspect of self-hating Jew, while ignoring the sociological and psychological aspects that are the origins of its historical development? If so, the cure to the article's problems is the inclusion of content base on academic sources such as [19] and [20], and removing the article's unbalanced claims from the single academic source that claims the term political. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be where the article-splitting idea you've repeatedly ignored would come in. Because the term "self-hating Jew" (if you read the article!) did not come out of the long history of internalised anti-semitism (to propose a neutral title), it came out of nineteenth century internal debates on Jewish identity. [21] would be a useful source for internalised anti-semitism but it has little relevance to "self-hating Jew" and none to your assertion that the disputed lead sentence is wrong. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to split the article, just to treat the subject in all its aspects and in a balanced way. There are WP:RS that treat "self-hating Jew" in very differently than than Finlay, and that needs to be made clear. Arguments from editors about the recent origin of the term are irrelevant, everything is based on reliable sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't any RS cited here which treat the term "self-hating Jew" differently. Repeating your claims doesn't make them true. Misquoting Gilman (see section below) doesn't help either. By the way, if you bother to read Falk, doesn't p430 make you a bit uncomfortable? Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, there is a qualifying "perhaps" in Finlay. But all recent sources I've found do use the term/concept in that context, and there are no sources that disagree, so I'm OK with it as it is. What would be your suggestion for changing the article? Rd232 ^talk 08:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Without meaning any disrespect, "all recent sources" you've "found" using the term in that context is of no importance whatever, unless we can quote you in the article. The bit from Finlay should stay 1) Out of the lead 2) Attributed directly to him, not in the narrative voice 3) With his qualification of "perhaps." IronDuke 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to quote me on not being able to find WP:RS which disagree with Finlay, you just need to find WP:RS which do: I don't need to prove a negative. Without any WP:RS dispute there is also no need to attribute the claim explicitly; there's certainly no reason to take it out of the lead. I'm not sure "perhaps" is the best qualifying word to add in the article, but some qualifier could be added; eg "may currently be" for "is currently" would reflect that qualification without sounding overly awkward. Rd232 ^talk 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. You have a scholar who is of no note whatever in issues of Judaism/Israel/Zionism, making a point that he himself attenuates as he makes it. I have no need --- no need at all -- to find a source that disputes a claim the author does not himself make. I can see its place in the lead, of course, as long as we ignore WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Get some more sources, and we'll see. In the meantime, it belongs well out of the lead -- and you haven't addressed my point about what a lead is for in any way. I'll also add that, while I can see the original falsification of the quote might have been an honest mistake, that it continues to reside here unmodified is no longer a mistake, but can only be read as deliberate. IronDuke 03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

As discussed previously (above), some of these issues come from conflating the pejorative term "self-hating Jew" with the general concept of Jewish rejection of Jewish identity. The phenomenon has existed much longer than the concept and term of "self-hatred" - and this article is about the term. Is there some other article where discussion of the phenomenon would fit better? It's also been suggested that the article might be merged into something else. That might be worth exploring. Rd232 ^talk 08:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I removed a quote which seems not to belong here (being about the phenomenon, not the term); [22]; Malcolm merely reverted with the summary "rv removal of relevant and sourced content". Helpful. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I had previously suggested that this article be redirected (is that the correct word? my understanding of wiki-technicalities is limited) to Self-hatred. I have noticed that has already been done with Self-hating gay. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirecting just means the link (self-hating Jew) will go to self-hatred; merging means merging the content and then redirecting. Self-hating gay isn't a precedent since it was never an article of any description, however poor: history. And self-hatred itself is poor, and now proposed to merge into self-esteem. This is getting pretty far from what this article is about! So does anyone have an answer to my specific question - is there any article (or could there be one) on the phenomenon of "Jewish rejection of Jewish identity" (a phenomenon going back to the year dot, I guess), as against this article which is about the term "self-hating Jew", which dates to the nineteenth century? The obvious thing would be to call it Jewish self-hatred, but given the history of the term/concept in self-hating Jew I don't think that's appropriate. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Apostasy in Judaism perhaps? Rd232 ^talk 13:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Different editors think this article is about very different things. In my view the article is about the history and use (and it is mostly used by Jews in conversation, not in article writing) of the term. It appears to me that other editors think the article is about the political issue of Jews criticizing anti-Zionist Jews by using "self-hating Jew" as an insult against the anti-Zionists.

