Talk:Self-hating Jew/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Troubled

I'm troubled that this article takes "self-hating Jew" to be something that accurately describes particular Jews. It's my experience that the phrase is used exclusively as a slur. It is not the Daniel Burros or the Bobby Fischers of the world who are called "self-hating Jews" so much as the Norman Finkelsteins and the Noam Chomskys. The former pair have serious mental or emotional illnesses, and it seems excessive to label these mountainous problems as being instances of a general and widespread condition. These two are clearly anti-semites, but I don't think that the vast majority of Jews who are called "self-hating" belong on the same page as these two, as far as anti-Jewish attitudes or behavior. It is something like giving the Columbine shootings of a few years ago as the main examples of misbehavior in high schools. If "self-hating Jew" is the profound but rare problem that affects Daniel Burros and Bobby Fischer, does it need an encyclopedia article? And if it is something else, then should these two profound extremes be used as the leading examples in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.64.84 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

No responses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.64.149 (talk • contribs)

It is a common epithet, and a common phenomenon as well. There are numerous examples in public discourse of Jews turning against their faith or publically denying its relevance. Hence, it needs an article.

I have no idea why you slapped a {{POV}} tag on the article. This is normally only done if no agreement on the neutrality of the article can be reached on the talk page. Please discuss here first, and then consider adding a tag.

What exactly is your point? That more or less people should be labeled "self-hating Jews"? JFW | T@lk 22:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you give examples and citations of "Jews turning against their faith or publically denying its relevance" in ways that have been called "self-hating?" I have one relative, now deceased, who subverted her Jewish-ness to such an extent that her own grandchildren were unaware until they were well into adulthood that she was Jewish, but my impression is that this was more a practical (if perhaps over-done) reaction to the anti-Semitism she grew up with rather than shame or self-hatred. She was, I think, more nearly like a homosexual who prefers, for often very good reasons, to keep his sexual preference secret while still having no shame over it. My aunt's behavior, I think, speaks more of the society she lived in than of her. I would not call it "self-hatred."

Can you give examples of Jews who reasonably can be called "self-hating?" I think, for reasons given above, that none of the current examples in the article are very good. I don't think Borros or Fischer would normally be described as "self-hating Jews" simply because their problems are so vast that the fact that they are Jews who have turned against their faith is an almost incidental matter. We would use terms for psychological disorders to describe them. And Michael Lerner and Noam Chomsky and Israel Shahak cannot really be said to haved turned against their faith to the point of being self-hating, can they? With these, "self-hating Jew" is pretty clearly an epithet used to discredit them in their disagreements with other Jews.

I put the POV tag on because, if "self-hating Jew" is primarily an epithet, as I believe it is, then it is POV and it serves the interests of those who would use the epithet to create an encyclopedia article that treats it as if it were a completely legitimate appelation.

My point is neither that more or that less people should be labeled "self-hating Jews" (it is my opinion that this term should never be used, but that is not my point here). My point is that "self-hating Jew" should mean something, and its meaning should be taken from its use. And its use is, with very rare exception, as an epithet.

You say that it is a common phenomenon, and not just a common epithet. What is your evidence? 72.244.64.149 (talk · contribs)

Listen pal, I'm not here to defend the content but to find out what you actually want. I think the term should be interpreted as "Jewish person attacking Jewish ideals or people out of presumed embarrasment for Jewish identity". I'm not sure if there is anything more to it. It is an epithet, and it has been used numerous times, also in relation to Chomsky and Shahak. Whether the phenomenon exists is a matter of opinon. JFW | T@lk 00:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

But you are defending the content, aren't you? You took my POV tag off, for example. If the existence or non-existence of the phenomenon is a matter of opinion, then isn't it POV to write the article as if it really did exist as opposed to writing on article on the agreed upon fact that it is an epithet, and leaving to the reader's interpretation whether the epithet is accurate? 72.244.64.149 (talk · contribs)

(Me again) I hope we would agree that "money-grubbing Jew" should be described as an epithet as opposed to as a legitimate description, even though there may be people whom we would describe as "money-grubbing" who are also Jewish. Apparently for you, this is an entirely different matter than "self-hating Jew," but I hope you can at least respect that for me it is not. 72.244.64.149 (talk · contribs)

If you have to resort to personal attacks to get your point accross I'm not very inclined to hear you out. If you don't like the style of the article, then edit away! If other users are not happy with your version they may change it back. But don't start shouting like this. I respect your opinion but please remain civil. JFW | T@lk 01:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

???

I'm bewildered as to what you have taken to be a personal attack. I never meant anything disparaging in what I wrote. For my part, I thought your calling me "pal" in the way that you did was inappropriate, but it didn't really register very much. What exactly bothered you?

I'm going to replace the POV tag. 72.244.64.149 (talk · contribs)

You have not made any attempt to provide balance in the article. Again, just slapping tags onto it because you don't like it is a poor excuse for NPOV. I have edited the intro, and suggest you work on the remainder. By the way, by taking the tag off I am only following Wikipedia procedure and not "defending the content" in any way. JFW | T@lk 10:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know why you accused 72.244.64.149 of personal attacks as well. I think you owe him/her an apology. Marsden 05:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear 72.244.64.149, I'm sorry for suggesting you personally attacked me. I was simply upset that you accused me of "defending the content", which I took as an attack but Marsden says it isn't. JFW | T@lk 11:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

By my reading, 72.244.64.149 didn't accuse you of defending the content so much as just noting after your explicit denial that you were defending the content that you were, in fact, defending the content. And, I'd have to say that removing a POV tag (one that, by the way, was apparently placed only a couple of days after 72.244.64.149's first post here in talk received no responses) is, in fact, defending the content. There had been a lot of revert warring, beginning with Jayjg's revert of 24.136.98.130's edit, over the very point that 72.244.64.149 was making; 72.244.64.149 seems appropriately to have brought the dispute to the talk page and, having received no response to his concerns, placed the POV tag rather than joining the revert warring. You wrote that a POV tag placement is "normally only done if no agreement on the neutrality of the article can be reached on the talk page" -- isn't this exactly the situation in which 72.244.64.149 placed the tag?

I think you owe 72.244.64.149 another apology for saying that he/she "accused" you of defending the content. It would be more accurate to say that 72.244.64.149 fairly mildly disagreed with your impromptu denial of an accusation that was never made.

Marsden 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

72.244.64.149, I apologise. Wholeheartedly. Marsden is right. I should not have belittled your insistence for NPOV. But why didn't you try to remove the POV first? That would have been much more helpful. I almost mistook you for ArthritisCritic (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 16:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sephardi/Mizrachi

My personal experience is that I've been called a 'self-hating Jew' by Ashkenaz when I affirm my identity as a Jewish Arab. It happened when I studied Arabic, it happens in Shul when I say that non-European Jews in Israel face racism and it happens when I let people know I have Muslim friends. I find that the term isn't just used to silence dissent in the Jewish community it's also used to erase our histories and experiences.

This may have something to do with the Ashkenaz community associating the experiences of Jewish refugees from Arab countries with the those in Europe before and during World War 2, it's a lack of understanding, that could be fixed with something as simple as conversation and greater participation with the Arab Israeli community. But no matter what social problems exist here, at least we have a way to fix them.

Section POV tag added

Jayjg's belligerent blind revert (accompanied by a personal attack) left the second paragraph of the "Usage" section using an epithet as though it were a legitimate term. Marsden 04:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Take your personal issues with other editors to their talk pages or to the ArbCom. Your edits were misleading and were properly reverted. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is noted. Marsden 15:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As is yours, which is why your edits have been removed; they were both POV and made unsourced claims. You claim that "Self-hating Jew" is an epithet, rather than a legitimate term, ignores the long history of its legitimate study and use. I'm restoring Jfdwolff's version; please work through the issues on the Talk: page. Also, if you continue to make reference to "belligerent blind revert[s]", and make false accusations of "personal attack[s]", I'm afraid you will find it extremely difficult to get cooperation from anyone on this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Self-hating Jew" is with very rare exception used as an epithet only. It is very rarely used to legitimately describe an actual condition. I can cite thousands of instances of its use as an epithet; I suspect that one would be hard-pressed to come up with even a dozen examples of its legitimate use. Jfdwolff changed the introduction to include the word "epithet," so maybe NPOV is not what you think it is in this case.

