Jewish history Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

As just one example of the problems, it can be seen by a look at the section above this RfC that there is no agreement even about what constitutes NPOV and balanced content for this article.

The gap is very wide and there is no inclination for compromise. There is no agreement even on what the term "self-hating Jew" means, nor on its implications. There has been extensive discussion on all this in the talk pages above, but the discussion has, up to this point, reached no agreements and no compromises. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, yes. Compromises, you can see one immediately above. Unanimous agreement, no. arimareiji (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Torah.org translation of Shmirat HaLoshon:
Lashon Hara - any derogatory or damaging (physically, financially, socially, or stress-inducing) communication.
Rechilut - any communication that generates animosity between people.

It seems to me that self hatred is a term in psychology rather than religion. I have heard of only one self-hating Jew in my generation. That was Frank Collins, head of the Illinois Nazi Party. He resigned when a newspaper found out that he was Jewish. Phil_burnstein (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had put a sentence on the article (removed by Malik Shabazz and Arimareiji) which read: It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law). ^[1]

Looking at the article [2], (Rebecca Spence, Vitriol Proliferates on Jewish Blogs, published in The Forward), it is the first five paragraphs that are of particular interest, and support the sentence on Lashon Hara.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 describe the case of Richard Silverstein, who claimed credit on his blog for shutting down an extremist right-wing Web site that listed the names of thousands of left-wing Jewish activists; and the subsequent creation of an attack sight directed against Silverstein: The fake blog, called “Little Dickie’s Diaper Droppings,” wasn’t pretty. In addition to the scatological references, the site was riddled with graphic sexual innuendo.

Paragraph 3 it is written: Scurrilous barbs and sharp-tongued insults are routinely tossed back and forth through cyberspace from one Jewish blogger to another, appearing in long threads in the sections reserved for reader comments.

Paragraph 4 (which introduces the invective term "self-hating Jew") discusses the experience and observation of Daniel Sieradski, who is quoted as saying: Because of the challenging views I’ve expressed with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I’ve been called a Zionazi by Left-wingers and a self-hating Jew by Right-wingers.

Paragraph 5 (which ties together all the above examples of invective as being Lashon Hara) quotes Daniel Sieradski as saying: his first attempt at reconfiguring Jewish blogger etiquette came in 2005, when Sieradski, 28, launched a campaign to lift the language out of the gutter. “Jewish Bloggers for Responsible Speech Online” invited Jewish bloggers to insert a photograph of the Chofetz Chayyim, a 19th-century Lithuanian Jewish scholar who redacted the religious laws governing speech, on their Web sites. The picture would then link to an explanation of the edicts against speaking negatively of others, known in Jewish law as lashon harah.

As can easily be seen, the first four paragraphs describe particular instances of the use of invective by Jewish bloggers. In the fifth paragraph Rebecca Spence uses the Daniel Sieradski quote to tie all the examples of invective together. NB: the writer Spence quotes in paragraph four, protesting against being called a "self-hating Jew", and the discussion of such invective being Lashon Hara both come from a single source, Daniel Sieradski.

It is clear that the article does make the connection between the use of the term "self-hating Jew" and Lashon Hara. QED

There might still be some doubt about the last phrase in the sentence I had added to the article: and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law). In my view Sieradski makes that connection abundantly clear by the very use of the Halakha term "lashon Hara", and all the more by the inclusion of the picture of the Chofetz Chaim, who is considered the Halakha authority on Lashon Hara. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that anything which needs that much WP:SYNTHESIS to tie together unrelated quotes has dubious value. QED. arimareiji (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NB: It is tied together by the same single source for The Forward article, Daniel Sieradski. WP:synthesis says, Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources, but that is not the case because it is all in one source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key phrase: "A conclusion that is not in any of the sources." Neither the author nor Sieradski makes that conclusion, but you "tie together" various quotes and assert that they really meant something they didn't say.

Another quote from WP:SYNTHESIS for you: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Finally, please note that the example used in WP:SYNTHESIS is one of coming up with new conclusions from a single source. arimareiji (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing that says everything has to be in one sentence. It is all the same source making the point, not combined sources. The examples of vitriol on the internet are presented in a series of paragraphs, then it is all classified as Lashon Hara. You arguments against seem unfounded. All the more so because any Jew who knows the Jewish laws of speech would concede that such speech is Lashon Hara, even those who pay it no heed. The concept is accepted as Halakha without reservation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, only you - who repeatedly makes edits to assert that "self-hating Jew" is true versus an insult - would. The article on lashon hara makes this distinction (true, by contrast with motzi shem ra or hotzaat diba), and you're fully aware of that. arimareiji (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, please review WP:NOR#Using sources: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." The article doesn't say that calling another Jew a self-hating Jew is lashon hara; you have to read that into the article. That's why it's OR. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:NOR#Using sources, as you suggested. The source really does support the sentence, It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law). , unless you think the material about Lashon Hara in Rebecca Spence's article was included gratuitiously, and is not intended to apply to anything previously or subsequently discussed in her article, which would be absurd. In fact there is a list of specific examples, including "self-hating Jew", followed by the observation, that would be obvious to every Orthodox Jew: that all the above examples are Lashon Hara. Concluding differently takes imagination, and determination to avoid conceding what the article says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia, "statements of lashon hara, by definition, are true." So why would those paragraphs be "obvious" examples of lashon hara to observant Jews? Are you saying that they're true, or that readers of The Forward would believe that they're true? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that Daniel Sieradski is the person who is trying to connect negative blog comments with lashon hara. Are you saying that Sieradski, the Orthodox Anarchist, is a reliable source? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The article contains this sentence: Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism"^[2] on the part of those thus addressed, or with "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."^[3]

The last phrase, ...or with "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion. is sourced to an article by Rabbi Levi Brackman, which can be read here [3]. Although the words within quotes used in the article are factually accurate, they are used to make a point that is not to be found in Rabbi Brackman's article, and that phrase seems to imply a meaning that may actually be the inverse of Brackman's intent.