I understand the interest some editors have in the political use of the term, but it is only a small part of the whole issue. If an article is desired to deal with the political aspect, I think it would be better to create a new article called something like "Jewish criticism of Jewish anti-Zionists." That would make it possible to include more content, because there is plenty of such criticism published which never uses the term self-hating Jew. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"it is mostly used by Jews in conversation" - WP:OR? Or do you have a WP:RS for the claim, which we can use to improve the article? Rd232 ^talk 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's all you have to say?....you are worried I will put something in the article without a source? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to want the article to reflect your personal opinion, despite the fact that you can produce no WP:RS to substantiate it. This is a problem. WP:V, WP:OR. Rd232 ^talk 10:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I want the content to conform to requirements of WP:ASF. Why are you still making personal accusations against me (thereby violating WP:AGF) instead of correcting the very obvious problems of a sentence that we have been discussing for over two days? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your fallback to the fact you can't substantiate your opinion is to restate it, claim that others are violating policy, and that the problems are obvious. The solution proposed repeatedly - to separate the epithet from the concept of internalised antisemitism - you have repeatedly ignored.Rd232 ^talk 11:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also you keep referring to WP:ASF, but if you'd bother to (re)read it, you might doubt its relevance as much as I do. We're talking about a factual claim, not something that is intrinsically opinion. Rd232 ^talk 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You complain about personal accusations against you when you opened this thread with a personal accusation against Finlay. The thread is entitled "The problem with Finlay" for fuck's sake; not "why I have doubts about Finlay's writings". And the falseness of your claim has been pointed out above when you previously made it, as User:Rd232 has said. Yet you persist in libelling Finlay. You at least are automatically aware of comments and are therefore able to respond promptly. Finlay was not a member of this thread and is, as far as we know, not someone who uses Wikipedia. The only way he gets the opportunity to decide whether to respond is through someone like me telling him. The word "chutzpah" was invented for behaviour such as this.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gilman quote

I've just realised that the Gilman quote was being misused.diff Here's a fuller version: "As Gilman points out, this is a sign of Jewish self-hatred, which 'is valid as a label for a specific mode of self-abnegation that has existed among Jews throughout their history'." [23] In other words, it's not "self-hatred" which has existed so long, it is a form of self-abnegation which may be called self-hatred, and has been so since the nineteenth century (and as other authors (Finlay, Reitter) explain, the label was created for political reasons). Which brings us, again, to internalised anti-semitism or the like. Rd232 ^talk 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

He uses the term differently than Finlay, which my edit (that you reverted) makes clear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The previous use of Gilman was a misquotation. He may use the term differently from Finlay, but you need more than this small quote fragment to show that. Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Any constructive suggestions?

