Talk:Self-hating Jew

Neutrality problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jayjg hasn't edited the article or commented on Talk since mid-Feb - well before my revision. (And his contributions on Talk then [1] don't seem obviously supportive of your position. Perhaps Jayjg has commented elsewhere on this version, in which case please provide a link. Also regardless of dispute, neither you nor Drsmoo have even attempted to provide a shred of evidence in support of your position. Have you forgotten how Wikipedia works? WP:V, WP:RS... Rd232 ^talk 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Malik,

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

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

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

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

synth of jc article

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

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

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

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

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

How do you conclude that it's a "minor player"? It's been around since 1981, and is ranked 9th out of 49 social psychology journals.[2] Also Finlay is a respected academic, he wasn't born yesterday. [3] Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

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

---

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

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

---

New lead sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made the following changes to the lede:

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

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

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

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

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

I see that statement, but it is not supported according the standards of WP:verify. It just seems to be assumed that Herzl's "anti-Semite of Jewish origin" is the same as "self-hating Jew". Rather it seems that Herzl was using the previously existing concept [4]. The effort to separate the term from the history of the concept is unjustified, and perhaps an effort to turn this article into an essay on the objections of anti-Zionists.....which may be understandable, but still WP:SOAP.

Some academic published work that is important because it puts the whole subject into wider context (such as this [5]) is ignored in the lead, because some of WP's anti-zionist editors are interested only in that part of the concept that concerns them. That is completely against WP requirements for balance. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

The source [6] is a better than Finlay, published by a university press, and certainly WP:RS. On the other hand your objection to using it seems to be nothing better than WP:JDLI. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not "better than Finlay" as an RS. Unlike journal articles, academic books are not normally peer reviewed. Also the book is published by Associated University Presses, representing a group of universities which are not exactly Ivy League.[7] I suppose it's still an RS, but it rests on the reputation of the author, Avner Falk, more than a peer reviewed article by Falk would. Also, the book is ten years older than the article and presents a far broader sweep than Finlay's article, which is focussed on the topic in hand. Rd232 ^talk 01:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now we're deleting sources because Malcolm can't access them free online? [8] I don't think so. Rd232 ^talk 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I found the page on the NPOV Notice Board. My goy perspective, having read through all the comments here but few of the links, is that the opening paragraph should be as broad in defining the term as possible such that any anticipated subheading falls within it. I dislike the anti Zionist connection being in the opening, simply because entire pieces are written around the subject that make no reference at all to Israel. New York Times "Acting Against Type: The Self-Hating Jew "[9] Some references are about Jews accepting stereotypes about Jews and money. [10] My first thought on seeing the topic was Bobby Fischer. Judging from the most recent edits, its Israeli policy definition is creeping back into the intro. I believe part of conflict may be related to editors here being Jewish and the objection to Israeli policies is the context in which Jews most often use the term. Otherwise, I think the editors have done a great job with the article.--Eudemis (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The problem with Finlay

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

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

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

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

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

• This a pretty typical Finlay article [11]. It is true he has published on unrelated subjects, but in this area he is certainly an apologist for Islam (which is perfectly okay, but not as such a major source for this article). NB: My previous assertion that Finlay is an apologist for Islam was denied by you, but not refuted. Denied and refuted are very different things. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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