I understand that there is a history of Jews hiding or otherwise denying or betraying their ethnicity/religion. But "self-hating Jew" is hardly a sympathetic term to describe such a person. Even by Prof. Gilman's position as given in the article, the term arose out of a dispute between different Jewish groups: an epithet. If you met someone who was genuinely distressed about his Jewish identity to the point that he tried to hide or deny it, would you call him a self-hating Jew? I think that would be very cruel; something worse even than calling a handicapped person a "cripple."

I also believe that most reasonable people would agree that your revert was belligerent and blind, given complete information. And I think describing someone's edit as "POVing," as you did, is fairly characterized as a personal attack.

Other than a few editors connected in various ways with you, I have had little trouble getting cooperation from anyone on Wikipedia, but thank you for your advice.

Marsden 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Take your personal issues with other editors to their talk pages or to the ArbCom. Discuss your changes here; I'm not sure you're wrong. Convince us. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for my revert

I reverted Apeloverage's edits because they're original research, an example of an editor advancing his own arguments to make a case. Instead of "it could be argued that ...," s/he needs to write: "X argues that ..." and link to a reputable source. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur with regard to the later edits. However, regarding Apeloverage's first edit, adding the sentence, "The term has similar implications to the term Uncle Tom in the black community," I disagree on the grounds that it was a casual observation that most reasonable people would agree with: this does not particularly require a citation. You may -- and probably do -- disagree with my position here, and I'm not going to change it back, but I wanted to note my disagreement. Also, "advancing his own arguments to make a case" is, in my opinion, stronger language than needed. As far as you or I know, Apeloverage is only trying to clarify and flesh-out the article; "making a case" implies an attempt to impose a particular bias. You have reverted his edits, and, other than stated above, I agree with your reverts. However, you would do well to consider that he probably put good faith effort into making the changes, and will not appreciate them being removed. There is no need to add to this a suggestion that the changes were made to impose a bias: give him the benefit of the doubt. Marsden 18:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The internal mental state of the editor is unknowable and doesn't matter; what matters is that a position was being advanced by the editor, not by the editor's sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Apeloverage, could you supply sources for your edits, please? See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Blake Eskin, famous... sociologist?

Who is Blake Eskin, and why is he an encyclopedic source, particularly on this topic? Is he a linguist or sociologist? Are his views well known and often quoted in this context? Or is he just someone found by googling "Self-loathing Jew" and "Uncle Tom" together? From what I can tell he is a theatre critic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[1] Marsden 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, he's also written a book about someone's fake Holocaust memoirs. Exactly how does that make him an expert in this subject again? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The source doesn't even back up the edit. He writes: "Kushner understandably took umbrage; calling someone a self-hating Jew is, like terrorist or Uncle Tom, a full stop, a label meant to stifle further critical conversation about the play or the viewer's reactions." He's not saying it's similar in meaning, just in effect; to suppose he meant the former is also to suppose he thinks "self-hating Jew" means "terrorist." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If I may paraphrase Wittgenstein, "In language, meaning and effect are identical." I don't think the citation nor Apeloverage's latest edit are ideal, and maybe they don't even belong. But the criticisms Jay and Slim have made here ring false. Marsden 21:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"The suspicious mind believes more than it doubts. It believes in a formidable and ineradicable evil lurking in every person." Eric Hoffer. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds pretty scary. Does it have something to do with this article? Marsden 22:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

About as much as Wittgenstein, surely. JFW | T@lk 23:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we could take Wittgenstein seriously if we want to. What Marsden neglects to add is that Wittgenstein understood that a word can be put to many uses and thus have many meanings. "Self-hating Jew" and "Uncle Tom" mean different things when they are used to refer to a particular person (with the exception, conceivably, of Black Jews). They have the same meaning when they are used in this way: when using them to refer to a particular person in a particular way is meant to put a stop to (or signal the speaker's withdrawl from) reasonable conversation.Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There are two debates here. My comments on the first one are personal: I think "Self-hating Jew" is an epithet, because I have never heard anyone self-identify as a self-hating Jew except parodically. This does not mean that there are no Jews who hate their Jewishness — indeed, there are well-documented cases; moreover, ethnic self-hatred is common among people subject to racism ... the classic discussion of this phenomena is Stigma by the sociologist Erving Goffman. I would suggest an article on self-hatred or self-stigmatization that draws on Goffman's work (which I know) as well as other work by psychologists and sociologists (which I do not know, but am sure exists); it can include Jews, Blacks (in this regard Frantz Fanon's work is canonical), and others as examples, and reserve this article for the epithet. This is just my opinion.

The other argument concerns compliance with our NOR policy, and the use of verifiable and well-regarded sources. As far as I am concerned these policies are inviolate. I would defend the addition of any content, even if it conflicts with my own view stated above, if it is properly sourced; I would delete material, even if it represented my own views, if it is not and cannot be properly sourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion about the articles makes an immense amount of sense to me. I would not make as categorical a statement about citing sources as you do, though: would one need a source to note that Jenna Bush is blonde and her sister Barbara is brunette? It is only material that is in dispute that needs to be cited. Really, the "self-hating Jew"/"Uncle Tom" parallel should only have been removed if someone asserted that they think it is inaccurate, which no one has really done. SlimVirgin declared it "original research," but never said that it was inaccurate. Marsden 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden, the fact that you ask, "would one need a source to note that Jenna Bush is blonde and her sister Barbara is brunette?" tells me that you are not familiar with our NOR policy. It is an official policy and the specifics are all spelled out; it is this policy to which SlimVirgin and I have referred. I urge you to read the policy carefully. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh ... are you suggesting that one would need a cite to note that Jenna Bush is blonde and her sister Barbara is brunette?! Should there be a cite for the first sentence of this article, then? Can you point me to exactly what in the NOR policy you think I must be unfamiliar with? I've looked at it just now, but I found nothing surprising to me there. Marsden 20:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I am only saying that your asking the question is evidence that you either didn't understand the poilicy, or don't know it. The policy states explicitly that if you are not making original analytic, synthetic, or interpretive claims, you are not violating policy, and it provides "apple pie" as an example, as well as current events. Surely, you can infer that if you do not need a source to explain what an apple pie is, you don't need a source to tell us what someone's hair-color is. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh. Do you understand what a rhetorical question is? ;) Marsden 22:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I do, although sometimes I have difficulty recognizing them ;) Slrubenstein | Talk 23:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an interesting book written by Neal Karlen "Shanda: The Making and Breaking of a Self-Loathing Jew." – anon. user

This you mean? Sounds interesting and potentially includeable, if only to emphasize that hating other Jews may be completely divorced from hating Judaism, although Karlen describes a cross-reaction. JFW | T@lk 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I see what Marsden's WP:POINT at Abu Nidal was today, when he turned up on a page I've edited a lot, but which he has never edited, and deleted a sentence attributed to Abu Nidal's biographer Patrick Seale, who said that Abu Nidal's psychopathic personality might have been caused by a strange childhood. [2] Marsden's reasoning was that Seale is not a psychologist and therefore can't be quoted in that area. However, Seale is an acknowledged expert on Abu Nidal and therefore anything he has published in his area of expertise is publishable by Wikipedia, according to our policies. And yet above I see Marsden arguing: "[W]ould one need a source to note that Jenna Bush is blonde and her sister Barbara is brunette? It is only material that is in dispute that needs to be cited ..." and yet no one (absolutely no one) disputes that Abu Nidal had a psychopathic personality. It was indeed the thing that marked him off from all the other Palestinian leaders, and made them fear him. I'm noting this here because I'm disappointed to see Marsden use a dispute on this page as a platform to engage in disruption at another article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

But you do not really see, Slim. I noticed the problem at Abu Nidal long ago, but never got around to addressing it. Now I have, but not to make a point, regardless of what you may think. It is certainly more problematic, in any case, to rely on a layman's judgement of someone's psychological state and its causes, than to rely on a layman's judgement of whether two words have similar meanings -- surely no one can reasonably doubt that. The use of the term "psychopath" itself belies a lack of awareness of the matter, and how many people can state the major characteristic of the personality disorder formerly known as psychopathic?

In any case, I read not too long ago that internal mental states are unknowable, which I didn't agree with, but which has some small basis in fact: internal mental states are generally unknown without careful -- and generally expert -- study. There is no evidence of this having been performed with regard to Abu Nidal. And, in fact, while I am certainly not an expert, I think that there is a classification other than antisocial personality disorder that would better explain his pathology. It's even alluded to in your article.