What about those constructive suggestions, Malcolm? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also what's happened in the last month since Malcolm wrote above "Although there is plenty in the article, including the lead, that I am unhappy about, with Peter cohen's change to the lead I could live with the article as it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)"? (Well he didn't write the timestamp, but I think that establishes that there was consensus for that version of the article less that a month ago.)--Peter cohen (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Got to point out that the consensus for that old version no longer exists anyway, now that I've discovered the misuse of the Gilman quote (see section above) and removed it. I'm impressed though by Malcolm's chutzpah; his recent edits aren't just changing the disputed sentence discussed above, but also changing the lead sentence to say "self-hating Jew" is not necessarily a pejorative term. Which I've reverted, because surely there was consensus for that, and he didn't even flag that change here on the talk page, never mind discuss it first! Rd232 ^talk 17:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well WP:BRD suggests that each of you should discuss things on the talk page once a change to the rpevious consensus version has been reverted.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's up to the person who wants to make a change to create discussion; I created a section for the Gilman quote removal. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless other sources can be found that say the expression "self-hating Jew" is used most commonly in debates concerning Israel, I think we need to attribute the statement to Finlay. Perhaps we can phrase it better than "In his view"; I haven't read Finlay's paper lately, but I think that conclusion was based on a review of Jewish newspapers over a period of time. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be giving in to Malcolm's unsourced WP:OR badgering. The source says what it says; there being no other sources to contradict it, I don't see why we should qualify it by explicitly attributing it in the text or going into detail about why the source says what it says. However I grow pretty damn weary of this debate, so if you want to have a stab at revising this, I'm sure your proposal will be reasonable. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Try this

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.

From an article in Haaretz by Anthony Lerman who has been Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research and editor of Patterns of Prejudice [24]--Peter cohen (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It isn't my intent to give into Malcolm's badgering, but I think in this instance he raises a valid point. I would feel better about the statement if Finlay cited a source for his statement or mentioned how he came to that conclusion. But he doesn't—in fact, he qualifies it with the word "perhaps". I've been searching Google and Google Books looking for other sources that describe the most common usage of the phrase, but I'm having trouble finding anything. If we can find sources that agree with Finlay on this point, I would delete the attribution. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How about the Lerman Jewish Quarterly source I just added to the article? Rd232 ^talk 20:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that looks fine. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done for finding that. I'll have to read it again tomorrow. My impression as to why the concept was bogus is that its users (who incidentally are mostly unqualified in mental health professions) diagnose others who they have not even met as having this pseudo-pathological condition. I didn't see it said in so many words but if I can find it there that is most certainly a silver bullet of an argument.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the quote. It doesn't match what Finlay said, exactly, but as the quote itself, in the lead, has been falsified, is it really necessary to support it? I think the fake conclusion can stand on its own. IronDuke 03:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I want is

1. that the problematic sentence that we have been discussing be changed, or removed from the lead, and
2. that Finlay's views be attributed to him in the text of the article.

I have said that many times. Is that so hard to understand? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've asked you many times to make specific suggestions. Draft language you'd like to see in the article. What part of that don't you understand? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Per what WP rule? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and not being a WP:DICK. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could direct me to the exact section of WP:BRD that says I need to supply a draft, for your perusal, on demand. I made clear many times what I wanted changed, and why. That is quite enough, and see no reason why more should be specified when I am willing to be flexible on the final form. (By the way, it is my understanding that use of WP:DICK is considered to be rather dickish.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So we're both dicks. You're the editor who wants to change the article; do you expect other editors to draft the changes you have in mind for you? You've been belly-aching for a month, and you have yet to make a specific suggestion. Kindly put up or shut up. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I ask you to do any editing for me? The only thing I would like from you, Rd232 and Peter cohen is that you stop your ad hominem violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF; such as the "You've been belly-aching for a month" in your edit above. Capisce? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

1. If you won't draft language for the article, and you aren't looking for others to draft it, where do you think it's going to come from? Do you think it's going to fall from the sky?
2. You may not like my language, but that doesn't make it a personal attack or an assumption of bad faith.
3. In any event, please stop your wiki-lawyering and work toward improving this article through specific constructive suggestions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, and for your concern that my editing efforts might fail. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How rapidly we get away from the reason this section was created, which was to ask Malcolm why he hasn't properly addressed the article-splitting suggestions made repeatedly above. Instead, Malcolm thinks he can tweak the lead until it ends up doing what he wants it to, as if nobody else would notice the tweaking's drift into substantial change which has been rejected here and is still under discussion. Bottom line: you do want it to reflect your personal opinion, and aren't going to let your inability to provide relevant sources stop you. This is getting pretty close to the need to escalate WP:DR based on your behaviour. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Progress

