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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marsden 15:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marsden 16:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marsden 03:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please list any objections to this phrasing:

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

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

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

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

Marsden 01:39, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only valid arguments I can see against this section are

a) that's not what Uncle Tom means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's a downright slur.

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

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

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

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

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

Marsden 00:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another cite: [3]

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

Marsden 00:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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