Marsden 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You were quoting Wittgenstein earlier. He would have said that if someone acts as if they have no conscience and does this consistently enough, then they have no conscience by definition, because the internal mental state is unknowable, even to (and perhaps particularly to) the subject, except by its external expression i.e. behavior. And where something is unknowable, we shouldn't even try to speak about it; hence the famous "Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen." And it's the behavior that any psychologist would base a diagnosis on too. Also, I have no doubt (though I'm guessing) that Arab, Western, and Israeli intelligence services had experts in psychology studying him, because he was a dangerous enigma for several decades.

Also, as an aside, anti-social personality disorder is a garbage-bin diagnosis, more often than not meaning simply that we don't know what's wrong with this person, except that they're harmful in particular ways, and unmanageable. The same applies to all the personality disorders, according to many psychiatrists, but particularly the cluster that anti-social personality disorder belongs to. The internal stuff (insofar as it exists) is too confusing to base a diagnosis on; and you have to rely on the subject to tell you about it, so the narrative is inherently unreliable.

However, the issue here is policy, and as I said on the other page, once we've established that someone is a recognized expert in his field, and the field here is Abu Nidal, then we run with whatever that person has said about it in print. If we feel he's overstepped the mark and is talking about things he doesn't understand, the correct action is to write to him, but until he retracts it, it's acceptable material for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that "the field" in the matter is not just Abu Nidal, but also psychology. We will have to disagree on this matter, but in my opinion the article suffers in quality under your interpretation. Marsden 04:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

"... in short, a Jew who displays evidence of anti-Semitism"

This addition by Apeloverage seems a little strong to me -- to my understanding, it is often more a matter of just deciding not to accept/be proud of Jewish culture. Anti-semitism goes beyond this. What do other people think? Marsden 02:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree with you. I think when people say "self-hating Jew" they do not necessarily mean that the person in question accepts the ideology of anti-Semitism but rather that the person has internalized his or her own image of how people — including anti-Semities, but including for example Christians who are in no way anti-Semitic but who simply, by virtue of being in the majority and having their own lives to worry over, disregard Judaism and Jewish views. This latter example is not really racism; my point (really, Goffman's and Fanon's point) is that being a social minority often has psychological consequences (no matter how the majority acts). 16:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'll drop Apeloverage a note and give him the opportunity to tell us how completely wrong we are before I delete it tomorrow-ish. Marsden 19:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Apeloverage, I have removed this clause and am placing it here on the talk page. In other words, although I have strong doubts that it belongs in the article, I do not simply want to delete it outright.

in short, a Jew who displays evidence of anti-Semitism.

As you can see, Marsden and I both have qualms about this. I hope that two things will happen. First, I hope that other editors will discuss this and contribute more research on the topic. Second, I hope that if you have not already, you read Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. These are two key policies at Wikipedia. Normally, when editors are writing about uncontroversial topics, few or no one questions whether editors are complying with or violating these policies. But when people are working on controversial topics, referring to these policies usually helps people resolve any disputes. For example, although you may think that it is obvious that a self-hating Jew displays evidence of anti-Semitism, you now know that this is not obvious to at least two editors. That being the case, we want to make sure that you are not just adding your own point of view to the article (and violating NPOV). However, if you can provide a verifiable source (I am referring to two other policies you should familiarize yourself with; both are relevant to our "no original research" policy) for this claim, then we can put it back in, and there won't be any questions about it violating any policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The initial sentence (not by me, and not deleted) says a 'self-hating Jew' is "a person of Jewish origin who appears to exhibit a strong shame or hatred of her or his Jewish identity, of other Jews, or of the Jewish religion". If I said "complete the following sentence: Bill appears to exhibit a strong hatred of Jewish identity, of Jews, or of the Jewish religion. In short, Bill is an...", I think most people would answer "anti-Semite". Thus, a 'self-hating Jew' as defined by the first sentence of this article, is a Jewish person who shows evidence of anti-Semitic attitudes. My addition was just a summary of that sentence. --Apeloverage 22:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I can see an argument for removing my addition AND any elements of the article which make the same assumption about how the term is used. However, I can't see any argument for removing only my addition, on the grounds that it defines the use of the term wrongly, but keeping other elements of the article which make the same assumption. --Apeloverage 13:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please list any objections to this phrasing:

"Self-hating Jew is an epithet used for a person of Jewish origin who appears to exhibit a strong shame or hatred of her or his Jewish identity, of other Jews, or of the Jewish religion." [current wording, which no-one has objected to]

" - attitudes which, in a non-Jewish person, would generally be considered anti-Semitic". [my proposed addition, which I believe flows from this current wording] --Apeloverage 13:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would object to this phrasing, ALR. Those qualities which might be termed "self-hating" among Jews are not the same as those qualities which would be considered antisemitic among non-Jews. A lot of what gets called "self-hating" is, by my understanding, simply a matter of wanting to fit in; not wanting to wear a yamulke (sp?), for example, simply because it is different. Is it antisemitism for a non-Jew to think that wearing a yamulke makes Jews different? I don't think so; in fact, I think that traditionally some of the characteristic Jewish dress, in particular, was adopted for the express purpose of being and appearing different from the surrounding population.

I am not happy with the first sentence as it is: I think "self-hating Jew" is an accusatory phrase, and it accuses a Jew of being ashamed of his Jewish identity. The underlying facts, however, of what gets some Jews called "self-hating" are generally milder than shame.

Marsden 01:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So, are you saying that you think my addition is wrong, AND the original sentence is wrong?

If so, it could well be said that most of the article is wrong, in that it broadly assumes that there is an established psychological phenomenon of unique Jewish self-hatred, and that it is generally accepted that "Jews who suffer from this psychological condition of self-hatred" is fundamentally the same group as "Jews who are called self-hating Jews" - or at least that they are as close as eg "people who suffer from schitzophrenia" and "people who are diagnosed with schitzophrenia". In fact a lot of people, particularly those who are accused of being self-hating Jews, seem to assert that there is little or no overlap at all, and in fact that the term is mainly used to advance political ideas rather than draw attention to a condition - rather as if the page on insanity discussed Charles Manson and "the loony Left" as two examples of people who are generally accepted to be insane. --Apeloverage 07:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes to all of it. What do you think of Slrubenstein's suggestion that this should be an article specifically about "self-hating Jew" as an epithet, and that there should be a general article about "ethnic self-hatred" as a social/psychological condition? Marsden 18:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we need to hear from people who use the term. If they are literally saying that there is a psychological condition which both Daniel Burros and Noam Chomsky suffer from, then it belongs in the one article (along with the point that Noam Chomsky doesn't think so). If they're using it in the same way that 'gun nut' or 'loony left' is used, then the psychological stuff doesn't belong with the stuff about the political use of the term, and having it on the same page is biased in the same way that having discussion of insanity in an article about socialism or militias would be biased. --Apeloverage 09:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Uncle Tom

My addition, which has been deleted, had two parts:

i) Defining 'Uncle Tom', in a way which no one has disputed.

ii) Saying that Jewish people who use the phrase 'self-hating Jew' also often use the term 'Uncle Tom' for the same thing, and providing two examples of this use.

My contribution did not say that "a self-hating Jew is like a Jewish Uncle Tom", which would be an opinion. It said "Jewish people who use the term 'self-hating Jew' sometimes use 'Uncle Tom' as if it meant the same thing", which is a fact shown by the two references - regardless of what you think of either term, they are in fact used in this way.--Apeloverage 22:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The only valid arguments I can see against this section are

a) that's not what Uncle Tom means

b) the people you're talking about virtually never use the term in this way, and the two examples here are highly atypical of how the term is used.--Apeloverage 13:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Apeloverage, I tried to give you useful advice that would help you in making effective edits that others would accept. I did so in good faith, and respectfully. It does not look like you have followed my advice. That is of course your choice, but it was well-intentioned and I really do think it would help you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Which parts of this proposed section, if any, are you saying are factually inaccurate, or not supported by the references? And if none, what's your objection to the section?

My impression of the comments accompanying this section being removed, were that they misinterpreted what I was trying to do. They seemed to be saying "Your references don't show that Uncle Tom is the same as self-hating Jew, they just show that these people use them as if they were the same; also, the references weren't academics, they were just examples of colloquial use; for your assertion to have any weight, you need an academic reference, and it needs to show that the two things really are the same, not just be an example of people loosely using two phrases as if they meant the same thing".

In other words, they were treating it as if I'd made an assertion of objective fact: for example, if I'd said "Clint Eastwood is Jewish", and tried to justify it with a reference to someone on livejournal saying "I heard Clint Eastwood was Jewish".