Okay, so while we seem to have established that Finlay is a minor figure here, he is dominating the lewad. This is a gross violation of WP:LEAD (among other things. Could someone rewrite it so it reflects actual mainstream scholarship on the subject, rather than Finlay's own (somewhat peculiar) POV? IronDuke 22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

What point of Voew are you suggesting he has? And what is peculiar about it?--Peter cohen (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when did "we" establish that "Finlay is a minor figure here"? He has reviewed the relevant literature and been published in a highly-regarded, peer-reviewed journal. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

that has definitely not been established. a currently indef blocked user alleged it as well, and it was rejected by the majority of editors as spurious. untwirl(talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess Ironduke has taken over the flag from Malcolm, now the latter's been indef-blocked... Again with the no-evidence, just assertion! Also, this time, failing to actually look at the section he's talking about, which clearly isn't dominated by Finlay if you check the footnotes. Finally, with my recent efforts Finlay can be removed from the lead if we really want and the same information sourced to 2 or 3 other sources given in the article. Is that what you want, Ironduke? Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

@untwirl & Malik: you are correct that a currently indef blocked user "alleged" the stunningly obvious. If Malcolm said it was raining, would that automatically make it untrue? I see no evidence that Finlay has any expertise whatever regarding, say, political discourse about Jews, Israel, or any related subjects. Is there some I'm missing? One minor professor (any evidence at all he's a major figure at all, in any subject?), with one article does not define this subject. Not even close.

@rd232: "Well I guess Ironduke has taken over the flag from Malcolm, now the latter's been indef-blocked..." I don't know what that means. I'd like it if you could either 1) Expand on those remarks or 2) Drop that line. Yes, Finlay should be out of the lead. I don't think we necessarily need ref notes in the lead at all: what we need to do is provide a lead that isn't trying to hammer home the point that "Self-hating Jew" is mostly an epithet used against people who are anti-Zionist. IronDuke 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You've completely ignored what I wrote. Finlay reviewed the relevant literature, which alleges that there is a psychological pathology that results in Jewish self-hatred. Finlay has specialties in "the construction and negotiation of identities relating to stigmatised administrative and psychiatric categories"—like the alleged pathology of Jewish self-hatred—and "the rhetoric of extremist discourse"—like Jewish zealots who call Jews with whom they disagree "self-hating Jews". Finlay's article was peer-reviewed and published in a respected journal. Please explain what disqualifies Finlay as a reliable source on the subject. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

PS: Please don't continue Malcolm's usage of "anti-Zionists" to describe critics of Israeli policy. The sources don't say "anti-Zionists", however much you or Malcolm might wish they did. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ignored what you wrote, I've shown that you are badly in error. And you haven't answered me as to what makes Finlay an expert on this subject, other than having written one article about it. Does that make him an expert under any conceivable definition of the term? Someone Googled up an obscure prof with one article, great. Let's have it in the article. But cramming this fringe view into the lead before we even learn what a mainstream view is, well that's just very bad editing. Malik, you know better than this. IronDuke 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said Finlay was an "expert" on the subject, nor does WP:RS require that he be an expert. His is not a fringe view, a fact that would be clear to you if you did any reading on the subject. You haven't "shown" anything: asserting something doesn't make it so, and you should know that. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so he's not an expert, but he still belongs in the first sentence of the lead? That doesn't make any sense. And as for my not having done "any reading on the subject," that would be 1) not true, and 2) not useful to say even if it were. I could posit that you yourself had done a lot of reading on the subject (I see little evidence of this, but it's possible) yet that would'nt change the fact that a great deal of your edits on this article have been terrible, on a number of levels. IronDuke 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) two out of seven cites in the lead are finlay - that doesn;t seem very dominating. and, really, you are seriously going to act surprised about rd232's observation? everywhere malcolm is sanctioned you come running to his defense; it isn't a secret. untwirl(talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"two out of seven cites in the lead are finlay - that doesn;t seem very dominating." That may well be true, but only if one has no knowledge of 1) this subject 2) WP:LEAD and 3) WP:UNDUE. Was Malcolm sanctioned on this article? Perhaps I am paying less attention to his edits than you are. But harping on this point, even if it were true, dramatically underscores the paucity of actual argument against my points. see ad hominem. IronDuke 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

listen, i don't play the snide, feigned civility game. i will call a spade a spade. i am not making an ad hominem attack on you, just stating a verifiable fact which seems relevant to this discussion, a COI if you will. yes, malcolm has been sanctioned on this article. regardless of any of this, if you have sources which support your assertions you are welcome to contribute to this article, however, you need to collaborate effectively (ie provide sourced statements) and not tell others not to edit, as you did below. untwirl(talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, as you appear to be unable to rebut my points, can you stop editing here until you are willing/able to do that? IronDuke 20:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

i'm sure it would please you to get every editor you disagree with to stop editing so all the articles would reflect your pov, but its doubtful that will happen. instead, you are forced to collaborate, provide sources, etc. the only "point" you have made was rebutted thoroughly - finlay does not dominate the lead. untwirl(talk) 21:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"i'm sure it would please you to get every editor you disagree with to stop editing so all the articles would reflect your pov" I don't mind the WP:ABF inherent in this statement, it's that it indicates you aren't really paying attention to my edits. I would be most happy for you to continue to edit here, if you can do so properly. So far, your edits are mostly bad here. I often see you jamming your POV willy-nilly into articles other articles, but the way you are doing it here is particularly troubling and harmful, which is why I would like you to stop. I'll note again that you are unable to reply to my points, and that your personalizing the discussion is not a substitute for productive argument. IronDuke 22:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

that is a beautiful little piece of hypocrisy you have typed there, bravo. lets see, have you provided any actual sources or valid arguments? nope. all i see is you telling every editor you disagree with that they should stop editing this page. i am not assuming bad faith, i am simply recognizing it. whether it makes you happy for us to edit here or not is irrelevant, and we don't need your permission. in fact, your continued baiting is becoming tedious. if you have a point that hasn't been refuted, please make it, and be sure to back it up with sources and not just your opinion. untwirl(talk) 02:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You think you can actiually defeat my arguments by mere assertion? And I think you should probably throttle back on the personal attacks, they really aren't helping. As my arguments, which I have stated quite clearly, have not been replied to, I'll be making a pretty major revision to the lead soon, per all the points I have raised. IronDuke 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please restate your arguments clearly (perhaps in a new section), because they've got rather lost here. Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

On the more substantive issue in this subthread (I hope you don't my identing you further to avoid comments below looking like a comment to you), I'd like to point out that actually academics favour more recent articles published in peer-review journals over books. Standard texts on a subject and classic viewpoints are likely to be in the form of books, but the state of the art is more likely to be reflected in articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, Peter, but it's also the case that more revisionist ideas (which can in turn become mainstream) show up more recently, as a rule. I think we need to start with the basic idea of what the term is generally thought of as meaning, then move on to other ideas. That's just basic common sense, IMO. IronDuke 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well my observation was merely a tongue-in-cheek remark limited to this page. I know nothing about Ironduke and Malcolm's relationship elsewhere, if any, and wasn't implying knowledge thereof. Rd232 ^talk 11:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Great. We'll leave it at that, then. IronDuke 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

So we're discussing things here, and suddenly User:Telaviv1 (hello, wonder what their political perspective is?) swoops in and radically changes meaning and content of the lede: [25]. I don't think so. Discuss first. Note also that the lede is supposed to merely be a summary of the body, and Telaviv1's changes were radical enough that that was certainly no longer the case. Rd232 ^talk 11:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Before your revert, I fixed what I thought were the most egregious problems with TA1's edits, namely

1. that sourcing the opening sentence to American Thinker a group which, our article on them notes, reserves the "right to be partisan" is not the best way to create an impartial article
2. and I'm not aware of evidence that means that Tony Lerman qualifies as a left-winger.
3. Oh and some grammatical problems with singulars and plurals.

