Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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" [1]Homey 05:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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.[2]

Homey 05:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.[3]Homey 05:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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[4]) Homey 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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 (UTC)

• 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

• • 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Dear Malik Shabazz,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Dear Malik,

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same should apply in reverse:

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

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

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

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

• Here is a Hebrew Google search for "Auto Antisemitism". It does have several hits. The reliable (or, at least, semi-reliable) sources, such as [5][6][7] seem to consider it pretty much synonymous to "self hatred". So I support the redirect. -- Nudve (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Providing addtional citations

Providing more citations:

besides the usage in Hebrew wikipedia (Only "Auto-Anti-Semitism", not else), the Hebrew google shows [8] 22,600 result for - אוטו אנטישמיות (two seperate words), and 1,790 for אוטואנטישמיות (as one word)[9]

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

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

[10] - connecting both terms side by side.

And a book containing parts of Benjamin Netanyahu:

• The Jerusalem Alternative

A major news paper story:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other editors' opinions would be appreciated. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Providing more citations:

besides the usage in Hebrew wikipedia (Only "Auto-Anti-Semitism", not else), the Hebrew google shows [11] 22,600 result for - אוטו אנטישמיות (two seperate words), and 1,790 for אוטואנטישמיות (as one word)[12]

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

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

[13] - connecting both terms side by side.

And a book containing parts of Benjamin Netanyahu:

• The Jerusalem Alternative

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

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

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