But my assertion wasn't an assertion of fact, it was an assertion about how language is used colloquially: this particular set of people sometimes use this particular phrase as if it was more or less synonymous with this particular phrase.

If I edited the 'Communism' page to the effect that "people use 'communism' to mean the system that prevailed in the former Soviet Union", I'm sure that someone would object to it on the grounds that "that's not what communism means, and here's an encyclopedic definition of communism compared with a list of the features of the Soviet Union, proving that they're not the same". I think this would miss the point in much the same way. And indeed I suspect that it may miss the point for much the same reasons ie people think they have a certain 'ownership' of the concept. --Apeloverage 06:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that your original insertion, which was something like, "The term has similar connotations to those of 'Uncle Tom' in the black community," was fine on the basis that this was an obvious parallel that anyone could see, and indeed many other people have made it previously. The argument over the matter, however, has taken leave of both gravity and reason at this point, so I have little to say about it. Marsden 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Apeloverage, which encyclopedic sources link "Self-hating Jew" with "Uncle Tom"? You are promoting the novel thesis that "Self-hating Jew" and "Uncle Tom" are synonyms - this is forbidden by the original research policy of Wikipedia. Please find some encyclopedic sources making this claim, or desist from adding it to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a cite: Eugene Kane, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

However, in the African-American community at large, outside of family relations, Uncle Tom is more than just an offensive name.

It's a downright slur.

Despite the literary origin of the name (more on that later), for many blacks it's become a way to disparage other blacks for being alleged "traitors to the race."

I've been racking my brain, but it's hard to find a comparable insult for other groups.

To call someone a "self-hating Jew" is close.

With this source, it is fair to note that the term "self-hating Jew" as applied to Jews has been compared to the term "Uncle Tom" as applied to African-Americans.

Jay, perhaps you'd like to restore some version of Apeloverage's comparison as a show of good faith?

Marsden 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's another cite: [3]

For years, some Jews opposed to peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians have attacked other Jews who support such agreements as "self-hating Jews." This is the equivalent of being called an "Uncle Tom" in the Black community.

Marsden 00:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not promoting the thesis that 'Uncle Tom' and 'self-hating Jew' are synonyms: in fact they're obviously not - for example because 'Uncle Tom' has implications of hiding your intelligence, and because 'Uncle Tom' implies pretending to be more different from white people than you really are, whereas 'self-hating Jew' implies pretending to be more similar to gentiles than you really are. I'm making the observation that some Jewish people (not all, not most, just 'some'; ie more than zero) use the word 'Uncle Tom', when applied to Jewish people, as if they were synonyms. In terms of the original meaning of the words, 'oreo' would be a better synonym, and if I was in fact advancing a thesis, that would be the thesis I would advance.

If I was to say, for example, "John Smith wrote on his website that Korn rocks", I don't think you would say that I was advancing the thesis that Korn rocks. I think that you would accept a link to John Smith's website as sufficient to verify this observation. On the same basis, since "some Jewish people" clearly means "a number of Jewish people which is more than one", more than one quote should be sufficient to show that 'some Jewish people' do indeed use the phrase in this way, regardless of whether it's a 'good' or 'correct' use or not.

If there were a number of Sylvia Plath fan-sites which asserted that "Sylvia Plath was the first punk", I'm betting it would be acceptable to use those sites as references for the statement that "many Sylvia Plath fans have described her as the first punk", but not to use them for the statement that "Sylvia Plath was the first punk"; the first is a description of what people have said, the second is an assertion about reality, and needs some kind of expert opinion to back it up. My point about 'Uncle Tom' is about use of the words, not about their 'real' meaning.

I requesting that you tell me what phrasing would be acceptable to you, to express the point that some Jewish people have used the phrase in this way. I'm assuming you're not going to deny that some Jewish people have in fact done so. If you either don't answer or don't believe that there is any acceptable way in which this observation can be made in this article, I am requesting mediation with you on this issue.

I am also requesting that you restore the section 'Synonymous Terms', and some form of the observation that 'self-loathing Jew' is used synonymously, which you have deleted without providing reasons. If you don't, I am also requesting mediation on this.--Apeloverage 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, ALR, some of your interpretations go too far, I think. While identifying two Jewish people who hold a particular opinion would be sufficient to make it true that "some Jewish people" hold the opinion, it does not make it an encyclopedic fact. In order for it to be an encyclopedic fact, it would have to be reasonably demonstrated either that prominent Jews held the position, in which case it would probably be best to attribute to them as individuals rather than as "some Jewish people," or that the position is at least a significant minority position among Jews. Marsden 16:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with your change which has added the reference to 'Uncle Tom'; although I don't 100% see the difference between my wording and yours, I don't think it's worth keeping a debate going. --Apeloverage 02:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In addition, if you're going to make claims like "it is frequently used in political debates relating to Israel" or "There is a large amount of controversy over to what extent, if any, cases such as Daniel Burros represent the same phenomenon as other Jewish people who are accused of being self-hating.", you'll really have to provide encyclopedic sources which back up these claims. Anything else is simply violating multiple Wikipedia policies. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I have once again deleted Sigmund Freud as a self hating Jew, the citation just does not back that up, I will continue to delete an often as I am entitled to edit if anyone attempts to revert this.Incorrect 02:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The citation provided specifically lists him; continued deletion of cited material can result in blocking. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

I can't quite figure out what this sentence is asserting: As well as debates relating to the extent to which Jewish people should maintain distinctive cultural or relgious practices, it is used in political debates relating to Israel. Could someone parse this for me? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It relates to the dispute regarding the attribution of anti-Semitic intent to anti-Zionist rhetoric. Reference Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism_dictionary_definitions. Vassyana 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

POV tag on 'psychological basis' section

I have re-added this tag.

The debate around this phrase seems to revolve around whether there is a single phenomenon which includes obvious 'nutters' like Daniel Burros, and Jewish people who are seen as anti-Israel.

masada.org and the like assert that yes, there is a strong link; critics of Israel have Stockholm Syndrome, identify with their abusers, feel shame and self-loathing...in short, are acting out psychological problems and are not holding a rational position any more than Daniel Burros was. Liberals assert that no, there is no link, it's just used as a way of writing someone off, and 'self-hating Jew' is no more a real psychological diagnosis than 'gun nut' or 'loony leftie'.

If the phenomenon isn't real, then there is still a 'psychological basis' for the accusation; one which lies in the accusers rather than the accused.

Therefore, in my opinion, if this section was unbiased it would give space to the theory that the accusation reflects the needs of the people who make it - I'm sure there is some material out there on, for example, group identities and how people who base themselves strongly on this identity can be more threatened by dissent inside the group than outside.

Since it only gives space to the assertion that the phenomenon is real (and implicitly that the accusation is made because it's accurate), I think it can be seen as not neutral.

--Apeloverage 07:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. I changed it to "Proposed Psychological Basis" - that makes just a proposition rather than an assertion. jucifer 08:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, but my comments on the section still stand. --Apeloverage 12:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are we giving Masada2000.org any credence in the first place? It is obviously using "Self-hating Jew" as an epithet to describe not only left-wing Jews, but also Jews who even remotely humanize Palestinians/Muslims. Certainly, the source material is suspect. If we must have a "Stockholm"-like theory on self-hating Jews, perhaps we could use a more scientific source, preferably with credence from organizations like the APA.

--OneTopJob6 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Masada2000.org is obviously not an encyclopedic source - it's unreliable for use for anything except, perhaps, as a description of the website itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I have also changed the first sentence, so that it no longer says that the epithet describes someone who is ashamed of their Jewish identity etc, but carries the implication that they are. I think there's debate on a) whether it is an accurate description, and b) whether the people who use it mean it literally.

request for comment?

is there a request for comment on this article? if so i'd be willing to share my point of view.--Urthogie 15:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There's always a request for comments on every article! The talk pages exist for discussion, debate and clarification of the content. Vassyana 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Critical of Israel etc.