I know that I am in disagreement with some people here in that I am in favour of broader discussion of Jewish self-hatred in the article than others, provided that the right-wing propaganda usage is acknowledged as the most commmon current use of the term. (I mentioned above how Abraham Mendelssohn Bartholdy (Moses Mendelsohn's son/Felix Mendelsohn's) father would be a legitimate example of what is seen as 19th-century self-hatred and that also how post-war British Jews with political profiles have risen to prominence under gentile names e.g. Tories Michael Howard (Hecht), Nigel Lawson (Leibson), Leon Brittan (as opposed to cousin Malcolm Rifkind), Labour's Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hoch) and the far-left's Tony Cliff (Yigael Gluckstein) and Ted Grant (Isaac Blank). I can't help feeling that there are sources which look at this phenomenon as a form of self-hatred.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The comment "hello, wonder what their political perspective is" says more about its autoher than about me. I take Peter's reaction as a reference for my lede. I suggest we see what Shabazz?

Telaviv1 (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted again - this is a major change and needs discussion first. I don't relish taking time fisking this, but some issues: (a) the lead sentence is turned into self-contradictory nonsense: "Self-hating Jew is a pejorative term used to characterise a person of Jewish origin who holds or is accused of holding antisemitic beliefs." If they actually hold anti-semitic beliefs it's not pejorative. (b) the second sentence is vague to the point of meaninglessness, and sourced to Lerman, who I don't remember saying anything so vacuous. (c) the third sentence is of limited relevance, and the sourcing extremely dubious given the academic sources we already had for the topic. (d) that blockquote from Lessing is inappropriate for the lede, it could go in the body though. (e) the next para implies Gilman is a proponent of the concept, it's clearly more complicated than that. (f) The last paragraph is (AFAIR the Finlay article) misleading about Finlay's view. (g) this rewriting of the lead, apart from the fact that it breaks the relationship with the body (it's supposed to be a summary) makes it much worse an intro, it's vague and contradictory. Obviously the previous one wasn't perfect, but this needs prior discussion and some care, not somebody swooping in as if there were no current discussion. Reverted. Discuss. Rd232 ^talk 13:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the previous issues about article focus which Malcolm never addressed remain. Should there be an article about the history of Jewish rejection of Jewish identity? Peter Cohen's comments just above suggest to me yes. That's where that substance needs to go. This article is about the labelling of rejection (and alleged rejection) as "self-hatred". Read the whole body carefully, maybe followup with actually reading Finlay and Glenn. Rd232 ^talk 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate slightly (since Telaviv1 hasn't been part of the discussion before) - this article is about the label "Jewish self-hatred", meaning a psychopathological rejection of Jewish identity. This phenomenon has a real history (which should be discussed elsewhere, as part of the broader topic of Jewish rejection of Jewish identity), but the label was historically created for political reasons (to label people who had different political/cultural views as pathological) and it is so used today. The article is quite clear about this, and the lede should reflect that. Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Way off base. I appreciate that you're working hard on this article, for example, this edit, which removes Sander Gilman, a scholar who is orders of magnitude more important on this subject than Finlay. And Lerman? In an opinion piece? Goes in the lead? Very nice. I'm not sure what else to say but to ask you to please stop editing this article. IronDuke 04:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal of Gilman was (AFAIR) because he was misquoted. It's possible that a fuller quote would be useful. I agree Gilman could/should be drawn on more for the article, but it's an offline source, which requires an editor to get physical access to it. I might actually bother one of these days if I happen to be in the library. NB my impression is that Gilman broadly supports what the article currently says, when not being misquoted. But being so far filtered through secondary sources, that may not be the case. PS Lerman merely reflects in fruity language what the academic sources say (after all, despite being a (lengthy) opinion piece, he does draw on the academic sources we've found); it doesn't change anything, it merely illustrates it. Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)