I have been arguing to have that phrase removed from the article because it amounts to OR, and is POV, but so far to no effect.

Please also note that the first part of the same sentence ("Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed) leaves it unclear who is being accused of antisemitism, the accuser, or the one accused. That point needs to be made clear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The name of the article: "Confronting the self hating Jew".
• The full sentence: "However, recently I have encountered a more subtle form of Jewish self-hate, in the form of so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."
• Malcolm's earlier interpretation of what Brackman really meant to say: "His point is that throwing insults...

(click blue button at right to see text)
at those "liberal" Jews who are separated from the Jewish community (insults like: "self-hating Jew") only serves to further separate them from Judaism. He wants dialog to replace the insults, because he thinks that will be more persuasive and effective. In other words, he has no interest in defining the term, he just wants Jews to stop using it."

I leave that to your good judgment.

• As to whether "Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed" is ambiguous, I also leave that to your good judgment. arimareiji (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I ask that the whole article [4] be read, because Arimareiji's cherry picking of a quote distorts Rabbi Brackman's clear intent and meaning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly; that's why I provided a usable link to it so that people can do so. I'm glad you followed suit when you responded. But didn't you say earlier that we should characterize our positions and leave it alone for the reader to decide? arimareiji (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arimareiji, I suppose that my biggest objection to your comments, in general, is that I do not appreciate your ongoing attack ad type campaign against me. While doing very little, to support your version, you have discussed at length what you think is wrong with me personally, and what you think is wrong with my views on the subject. The obvious problem with such an approach, aside from its negativity, is that you have done little to justify the existence of the current very defective, and virtually unintelligible, version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, which seems to be rather isolated and persistent. You have a long history of these kind of edits, and claiming that it's unfair to provide diffs in contrast to your ongoing claims of "It was just one innocent mistake" is rather absurd. You should probably make a clear choice between 1) "leave it alone and let commenters decide", or 2) "I have to get in both the first and the last word". arimareiji (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to diffs. But, while you continue to avoid defending the present version, you are acting as though the RfC is about me. When I initiated this RfC, I described the problem as: The editors are unable to agree on what constitutes NPOV content for this article. You will notice that I avoided accusations about other editors. I was hoping to discuss improvements to the article. Is it your position that the article is good enough just as it is? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that adding edits which openly assert that those who use the insult "self-hating Jew" are correct will not improve it. If you suggest edits which improve the article and which don't assert that "self-hating Jew" is a factual description, you'll never hear a peep from me against them. But neither of the above fit that bill. And I have no particular desire to keep re-hashing "Oh, that was just a mistake" repeatedly. arimareiji (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm, you say that the quote in the Wikipedia article distorts the meaning of Brackman's article. Could you propose a better way of summarizing the meaning of the article? Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(If you click the pink box above, you'll see how he synopsizes the article. Alternately, do a find-on-page of "Rabbi Brackman is not" to see his entire synopsis. It's interesting to compare that to what the article actually says. arimareiji (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

Brackman says that not all critics of Judaism are self-hating, but that there are definitely self-hating Jews, and he clearly says that (some of) the liberal Jews he has met hate themselves. He also says that by being welcoming, religious communities can help prevent Jewish self-hatred. Those are not contradictory thoughts. Malcolm's summary is wrong, because he's only reading the first and last thirds of the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the sentence sourced to Brackman (Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed, or with "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion.") at best as nothing to do with his actual point. At worst it is the opposite his actual point. Of course, the sentence is so badly written, verging on incomprehensible, that it difficult to be sure just what it does say. The article should either include something about his actual point, the need for religious Jews to communicate with secular Jews instead of insulting them, or the source should not be used.

To give a parallel example, it is possible to mine Epicurean texts to find some statements that appear support the views of opposing Stoic school of philosophy. But that would fundamentally misrepresent the source, which should be avoided. Either the intention of the source should be represented fairly, or it should not be used. Likewise, I could pick out some quotes from any politician to make it sound as thought his/her views are the opposite of their actual positions. Doing that is dishonest. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it then once more your assertion that Brackman does not define and use the term about a specific group, the "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."? arimareiji (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the discussion above about whether shj should be in the anti-Semisitm template. An aspect that i didn't notice being covered was how the concept of a shj embodies anti-Semitic stereotypes. This article [5] by a left-leaning Jewish academic argues that actually right-wing Zionists and some old-fashioned anti-Semites share a common ground which is the basis for the idea that all right-thinking Jews share a viewpoint and that Jews who deviate from it must be self-hating.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jayjg hasn't edited the article or commented on Talk since mid-Feb - well before my revision. (And his contributions on Talk then [6] 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)[reply]

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. Like any other term it may be used incorrectly, that is no grounds for a purported encyclopedia article to redefine the term in order to say that it has a meaning which is quite different. 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)[reply]