Liftarn, we've been through this all before. Hatred means hatred, not criticism - the claim is that they hate the various things listed. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If you think Jayjg is wrong, please cite a source that uses self hating jew in the context you suggest. Until then, please dont present such a POV on the page.--Urthogie 22:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And by "source", please present an encyclopedic source. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

IE nothing from a weblog. It should be from intellectuals, popular journals, professional political commentators. Noam Chomsky= Yes. Your brother= No. --Urthogie 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And certainly nothing from Masada2000.org, which is the least encyclopedic personal website I've seen in a long time. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We have been over this once already[4] and it's obvious that Jayjg wants it handed down on stone tablets by a deity of his choise. Nothing else will do. Sources have been given from newspapers (The Boston Globe, "Zionism and the ‘self-hating Jew’" by Mick Finlay, New York Times, The Independent, The Jewish Chronicle awarded Gilad Atzmon the "self-hating Jew of the week" award for criticising Israel[5], The Guardian), books (Pity the Nation, Worlds of Hurt, Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals and many more [6]) and several other sources [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] // Liftarn

Most of your links have the phrase, but not in the context youre suggesting. Please reply with a link that has it in your context...better yet, paste some text you think proves your argument(not all of us can read pdf on library computers)--Urthogie 15:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Examples:

The Finlay article says "The term ‘self-hate’ is still commonly used in the Jewish press. It is found in several contexts: /../ and to discount Jews who criticize Israeli policies or particular Jewish practices." and "It should be no surprise, then, to find the notion of Jewish self-hatred frequently used in current debate over Israeli policy. /../ The logic of this argument is as follows: Zionism is a core value of Jewish identity. Criticism of Israel is, therefore, anti-Semitism. Jewish criticism of Israel must then be the result of the internalization of anti-Semitism." and "Gerald Kaufman, Labour MP (UK) and self-proclaimed lifelong Zionist, who has himself been accused of being a self-hating Jew for his criticism of Israeli policy" and "in 1992 Ariel Sharon /../ wrote a piece in the Jerusalem Post describing the Jewish left-wing who criticized the invasion of Lebanon as ‘consumed by self-hate and the tendency to kowtow to the enemy, and the Arab nationalist parties’" and "Michael Freund /../ castigates journalists who suggest ‘a moral equivalence’ between Palestinian and Israeli violence, and writes: ‘Though Israel may have left the Diaspora behind, it seems not to have shaken the Diaspora mentality, in which Jews would typically tear themselves apart with selfcriticism, and even self-hatred, in the hope that our enemies would hate us less. Sadly, some of our journalists carry on this dubious tradition’" and "Jews who publicly criticize Israeli policies regularly report receiving death threats and hate mail accusing them of being self-hating Jews (for examples see Engel, 2000; Klaushofer, 2001; Kuttab, 2000; Lerner, 2002)."

In Worlds of Hurt it says "Landes /../ further acknowledges that the label of "self-hating Jew" has been used to supress dissident in the Jewish community".

In Chomsky: Ideas and Ideals it says "Because he is a Jew /../ his dispassionate refusal to temper his criticisms has resulted in his being described as "anti-Semitic", or a "self-hating Jew""

I hope this helps. // Liftarn

Unfortunately those are secondary sources, so they may be true, or may not be. Could you actually quote a notable right winger using it this way? (The ariel sharon quote would work if you could find it, from a primary source)--Urthogie 21:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Freund quote came from the article "The media’s Stockholm Syndrome" in The Jerusalem Post, Jan 10 2001, p8[16] and the Ariel Sharon quote from "A just and necessary war" in The Jerusalem Post, June 15 1992, p6 [17], but it costs $3.95 per article to get the full text. // Liftarn

Allow me to clarify. I was saying that the source about ariel sharon is ABOUT ariel sharon, but is not a hard quote of him using self-hating jew in reference to those who are against aspects of israel or zionism. so you could you provide a primary source, of him saying that directly, like not an editorial about him, but actually a quote by him. thanks much, for being cooperative.--Urthogie 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Ariel Sharon did write the op-piece in The Jerusalem Post. It then is a primary source. // Liftarn

We can't rely on assumption. --Urthogie 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it undeniably says "Ariel Sharon" in the space for who wrote the op-piece. // Liftarn

OK I sincerely apologize for that miscommunication. I was under the impression that the article was about sharon rather than by him. Could you post the text of the article at my talk page? If he uses it this way I'll help you add that aspect to the first paragraph with it as a source(lets finish discussion before we get to that). Thanks for patience and respect--Urthogie 16:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There are two problems 1) it costs $3.95 per article to get the full text and 2) posting it on Wikipedia would be a copyvio. // Liftarn

Well then its not a usable one. What other primary sources do you posess of right-wingers?--Urthogie 15:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As the first hand source is not available, we would have to use the second hand source. Or simply use one of the many other sources stated above (for instance "Unwilling to be considered traitors and no longer sure that Jewishness is worth preserving if it means the Jewishness of [Ariel Sharon], we have joined together because we are not willing to allow our culture and religion to lose its prophetic message of generosity, compassion and open-heartedness. ("Thou shalt love the stranger.") No surprise that we have been greeted by some Jews with their favorite mantra: You are self-hating Jews."[18]. But, I think Finlay's paper could be used as a primary source. Acadmic papers are usable, right? There are ofcourse many other sources, for instance in the book Sixties Radicals, Then and Now[19] Thomas Friedman was called a "self-hating Jew" on Israeli army radio.[20] Or some primary source at http://www.zoa.org/oped/oped20050919a.htm where Jerome S. Kaufman (National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America) calles Thomas Friedman (New York Times), Ms. Oz-Salzberger (Wall Street Journal) and Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic) "self-hating Jews" because they support the ide of "land for peace". Also conductor Daniel Barenboim have been called "self-hating Jew" several times because he refused to be interviewed by an Israel Army Radio reporter in uniform.[21][22][23] On some cases it seem it's enough to promote peace and suggest a two-state sollution to be branded a "self-hating Jew". // Liftarn

OK I'll address all of this. My replies are in bold.

As the first hand source is not available, we would have to use the second hand source. Or simply use one of the many other sources stated above(for instance "Unwilling to be considered traitors and no longer sure that Jewishness is worth preserving if it means the Jewishness of [Ariel Sharon], we have joined together because we are not willing to allow our culture and religion to lose its prophetic message of generosity, compassion and open-heartedness. ("Thou shalt love the stranger.") No surprise that we have been greeted by some Jews with their favorite mantra: You are self-hating Jews.")

Although this may be a scholarly, encyclopedic source, it is not a primary source(a source from the guys who call others self-hating). While primary sources are not required in all cases on Wikipedia, in this case it is-- because you make a claim about the definition of the word. Your not being able to find one, shows that you rely on secondary sources-- academic opinion papers, which agree with you. What you'll need to prove me and Jayjg wrong is primary source proof.

"But, I think Finlay's paper could be used as a primary source. Acadmic papers are usable, right? There are ofcourse many other sources, for instance in the book Sixties Radicals, Then and Now[19] Thomas Friedman was called a "self-hating Jew" on Israeli army radio."

Once again, that's a guy talking about his experience, rather than a primary source of someone saying it.

Lemme explain the concept of primary sources. Let's say we're writing an article on a racist book. A primary source would be the book itself, or quotes from the guy himself. A secondary source would be a review of the book that (albeit correctly) called it racist. In the case of this article, someone actually writing an editorial, or being quoted by a news agency as using self-hating jew in the way you describe, would be a primary source. Guys saying they were called self-hating jews, or editorials that agree with your viewpoint, are secoundary sources.

"Or some primary source at http://www.zoa.org/oped/oped20050919a.htm where Jerome S. Kaufman (National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America) calles Thomas Friedman (New York Times), Ms. Oz-Salzberger (Wall Street Journal) and Leon Wieseltier (The New Republic) "self-hating Jews" because they support the ide of "land for peace"."

This is a good primary source. Unfortunately it isn't what you claimed it is-- they don't call him self-hating because he merely criticizes israel, but rather because he says things like: "it is impossible not to rejoice in the defeat of the idea of Greater Israel." While they may be wrong in their assumption, clearly they view him as self hating because he urges the destruction of the only jewish country. The accuracy of the editorial isn't the issue though, it's the motives. And clearly you mischaracterized it as them calling all critics self-hating.

"Also conductor Daniel Barenboim have been called "self-hating Jew" several times because he refused to be interviewed by an Israel Army Radio reporter in uniform.[21][22][23] On some cases it seem it's enough to promote peace and suggest a two-state sollution to be branded a "self-hating Jew"."

No mention of self-hating jews in the first article source, the second article source is a BLOG!! The third one doesn't given a reason why he's a self hating jew, they just say "SELF HATING JEW???" next to his picture. Read his article on wikipedia, it could be for other reasons such as his playing of the Nazi-Supporting wagner(not that I don't think people should listen to wagner, but that has nothing to do with criticism of israel).

In conclusion, your sources you just provided are either secondary sources, or not usuable for the reasons I explained. Much respect for handling this calmly, and for maintaing objectivity.--Urthogie 20:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

In the http://www.zoa.org/oped/oped20050919a.htm article they are clearly called "self-hating Jew" not because Thomas Friedman calls for the destuction of Israel, but because he think the Gaza whitdrawal was a good idea and Jerome S. Kaufman is well aware of this (he writes "Weiseltier is commenting upon the withdrawal from Gaza.").

The first article say "Even Pro Palestinian Jews Are Now Called 'Anti Semitic Jew Haters'".[24]. Ok, it doesn't exactly say "self-hating", but the idea is the same. The second source is indeed a blog, but since it's a primary source to the writer's own opinions it's usable.

For the http://www.israelnewsradio.net/barenboim.html link the content is in the audio. It may not be accessable on some computers (works on my Firefox under Win 2000). Anyway, I think there is a slight difference between conducting classical music and calling for the destruction of Israel, don't you?

And some more links. At http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2004_01.html#000244 Bob Simon and the other reporters of 60 Minutes are called "Arch-typical self-hating Jews" by Andrea Levin is (Executive Director of CAMERA) because they did a piece of the wall the writer doesn't agree with.

At http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2003_11.html#000210 Jerome S. Kaufman calles Daniel Kurtzer, Tony Lapid, Shimon Peres, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Haim Ramon, Yossi Beilin, Aaron Miller, Michael Melchior "total Left wing self-hating apologetic writers and speakers" May I also remind you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".[25] and that even extremist groups may be used as primary sources about themselves.[26] // Liftarn

"In the http://www.zoa.org/oped/oped20050919a.htm article they are clearly called "self-hating Jew" not because Thomas Friedman calls for the destuction of Israel, but because he think the Gaza whitdrawal was a good idea and Jerome S. Kaufman is well aware of this (he writes "Weiseltier is commenting upon the withdrawal from Gaza.")."

It's not for political reasons. Clearly, he thinks the guy hates his religion because his criticism is focused on him being a so called "secularist", "godless." Also, the guy on that page clearly thinks that saying "toxins of messianism" is an attack on his interpretation of relgion. You gotta understand that I'm not defending this guys POV, but that I'm just pointing out his view of the guy as self-hating is that he views the guy as not valuing his brand of Judaism.#

The first article say "Even Pro Palestinian Jews Are Now Called 'Anti Semitic Jew Haters'".[27]. Ok, it doesn't exactly say "self-hating", but the idea is the same. The second source is indeed a blog, but since it's a primary source to the writer's own opinions it's usable.

Both of these are blogs, which are not usable (ie encyclopedic)

And some more links. At http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2004_01.html#000244 Bob Simon and the other reporters of 60 Minutes are called "Arch-typical self-hating Jews" by Andrea Levin is (Executive Director of CAMERA) because they did a piece of the wall the writer doesn't agree with.

Blog.

At http://www.israel-commentary.org/archives/2003_11.html#000210 Jerome S. Kaufman calles Daniel Kurtzer, Tony Lapid, Shimon Peres, Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Haim Ramon, Yossi Beilin, Aaron Miller, Michael Melchior "total Left wing self-hating apologetic writers and speakers" May I also remind you that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".[25] and that even extremist groups may be used as primary sources about themselves.[26] // Liftarn

Funny that you quote Wikipedia:Reliable source, which says "At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."

Also, you're correct about verifiability, but verifiability only works if you're using the guidelines of Wikipedia:Reliable source :) --Urthogie 17:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrectly labelling some sites as blogs (as if the type of site makes a difference), but please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_secondary_sources. // Liftarn

It does make a difference whether or not they are blogs, because the rules of wikipedia make a difference, and the rules state:

At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources.

I've read all of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and the above quote is from it. The policy of reliable sources on that page doesn't contradict itself, so I don't see how reading a specific section would contradict that quote. I'm sorry that the POV you have suggested is not documented in a reliably encyclopedic way, but we can't include it based on the current sources, which dont fulfill the requirements of verifiability. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit annoyed at people misusing Wikipedia:Reliable sources for selective censorship. Under the section Evaluating secondary sources it asks some questions. Have they used multiple independent primary sources? Yes. Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report? Some do, some don't. Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Yes. Are they available to other editors to check? Yes. Oh, and please not that it's not policy, just a guideline and it says nothing about that you can't use a secondary source. It also says "the New York Times /../ are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia." // Liftarn

You're correct in stating that it's not a guideline. It's a helpful framework at the moment, and noone has to follow it(it's optional). I would side with you on a loose interpretation of what it says, if this were a less controversial edit. But I, and (I think) most wikipedians, would side with a strict interpretation for very controversial edits, such as this one.

Look, if it is true that self-hating jew is used in this way, it has to have been in one primary source used that way. I'm sorry for holding you to such a high standard, but we can't be lax on such controversial issues. On a personal note, I want to state that I mostly agree with the edit's content, but we can't be loose on something so controversial and volatile.--Urthogie 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with that it is a "very controversial edit". There is plenty of evidence for it, both from primary and secondary sources. If it helps it may be phrased in another way, for instance "In the British Journal of Social Psychology paper Zionism and the ‘self-hating Jew’ by Mick Finlay writes "It should be no surprise, then, to find the notion of Jewish self-hatred frequently used in current debate over Israeli policy. /../ The logic of this argument is as follows: Zionism is a core value of Jewish identity. Criticism of Israel is, therefore, anti-Semitism. Jewish criticism of Israel must then be the result of the internalization of anti-Semitism."" Then it doesn't state it directly, but is a statement about a statement. Correction: I noticed the Finlay article have been published[28] so I've added it. I hope an academic paper published in a peer-reviewed journal is good enough. // Liftarn

OK, good idea lets work on wording. First off, its considered not very stylish to include sources mid sentance most the time. The following allows us to use your secondary sources, in effect, as primary sources:

Writers and political activists who have been critical of Israel report being called "self-hating jews" because of their political beliefs.

And we'd source it with footnotes. How's that?--Urthogie 16:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. With this many sources it should ofcourse be possible to write something longer and more informative. // Liftarn

One thing I just noticed though. Report may have certain connotations... Dictionary.com says its means they explain something with detail, but it seems like they didn't exactly report it, so much as make clear that they've dealt with that.. How about "described" instead?--19:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That would work too. Something like

"In a research article by W.M.L. Finlay he writes that the term self-hatred is used by rightwing Zionists to label those who criticize policies of the Israeli government."[29] Many writers and political activists who have been critical of Israeli actions or policies also describes being called "self-hating jews" because of their political beliefs."

Sounds good? // Liftarn

Keep the first sentance and make the second one:

Several Jewish writers and activists critical of Israel have reported the phrase being inaccurately used against them, based solely on their political views.

How's that?--Urthogie 15:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Urthogie's version is obviously more accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

We'll go with that then. The problem with yours, liftarn, is that the motives are disputed, not the parts about being called self hating jews.--Urthogie 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

With that done, I think we're done editing that into the first paragraph. You may create a section devoted to further explanation of that theme, but no further editing of this theme should be necessary in the first intro paragraph, unless you disagree. Whatcha think(please discuss before edit)--Urthogie 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Good enough. // Liftarn

Encyclopedic sources

Your POV is "Self-hating Jew" is a correct analysis of somebody, my POV is "Self-hating Jew" merely a slur. (Nobody ever called himself of herself "Self-hating Jew".) But even if it is the correct analysis, we have no right to judge, if somebody is or is not a "Self-hating Jew". We can only report that somebody considers other person a "Self-hating Jew".

Masada2000 is not an encyclopedic source, I agree. But the fact is that they call Baruch Kimmerling a "Self-hating Jew". -- Vít Zvánovec 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Words have meanings, and authoritative source(unlike masada) typically respect those meanings. Public Enemy called everyone in the history of America a bunch of rednecks, but we don't include their opinion in every article.--Urthogie 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an article about "Self-hating Jews". In the article about red necks, there would be very useful to have Public Enemy's statement. Masada2000 represents small, but influent, part of Israeli public life. It is important to know who they consider a "Self-hating Jew". Otherwise Wikipedia hides the fact that Mr Kimmerling was offended and by whom. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, but consider this for a second-- by the way youre applying so loosly the rules on authoritative sources, anyone could get anybody onto this list. A website costs less than ten bucks a month. For that, I could get any jew on the list, no?--Urthogie 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I could put up a website and call anyone I wanted anything; however, that wouldn't not qualify as notable or encyclopedic. masada2000 represents nothing but itself, one individual as far as I can tell. WP:RS has strict but reasonable requirements, and masada2000 does not meet them. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in your view that Wikipedia cannot reflect views of not important individuals. But Masada 2000 seems to me to be be a site of people connected with JDL and Kahane chai and similar groups. How do you know it is a work of one individual? -- Vít Zvánovec 09:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be the work of 5 guys, the important thing is you have to verify its notability under the guidelines.--Urthogie 13:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

22,200 Google hits is not enough? -- Vít Zvánovec 15:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Urthogie gets more than 10,000[30]. Nice little comparison. By the way I'm a 16 year old kid with relatively new opinions. Perhaps we should quote my blog, on the basis that I have almost half that number of hits?--Urthogie 15:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, you persuaded me. -- Vít Zvánovec 16:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's all good-- thanks for being reasonable. And please help by contributing to the article! Peace!--Urthogie 16:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Michael Savage (commentator)

M. Savage's name was added to the list. Please see the previous section: unless a proof is provided, he's out. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've added Tony Kushner to the list, his statements about Israel and Judaism more than qualify him.63.205.151.68 18:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I've deleted Sigmund Freud from the list of self hating jews, a reading of the source does not begin to put him in the class of those who actively speak against Jews and Israel

• Folks, your personal evaluation is irrelevant; what matters is, have the people been called self-hating Jews by notable sources? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This term is POV(and Insult)

Self-hating is never without links to social pressure.Plus Jews themself are mixing ethnicity and political views in one term.Anti-judaism or anti-zionism are distinct from anti-semitism and each other. usually these who are critical(but not hating) of their own culture are much more progressive and open-minded,so criticism of "self-hating" apllies only to people who deeply hate themself based on their previcious allegiance to religion or political beliefs (such as zionism,and common perception of: Jew equals Zionist).Jewish anti-patriotism is really what they hint at(social pressure or conformism in cultural identity).

Why this page keeps getting reverted is obvious. The Editor of the Article

likes it's popularity. I thought we were beyond Jew Hating for sport as a people. I guess some people still get a kick out of it in spite of what happened at Auschwitz. This page shouldn't even exist, it is purely POV and has NO business in an Encyclopedia, but maybe there is room for it in the Tabloids. GNaw they wouldn't dare.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce1333 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the script it was already signed

If you can read script that is, but maybe it's just poor editing on your part.

Bruce1333 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see below at #This Article Must Be Deleted for an explanation of why this article exists. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still POV any way you wanna look at it, and has NO place in an encyclopedia.

Bruce1333 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be the equivelant of a subject on "Muslims and Ragheads" but I don't see that as useful information either, and an insult.

Bruce1333 (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand Wikipedia's policy concerning neutral point of view, which refers to the point of view from which articles are written, not the content of the encyclopedia. There are articles about the slurs nigger, kike, and yes, even towelhead. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you don't understand Wikipedia's policy concerning wiktionary. Anything that doesn't qualify as more than a definition goes there and doesn't belong in the wikipedia. It is NOT a subject for discussion, and should not be discussed. It's a slang expression and nothing but! If you want to combine them as "racial slurs" onto one page, then by all means go right ahead. Otherwise there is nothing else to add to the discussion except it's definition as is obvious from the content of this article.

Cheers..

Bruce1333 (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Herzl

"Even Theodor Herzl was described as being a self-hating Jew for an article he wrote entitled ‘Mauschel’ (Kike), which severely criticized a section of the Jewish community for, among other things, being ‘unspeakably mean and repellent’ (Herzl, 1897, cited in Elon, 1975, p251-2). His critic was Karl Kraus, who has himself been branded a self-hating Jew (Gilman, 1986; Le Rider, 1993; Robertson, 1985" [31]Homey 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Homey, I am wondering whether you really don't understand WP:NPOV (majority vs. fringe) or just pretend when it is convenient? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The British Journal of Social Psychology is fringe?Homey 05:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl Kraus surely is. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Professor Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California?

Herzl himself came close to the position of blaming the victim; at least insofar as he considered the defects of Jews in Europe to be the most fundamental reason that they were hated by non-Jews. Herzl is not an easy man to pin down, but a number of scholars have arrived at the paradoxical conclusion that this founder of modern Zionism might be considered a "self-hating Jew." His admiration of the Gentile world -- his fondest dream was to be reborn as a Prussian Junker -- was remarkable, whereas his comments in his diary about many of the Jews he met and worked with were often caustic, even cruel and ugly. No less remarkable was Herzl's apparent lack of hatred for Gentiles, even the anti-Semites among them. The Jewish state he hoped to create was to be liberal-democratic, having few if any connections with Jewish tradition (about which, at any rate, he was not particularly well informed). Again, in a book so massively detailed and one in which Herzl might be described as the hero, Vital devotes curiously little attention to these glaring paradoxes and mostly ignores the recent secondary works that have brought them up.[32]

Homey 05:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to say "see talk" in your edit note you should actually put a response, in talk, to Professor Lindemann's statement: Herzl himself came close to the position of blaming the victim; at least insofar as he considered the defects of Jews in Europe to be the most fundamental reason that they were hated by non-Jews. Herzl is not an easy man to pin down, but a number of scholars have arrived at the paradoxical conclusion that this founder of modern Zionism might be considered a "self-hating Jew." His admiration of the Gentile world -- his fondest dream was to be reborn as a Prussian Junker -- was remarkable, whereas his comments in his diary about many of the Jews he met and worked with were often caustic, even cruel and ugly. No less remarkable was Herzl's apparent lack of hatred for Gentiles, even the anti-Semites among them. The Jewish state he hoped to create was to be liberal-democratic, having few if any connections with Jewish tradition (about which, at any rate, he was not particularly well informed). Again, in a book so massively detailed and one in which Herzl might be described as the hero, Vital devotes curiously little attention to these glaring paradoxes and mostly ignores the recent secondary works that have brought them up.[33]Homey 05:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Source three: Preeminent Zionist Theodor Herzl was a self-hating Jew. As a correspondent in Paris he wrote, "I took a look at the Paris Jews and saw a family likeness in their faces: bold, misshapen noses; furtive and cunning eyes." He also wrote that anti-Semites were "fully within their rights."

Herzl believed that gentiles would realize a Jewish state was in their own interests; it would help them get rid of Jews. (Benjamin Harshav[34]) Homey 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So, SV, will you do the intellectually honest thing and restore Herzl to the list of those accused of being "self-hating Jews"? If not, why not?Homey 05:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to go to the trouble of moving a direct question from your talk page to this page you might as well also provide an answer. Given the credible citations given for Herzl will you now restore him to the list. If not, why not. It's completely unacceptable for your to continue reverting without justification. I'm quite disappointed by your behaviour. Homey 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

These look like fringe positions to me, but I'll have to read them more carefully. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not a forum to debate the twisted logic of postulating that Jewish nationalism was caused by Jewish self-hatred: try to apply this to any other nation. Sure, Herzl was a product of his time and his was a secular and assimilated Austrian Jew. So far I see only one name: Karl Kraus. Lindemann's "a number of scholars" is WP:WEASEL and Benjamin Harshav's quote doesn't belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think, humus sapiens, you fundamentally misunderstand the list. It is *not* a list of self-hating Jews, it's a list of people accused of being self-hating Jews and Herzl has been so accused, rightly or wrongly. A list of "self-hating Jews" would be completely subjective and inappropriate and if editors are under the misapprehension that this is the purpose of the list it may be better to remove it altogether. As for "fringe positions", again, we are not determining whether individuals are self-hating Jews but whether the accusation has been made. I am quite surprised the Professor Lindemann would be dismissed as "fringe" nevertheless, it doesn't matter whether he is or not. What matters is whether he has made the accusation and whether it's been disseminated in a mainstream source. I'm sure the people at the University of Oxford would be surprised to learn that one of their inistitutes is considered to be a "fringe" source by wikipedia.Homey 03:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the whole list is silly, and was inserted purely for propagandistic reasons. In any event, Homey, you don't have time for this, you need to spend what precious little free-time you have working on the New anti-Semitism mediation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of the list in its present form. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Good. And to Jayjg, I don't have to start work on Sunday until noon. Are you proposing we confine mediation to Sunday mornings? Homey 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not just POV, but OR

I want to throw another wrench into the question of applying SHJ to particular individuals as a kind of objective diagnosis. As has been said above, the term is used almost exclusively as a political epithet, with the putative psychological issues off in the background. This is borne out by the examples. A google test for "Noam Chomsky" with "Self-Hating Jew" gets 10,100 hits. A test for "Bobby Fischer" gets only 81, and a test for "Dan Burros" gets only 4 hits, all of them mirrors of this article. In other words, without a source, this is WP:OR issue as well as a POV issue. This page cannot be the only place alleging that Burros was a self-hating Jew. Ethan Mitchell 19:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Former Jew?

How can someone be a 'former Jew'? Can he/she change his/her DNA? --Vladko 05:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, but is Jew used in simply a genetic sense here? See Who is a Jew? for more details. To the best of my knowledge the term has been applied mostly to left-wing Jews like Norman Finkelstein by right-wing Jews like William Kristol and Alan Dershowitz. Furthermore, can anyone cite examples of large groups of non-Jews employing this term? It appears to be a "Jew on Jew" label, but it seems subjective to delineate whether or not it is racial, religious, nationalistic (Israel) or all encompassing.--Son of More 18:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A means of social control

The epithet "self-hating Jew" is obviously disparaging. It appears that one of its uses is to brand and label certain views and attitudes as sick. So, if a Jew criticises some aspect of Jewish life and culture, an easy way to deflect the criticism is to accuse that person of being self-hating. That is, the epithet is being used to pressure individuals to conform to certain social, religious or political norms. Has this point been made by others? Michael Glass 12:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In order for such talk to gain traction I think specifics are called for. You hypothesize about "a Jew criticizes some aspect of Jewish life and culture," without sufficient specificity. What criticism? About what aspect? Such generalizations can lead to wildly varying conclusions, I think. Bus stop 13:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Here's an example, taken from the article:

According to Professor Gilman, the term "self-hating Jew" comes from a disagreement over the validity of the Jewish reform movement between neo-Orthodox Jews of the Breslau seminary in Germany and Reform Jews in the 19th century. Some neo-Orthodox Jews viewed reform Jews as inauthentic Jews under the perceived notion that the Reformers identified with German Protestantism and German nationalism. In response, some Reform Jews labeled the neo-Orthodox Jews "self-haters" in return.

It seems that both parties disparaged each other, and 'self-hating Jew' was one of the epithets of choice in this struggle. Michael Glass 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• It all comes down to the specifics, in my opinion. What were the objections about? The paragraph in the article referring to Professor Gilman's description of a situation in which the term "self-hating Jew" arose, or at least had applicability, does not describe what the disagreement was over. We are not told the ways in which the "the Reformers identified with German Protestantism and German nationalism." There must have been specific ways in which the referred to "identification" took place. But we are not told what form that assumed, so I can't find any understanding of how the term "self-hating Jew" relates to that situation. I think the example is too vague. I don't think the situation as described by that paragraph from Professor Gilman's writing serves to shed light on the meaning of the term "self-hating Jew." Bus stop 14:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"intended to insult Jews" and "used mainly by other Jews,"

An editor has claimed that the phrase "Self-hating Jew" is "intended to insult Jews" and "used mainly by other Jews,", citing 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. Could you please quote the specific sentences in which Finlay states the term is "intended to insult Jews" and "used mainly by other Jews"? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"The term ‘self-hate’ is still commonly used in the Jewish press. It is found in several contexts: to criticize a performer or artist who portrays Jews negatively; as a short-hand description of supposed psychological conflict in fictional characters; in articles about the erosion of tradition (eg marrying out and circumcision); and to discount Jews who criticize Israeli policies or particular Jewish practices."

I believe that this establishes (a) that the term is "intended to insult Jews" ("to criticize", "supposed psychological conflict", "to discount") and (b) it is "used mainly by other Jews" ("commonly used in the Jewish press"). Based on your comments elsewhere on this page, I don't expect this to be convincing to you. But there it is. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As a further thought: Since you seem unconvinced that "self-hating Jew" is intended as an insult or that it is used mainly by Jews, could you provide some counter-examples? I know it's not your responsibility, nor does it remove the responsibility from me or any other editor who wants to include these statements in the article. But it would be very enlightening to see some credible sources in which a non-Jew calls a Jew a "self-hating Jew" or in which the term is not used as an insult (other than satire or parody). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 17:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "self-hating Jew" was not originally intended as an insult, but rather as a diagnosis of a pathology. I suspect it is often still used in the same way. Adding "intended to insult Jews" to "epithet" is original research and, if it is actually true (which I doubt it is, at least not as a rule), redundant. Also, just because a source says "self-hate" is commonly used in the Jewish press, that's hardly a proof that it is "used mainly by other Jews". Please remove the original research from the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore the language that was there before I edited it. I believe it says the same thing, only with worse grammar, but if that's what you want.... — Malik Shabazz | Talk 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - The Finlay paper is available in its entirety on Google. I won't post the link in the article, though, because I suspect it would be WP:COPYVIO. Google's is an HTML version of a PDF file that was available on the author's website (although there's still a dead link there). — Malik Shabazz | Talk 04:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-hating Jew is a critical comment made by Jews of other Jews, under certain circumstances. Those circumstances don't include nonobservance of the religion. The term is applied when Jews argue against perceived Jewish interests. Clearly Zionism would be one such interest. But as we know Zionism is not monolithic. So not all anti-Zionists are likely to be labeled self-hating Jews by all Zionists. But some would. The term would also find applicability in local issues outside of Israel. But religion is the one area in which the term is not likely to be heard. A person who is not observant of the Jewish religion is not likely to be called a self hating Jew. Claims of such labeling are likely fabrications. Bus stop 06:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Part of the Finlay paper, which is linked above and quoted in the article, critiques Lewin, a psychologist who wrote the first English-language paper on the concept of Jewish self-hatred. Finlay concludes that the concept (which was initially used by German psychologists and modified by Lewin) was rooted in a specific political milieu, and that its modern usage is an attempt to use a psychological phrase to give false legitimacy to attempts to silence political dissent. Which is something that any leftist critic of the policies of the Israeli government or the "Jewish establishment" could have told you. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Or what any leftist critic of the policies of the Israeli government or the "Jewish establishment" might allege, at any rate. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope it didn't take you three months to come up with that witty retort. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a witty retort, it's a statement of fact. The article Talk: just came up on my watchlist a few minutes ago, and I didn't notice the date stamp on your comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Fischer

Is Bobby Fischer a self loathing Jew? I read that he used deflamatory language against the Jews in a radio interview in America, you see his mother was a Jew and I'm wondering if these two possiblities tie in, also are there ANY EXAMPLES OF SELF-HATING JEWS? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.122.220 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

This Article Must Be Deleted

I insist that this article be deleted or, at the very list be merged with the general self-hatred article.

There is absolutely no reason why so-called Jewish self-hatred be singuled out from all the other nationalities or races. This, in itself, strikes me as offensive (and that has nothing to do with the, admittedly subjective (and I would argue somewhat biased) nature of the article's content).

I could have just as well created an article on Belgian (picked completely at random) self-hatred and believe me I could ha ve come up with pages worth of factual support.

This BELONGS in the general self-hatred article both based on length and content and no reason why it should be singled out. This contributes nothing but actual hatred. Seriosly, this is making things too easy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.153.200 (talk • contribs) 23:27, May 31, 2007

• Hi 65.60.153.200: This is more than a term, it's a well-known notion with wide, and controversial, usage in many Jewish communities. Kindly familiarize yourself with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, we all have to live with things we don't like on Wikipedia... IZAK 04:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Anonymous, you should read Wikipedia's policy on notability, which describes the criteria for what makes something an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. If there are news articles and books being written about "Belgian self-hatred", a Wikipedia article on that subject might be appropriate. There have been and continue to be many books and articles discussing the concept of self-hating Jews, accusing Jews of self-hatred, and making counter-accusations that the phrase is used as a bludgeon to silence Jewish critics of American Jewish organizations or Israeli government policy. I wish it weren't so, but the concept of a "Self-hating Jew" is "notable" under the policy I linked to, and that's why this article is here.

• • And IZAK, you should retreat to your corner and read Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • PS to IZAK: You might want to re-read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Sheesh. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

CheskiChips (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)I'm not sure of an article writing of a non-unified Israeli population is good for either our psyches. And it's surely not good fadder for enemies...but that's an emotionally driven comment.