Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:50, 17 January 2009

Jewish history Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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 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 ) 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 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 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 . 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)

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. — ] (] · ]) 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. — ] (] · ]) 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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., 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 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 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? — ] (] · ]) 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 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. — ] (] · ]) 21:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

With enough attention being raised, maybe that will lead to some productive effort. Baseball Bugs 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. 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 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 , 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." Misplaced Pages 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 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. — ] (] · ]) 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)

Redundant sentence

I put that sentence in to accommodate the complaints of those users involved in Israel/Palestine conflict issues, who feel that they needed some special attention. Since that has now been addressed in the lead sentence ("...political positions from their accusers"), I see no reason the point should be doubled.

The problem, as I see it, is that some editors want this article to be about some Jews criticizing other Jews for not supporting Israel. That certainly needs to be in the article, but it does not need special attention (AKA POV pushing) and it should not dominate the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are not happy with that sentence being taken out, I would still be willing to return to the previous lead. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have now reinstated that sentence, in a balanced context. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

article ownership

we've made great breakthroughs on the lead, let's work together and compromise on other additions, and not make blanket reverts. Untwirl (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"ownership"?? No one "owns" Misplaced Pages articles. WP:OWNERSHIP --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article changes

The "blanket revert" was because of Arimareiji's POV rewrite of the entire article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

you seem to revert anything that you didn't personally add. that is what i meant by ownership. some of his changes were minor, and it looks like he has been researching and providing sources for his additions. we should show some respect for his effort and intent to improve the article and see what we can agree to keep or remove. the same goes for your edits. Untwirl (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You call this an "explination"? Again, please address points individually, the way I made them - not as a blanket "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". arimareiji (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please re-read WP:NPOV: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (emphasis in original)

If you think there's a problem with the article's POV, please add other significant views to it, don't make a blanket reversion. Thank you. — ] (] · ]) 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You wanted additional POVs on the matter, and were not satisfied with leaving it at Finlay. I added two from each side, and was more than fair in choosing - most of those who use the term do so in a nastily partisan manner, and I had to make a serious effort to find people who sounded vaguely reasonable. Your response was to blanket-revert.
2. The bit about lashon hara is a mischaracterization of the source material, albeit one which attempts to capture the intent of those quoted. But we don't use WP:SYNTHESIS that way, or at least we're not supposed to. Your response was to blanket-revert.
3. The rephrase of Jackson was to more accurately characterize his wording in-context, and to correct the fact that the wrong page was being cited. Your response was to blanket-revert.
4. Replacing "Jewish self-hatred" with "synonymously" eliminates use of Misplaced Pages to assert the truth of a racial epithet. Your response was to blanket-revert.

Please address these points individually. arimareiji (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I will he happy to discuss any changes you think are needed, but not your rewrite as is because it is unbalanced. Sourced and balanced NPOV are not the same thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may paraphrase - you're saying "I will be happy to discuss any changes, but not yours - I'll just blanket-revert those"? arimareiji (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please, it's hard to work together when you won't identify the specific concerns you have with the article. — ] (] · ]) 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have explained. I will let others deal with this article now, and return to editing the article at a later time.

I made a good faith attempt to present the Israel/Palestine aspect of this subject in a balanced way, and would I was certainly willing to make changes where I missed that mark.

I do not think that Arimareiji's changes are balanced, nor do they give me the impression that they are intended to be balanced. If you read the two versions side by side you will understand, if indeed you intend to understand. I will not trust you again, although I am suppose your revert was in good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

revert on self-hating jew

Copied fr user talk page

hi! you reverted my edit. just curious to see if you looked at the sources i was referring to before you reverted it. The source in question is alon dahan, author of articles declaring uri avnery is a nazi. "political opponents" seems to be an inaccurate description of this source. the correct one is right-wing columnist, or possibly editorial columnist. please review the article and source and discuss on the talk page. thanks. Untwirl (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Read the source again. The names "Alon Dahan" and/or "Uri Avnery" do not appear anywhere in the source article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the wrong source. I tried reading the correct source, but it is not in English. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone you are angry with a "Nazi" is pretty typical of Israeli hyperbole. I can remember a 12 year old kid, whose younger brother "borrowed" his marbles and lost them all in a game, calling his brother a Nazi (and a few other things too). That's Israel. I think that for a WP article it would be better to stay away from words like "Nazi" for anyone who did not actually belong the the Nazi Party, or declared such sympathies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What? are you refuting the fact that dahan is a "right-wing columnist, or possibly editorial columnist"? your comment is completely off topic. i'm copying this to the talk page so poor uncle milty doesn't have to deal with this on his talk page. please reply there. Untwirl (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

milty, i couldn't read the article either, simply googled the author's name and read what little i could find about him. since the ref in question refers only to this one (seemingly) non-notable columnist, can you see my point that to generalize "political opponents" from this is misrepresentative? Untwirl (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ W. M. L. Finlay, "Pathologizing Dissent: Identity Politics, Zionism and the 'Self-Hating Jew'", British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, June 2005, pp. 201-222. Online summary. Cite error: The named reference "Finlay" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
2. Ethan Ard, "For Ourselves Alone", March 1998.
3. The Language of Psychology - Dictionary and Research Guide

• Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Low-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles