Talk:Self-hating Jew/Archive 5

"perjorative term"
I notice that Reitter describes "Jewish self-hatred" as an "enduringly controversial term" in his abstract and as "a pointed phrase" in his opening-paragraph. Would it be useful to use one of those instead of "perjorative term" in our lead sentence rather than "perjorative term" which is unsourced. (I know that there is a shift from "Jewish self-hatred" to "self-hating Jew" but I don't think it would be an abuse of Reitter to transfer either description to SHJ.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "a pointed phrase" is far too vague. "enduringly controversial term" is perhaps a helpful phrase, but also much vaguer. Whether the sources say "pejorative term" or not, this seems to me clearly the most accurate and precise description based on what the sources say. Rd232 talk 15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A summary of an article search
There's been an implication in comments above that the tone of the article is somehow unrepresentative of the literature and therefore violates WP:NPOV. I have now searched Academic OneFile - an online journal resource to which I have access for articles in academic journals to which they grant my university access. This obviously isn't as full a search as would be expected for a systematic literature review, but there is no reason to think that the sample of articles accessible would be unrepresentative of what is in the wider academic literature.

Twenty items were initially identified by a search on the conjunction of keywords self-hat* and Jew*. They are the following:


 * 1) Title:Zionism and the rhetoric of Jewish self-hatred. Author(s):Paul Reitter. This source is already used in our article. The author looks at the usage from the turn of the nineteenth into the twentieth century to the early 1930s, noting that even then the term was deeply bound up with rhetoric for and against Zionism within the Jewish community.
 * 2) Title:Jewish Frontiers: Essays on Bodies, Histories, and Identities.(Book review). Author(s):Warren Rosenberg. A red-herring being a review of a book by Sander Gilman in which it is noted that one of Gilman's previous books was on Jewish self-hatred.
 * 3) The world hates Jews.(The Public Square: A Continuing Survey of Religion, Culture, and Public Life). Author(s):Richard John Neuhaus. A highly unfavourable review of David Mamet's The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews.
 * 4) David Mamet's Jewish Turn.(The Wicked Son: Anti-Semitism, Self-Hatred, and the Jews, book)(Critical essay). Author(s):Donald Weber. An equally critical review which notes how Mamet seems ignorant of the academic literature on Jewish self-hatred.
 * 5) Title:The vogue of Jewish self-hatred in post-World War II America. Author(s):Susan A. Glenn. This looks at some of the psychological conceptualisation involved but also identifies the term as a key one in the "Jewish cold War". This source is already used in the article
 * 6) Anti-Semitism or Jewish 'Camp'? Ernst Lubitsch's Schuhpalast Pinkus (1916) and Meyer Aus Berlin (1918).(Author abstract). Author(s):Valerie Weinstein. Only an abstract availabel but clearly focuses on early twentieth century German-speaking world.
 * 7) Title:Philip Roth's "Defender of the Faith": a modern midrash.(Critical essay). Author(s):Gillian Steinberg. A favourable review of a novel by an author frewuently accused of self-hatred - which fact is mentioned in our article.
 * 8) Children of World War II--60 Years After.(Author abstract). Author(s):Michael Ermann. Abstract Another red herring, seeming to be about non-Jewish Germans.
 * 9) Karl Kraus and the Jewish self-hatred question. Author(s):Paul Reitter. Focussing on one turn-of last century writer in German who has already been mentioned in our artcile
 * 10) Bildung and breakdown.(The Pity of It All: A History of the Jews in Germany, 1743-1933)(Book Review). Author(s):Jefferson S. Chase. A favourable review of a book by Amos Elon which questions a lot of the claims of self-hatred among German Jews.
 * 11) Jewish self-hatred in Malamud's "The Jewbird." (Bernard Malamud)(Varieties of Ethnic Criticism). Author(s):Eileen H. Watts. An abstract only for an essay on a short story.
 * 12) Jews, gender, and genre in late-Victorian England: Amy Levy's 'Reuben Sachs.' (novel). Author(s):Meri-Jane Rochelson. An essay only dealing with self-hatred peripherally and casting doubt on the claim that Levy was self-hating.
 * 13) Jewish humor, self-hatred, or anti-Semitism: the sociology of Hanukkah cards in America. Author(s):Nancy Jo Silberman-Federman. The briefest abstract which makes it hard to know whether the refrerence is more than rhetorical.
 * 14) Israel: guilt & politics. (Cover Story) (Column). Author(s):David Bar-Ilan. Self-hatred mentioned in passing. This author takes it seriously but it should be noted that this 1994 article about Israeli reactions to the Hebron murders by Barch Goldstein is published by the partisan American Jewish Committee.
 * 15) Title:Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews. Author(s):Anthony J. La Vopa. Listing of a 1993 book review - author's stance unknown.
 * 16) Jesus and the Jews. (personal narrative). Author(s):Arnold Jacob Wolf. An aside refering to the turn of the 20th century Otto Weininger as a self-hating suicide.
 * 17) Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews. Author(s):Fran Markowitz. Just a listing of a 1990 review of a book mentioned above
 * 18) Title:Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews. Author(s):Jacques Kornberg. Another mere listing of a 1989 book review of the same book.
 * 19) Jewish self-hatred: anti-semitism and the hidden language of the Jews. Author(s):Jeffrey Mehlman. And another listing of a review of the same book, this time from 1987.
 * 20) Solomon's Daughter.(Book Review). Author(s):Allen Sawyer-Long. A 1982 review of a novel of a self-hating young woman

As far as I am concerned this search is enough to demonstrate that the concept of Jewish self-hatred is treated sceptically in modern academic circles. As a historical concept applied to 19th and early 20th century Jews, especially in German speaking settings, it gets some consideration. It is also recognised as having had some psychological respectability in post-War America. However it is also seen as embedded as a rhetorical term in the discourse of Zionism from its earlier years. The sceptical treatment of the subject in the current version of our article is reflective of mainstream academic opinion and therefore the article accords with WP:NPOV. Indeed other academic sources have been identified by editors and included in the article which reinforce this assessment--Peter cohen (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that fits with my searches on Scopus (zip) and Gale's Expanded Academic (similar to the above). Rd232 talk 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think of the subject you need to explain the rationale and thiking of those that use the concept. The article hsould endeavour to let the reader decide what is valid or not. Finlay who is quoted extensively quite clearly accepts that the phenomena is real, he just doesn't think it is a useful academic term. The fact that academia don't use it doesn't mean the term has no validity in itself within inter-jewish dialogues.

The body of this article is completely unreadable. Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me to the line number of the first line that states what advocates of the term say. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. I can't read that (Finlay accepts the phenomenon is real...) without thinking we're about to go round in as many circles as we have done already, and that the only way to avoid this is to get on with creating something like Jewish rejection of Jewish identity. (To clearly separate political label from the phenomenon the label alleges.) Anyone want to grasp that nettle? Rd232 talk 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The very first words express what "advocates" of the term say: Self-hating Jew is ... used to characterise a person of Jewish origin as allegedly holding antisemitic beliefs.
 * With respect to "letting the reader decide", if the majority of modern sources say that the psychological construct is nonsense, the article should say so. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. — Malik Shabazz 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not what advocates say it is but what people using it as an insult say.

Basically the article needs to quote what advocates of the term are saying. Most of the articles in the list refer to self-hatred as genuine: Peter has simply dismissed anything that he doesn't like as either a red herring or irrelevant. If you think the concept is primarily a Zionist one, I guess that is fine so long as you explain what the Zionists are arguing and that is not happening.

Oh and to say that hannah arendt's book describes Eichmann's trial as a show trial is a complete misrepresentation of the book.

Just follow the link and read.

Also it is problematic to judge the content of the term by how extremists use it. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the "show trial" point is from Glenn, and her point (I thought) was that this "show trial" aspect of the book was the major cause of the public debate that followed. I hope I haven't misrepresented what she said about that. As to your other points... rather than argue in general (we've had loads of that already on this page), I suggest you go and look for sources to support your view. Bring them here and we can discuss how to integrate them. (Aside: I don't think you can distinguish much between "advocates" of the term and those who want to use it as an insult.) Rd232 talk 20:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about assuming some good faith? The two items I identify as red herrings are
 * whose only reference to self-hatred is a mention that tthe author whose new book is being reviewed had previously written another book called Jewish Self-Hatred
 * the abstract of an article about post-war self-hatred in the non-Jewish population of Germany who grew up under the Nazis.
 * These two are both red herrings because they showed up in a search for articles on Jewish self-hatred but actually have nothing to do with the subject. What I have produced above is a good faith summary of the 20 items which showed up of which the ones that are full articles (and not book reviews or abstracts) and that appear in non-partisan peer-reviewed journals are the most academically respectable. The message from those articles is quite clear.
 * What I could have identified as another trend is that the concept of self-hatred has been picked up as a short-hand for describing literary characters - something which Finlay noted in his cited article. I'm quite happy to discount the use of the concept of the self-hating Jew in the discussion of fiction as being less important than the discussion of its problems as applied to real people in academic social psychological literature. After all it purports to describe a psychological condition.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish self-hatred
I continue to believe that Jewish self-hatred is a concept that is different from, but related to, the epithet "self-hating Jew". There may be a phenomenon of internalized antisemitism that results in self-hatred among Jews, but when a Jew calls another Jew a "self-hating Jew", she or he is saying "You don't meet my definition of Jewishness because you hold opinions that I find loathesome."

I think we either need to clearly identify and separate the two concepts in this article, or make two articles. My personal preference is for two articles. — Malik Shabazz 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if we try to break it down, we have


 * Phenomena
 * Jewish internationalisation of widespread anti-semitic beliefs
 * Jewish disagreement about nature of Jewish identity; who is an "authentic Jew"
 * some Jews rejecting Jewish identity completely
 * after the creation of Israel, support for Israel is increasingly ‘the existential definition of American Jewishness’, and Jewish criticism of Israel's actions linked with alleged self-hatred


 * Terms
 * "anti-semite of Jewish origin" - used as a political label in 19th century Jewish debates alleging that Jews disagreeing on the nature of Jewish identity are in fact (phenomenon 3) rejecting Jewish identity, because of phenomenon 1 (anti-semitism)
 * "self-hating Jew" - the modern version of that, strongly linked with phenomenon 4 above.


 * Problem: the terms seem generally to be mis-used as pejorative terms for political reasons (so the academic sources tell us), but phenomena 1 and 3 are certainly real, though how widespread 1 was/is is debatable (there are historical examples). So we can describe these phenomena, but we struggle to find convenient neutral labels for them. Rd232 talk 20:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In case that wasn't clear: I think some kind of split needs to be done, but I'm not sure exactly how, especially on what the title of a split article might be. I don't think splitting off "Jewish self-hatred" is helpful, though I'm open to persuasion (as always). Rd232 talk 20:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't split it. if you want to make a distinction explain it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telaviv1 (talk • contribs) 20:26, May 28, 2009


 * I would note that Uncle Tom and Uncle Tom syndrome are separate articles. — Malik Shabazz 20:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how helpful that is an example; most of Uncle Tom is about the novel that originated the term. Rd232 talk 21:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * i don't see why uncle tom syndrome, jewish self hatred, et al aren't combined into the article on self-hatred. that article is small. alot of stuff from here could go there.  untwirl (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable - put my phenomenon 1 (Jewish internationalisation of widespread anti-semitic beliefs) into self-hatred, as a psychopathological issue, noting that the term "Jewish self-hatred" was however developed and is used for political reasons. It would certainly give my separation of label and phenomenon a chance; I just hope everybody here actually grasps this point, because if not it'll end up a content fork battleground. The fact that the real phenomenon and the political label share a word seems to confuse the hell out of some people: which is exactly why the label was created, to give pseudo-scientific veneer to a pejorative term. Rd232 talk 07:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its probably better to keep Jewish and afro-american issues apart.

There are a number of books on the topic which didn't show up on Peter's search and Finlay refers to a host of articles. We seem to agree that it is logically possible for Jews to be self-hating and that some may exist. The problem is not whther these Jews exist (as stated in the lede) but the diffuculty of telling whterh their opinions stem froms self-hatred or a rejection of communal standards. At present the article implies that Jews can never be anti-semitic and that is unacceptable. Telaviv1 (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest inserting this into the lede:

The concept of Jewish self-hatred originated in the early twentieth century, and gained more widespread currency after Theodor Lessing's 1930 book Der Jüdische Selbsthass ("Jewish Self-hatred"): -	-	To the question "Why are we not loved?" Jewish doctrine has answered since ancient times: "because we are guilty". There have been great Jewish thinkers who have discovered in this formula, "Because we are guilty", and in the experience of the collective attribution of guilt and responsibility of the people of Israel, the innermost core of the Jewish doctrine. Proponents of the concept consider it related to internalized oppression in which victims adopt the oppressors point of view as in anti-feminist women or Uncle Toms. According to Gilman it arises out of a desire for social acceptance in which the "victim" both accepts dominant social stereotypes as true while trying to distance themselves from those sterotypes. Self hatred arises from outsiders' acceptance of the mirage of themselves generated by their reference group - that group in society which they see as defining them - as a reality.

Against that one then pits the Finlay view which says that evidence relies on socially constructed view of 'how a Jews must think' or something like that.

Telaviv1 (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope it's obvious that this is confusing the phenomenon and the label. See untwirl's suggestion above - let's try that and see if that helps move things forward. Rd232 talk 07:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm voting "no" to the idea of a second article because it would be Content forking and would be in severe danger of becoming a POV fork. There might be an argument for splitting out an article on, say, rejection of Jewish identity in Germany in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as that would be more self-contained and would be an appropriate use of WP:Summary style if our coverage became large. But a split between articles on "genuine" self-hatred and "bogus" claims of self-hatred would invite editors with particular opinions to congregate in particular articles.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * that is a good point. i just thought that maybe the article on internalized oppression could mention different minorities and the literature regarding them in this context (black, jew, asian, gay, etc.) and "self-hating jew" can just be described as a pejorative.  untwirl (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see the logic in a broader article on internalised oppression. Obviously, other areas have problems with essentialising things - I'm thinking of terms such as Bounty bar (being black on the outside, white in the middle), but presumably that's covered in the literature.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There's already an article about self-hatred. In fact, this article was once a section of that article. — Malik Shabazz 19:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: Laughing about "Bounty bar", which generally isn't available in the U.S. The expression here is "Oreo". — Malik Shabazz 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * there is a difference between "self-hatred", an outdated phrase that psychologists now call "low self-esteem", and internalized group oppression, which is a phenomenon that affects many minority groups. the larger concepts should have the article, while the epithets should only be discussed within the bounds of their use as epithets. for example, uncle tom and self hating jew should just be described as pejoratives, with a brief description of what they are alleging and who they are used by, while jewish self hatred would be a section of the internalized oppression page, along with sections for other minority groups.  untwirl (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)  (ps- never heard of a bounty bar either)
 * Well that's the trouble with Americans, instead of having proper British sweets and biscuits, you have these weird things called candies and cookies ;-) And in the '80s Mars did evil things rebranding Opal Fruits and Marathon bars as Starburst and Snickers. And Treets are reduced here to being a redirect to M&Ms which aren't the same, though Minstrels may be the same as Chocolate Treets. (Isn't it nice to have a tongu in cheek rant instead of the poor atmosphere there has been recently?)--Peter cohen (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) (Off to fix Treets.
 * my friend from Ballarat has her mum send bbq shapes amd promite from home. yall not american english speakers have weird food. and ya talk funny. :)  untwirl (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Rename the article "Jewish self-hatred"
Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Jewish Self-Hatred" and then "self-hating Jew" could be a section of that. Telaviv1 (talk) 05:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. Change the focus of the article from the epithet, which really ought to be in Wiktionary and not Wikipedia, to the concept. Good suggestion. — Malik Shabazz 16:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one objects in the next couple of days I will do that. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the contentious nature of this subject, I would recommend drafting the new article at a sub-page such as Jewish self-hatred/draft and trying to build consensus. Then we can move the draft article into mainspace. — Malik Shabazz 18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with both suggestions : rename - draft.
 * "self hating jew" (expression) is "only" a part of the topic of "jewish self-hatred" with far more academic material on this last topic thanon the 1st one.
 * A draft before the rename to get a consensus will prevent edit-war and misunderstandings.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You may not like what I have just done: I simply slotted some stuff into "Jewish self-hatred".

Have a look and see what you think.

Telaviv1 (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i don't think "jewish self-hatred" merits its own page, especially one which describes it as a 'true' psychological condition, because it has been thoroughly debunked by modern academics. my vote still goes to fleshing out internalized oppression into its own page and including several minority groups who have had RS published discussing it.  untwirl (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Moved to Telaviv1/Jewish self-hatred since this is clearly a draft, and ignoring prior discussion and creating it at Jewish self-hatred is rude at best. Rd232 talk


 * I moved it to User:Telaviv1/Jewish self-hatred, which is where Rd232 probably intended. — Malik Shabazz 18:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. :) Cleaned up the hanging redirect. Rd232 talk 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

thoroughly debunked is entirely your opinion. Telaviv1 (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Telaviv1, as recommended by two editors above, please work with others to draft an article and achieve consensus before moving it to mainspace. — Malik Shabazz 18:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thats why I notified you of what I had done. Please note that in the UK accusations of rudeness directed at Jews may be stereotyping and that R2d2 has previously employed sterotypes when addressing with me on this page. Telaviv1 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I refer the honourable editor to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram. Rd232 talk 13:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So I was right about where you are from. Telaviv1 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But not anything else, you paranoid delusionist. Now I'm off on a wikiholiday enforced by a self-block, because (to quote my block message) "this is shit I don't need and I'm busy anyway". Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You probably need a break as several of your recent posts haven't kept to WP:NPA. Hopefully you'll be more relaxed when you return, otherwise we could be headed back to AN/I.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So when should we comment on the material on the subpage? Is it still being worked on? And should we comment here or in its talk page? And do we make direct edits to the material or leave it to TA1 while it's on his page?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you have a go at it Peter. You seem well equipped for this subject. Telaviv1 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do. My broadband is very erratic and I've lost stuff I was entering on Wikipedia and have times when the line has gone between seeing material and being able to reach the edit screen.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * I am not interested to invest on this topic. But I have been following this for some months...
 * I poined out in the past that the concept if far older than 1930... Freud uses this and was himself considered as such :
 * see here on google book
 * Good luck ! Ceedjee (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment and make changes on the sub page and let me know ho you feel it needs to change.

Telaviv1 (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

telaviv - do not create the page in mainspace after several users said that is inappropriate at this time. i have turned it back into a redirect. untwirl (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree to rename the page Jewish self-hatred this is much more appropriate. --Boatduty177177 (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Object to name change. It is obfuscation of an existing term (current title). -DePiep (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Pleaser also state your opinion on having a seperate page.Telaviv1 (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be two articles. That would create a WP:POVFORK. The question is what to call the article. — Malik Shabazz 04:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD
The lead of this article was grossly distorted to privilege on reading of this term and then to give even greater privilege to dismantling that usage. It's a coatracky, POV-pushing violation of WP:LEAD, and I hope people will be more circumspect in the future. IronDuke 16:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you'll find yourself in a minority here. The most common contemporary usage of the concept of the self-hating Jew is by right wing Zionists wanting to denigrate their opponents within the community. (The SHIT list is the classic example of this.) This needs reflecting in the lead and is not coatracking.


 * What happenned to Michael's proposed rewrite?--Peter cohen (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you agree with LEAD, or do you find it problematic? IronDuke  22:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Your revision completely excised the association in the body text between the term and its modern usage. Now perhaps the previous lead gave that modern usage undue prominence, but completely deleting it from the lede is at least equally unbalanced (and arguably the prior imbalance would have been better dealt with by expanding the lede, not shrinking it). Further, some of the text you deleted (notably from Lerman) doesn't seem to be in the article - you should at least WP:PRESERVE that. As to the claim that it's "just one reading" - this is a claim that has been made repeatedly on this talk page, without supporting evidence (=WP:OR). Rd232 talk 21:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe I preserved some of its modern usage, actually. And as to its not being "just one reading," I'm not sure what you mean. Can you expand on that? And if the text isn't the article, it sure shouldn't be in the lead, should it? IronDuke  22:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) you retained the "term of opprobrium" quote, which references the Cold War, and the article argues the usage changed over time; also it's now immediately followed by a historical reference; what's left gives no sense of the controversy of the term's more recent usage. (b) You wrote (top of this section) "The lead of this article was grossly distorted to privilege on reading of this term". I assumed a typographical error and that you were referring to "one reading of this term". So my point is that this has been said before on this page, but never with any supporting sources. (c) "If the text isn't the article, it sure shouldn't be in the lead, should it?" - perhaps it should have been the body as well, but that's no reason at all to delete from the lede. Rd232 talk 09:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (a) It seemed that the point was clear that the opprobrium bit was ongoing. If it wasn't, I'd be happy to have you make it clearer. b) You have me there; I have no sources. However, since it's a matter of mind-rendingly obvious logic, as opposed to a sourceable assertion (you were looking for refs?), my hands were a bit tied. c) Yes, it is indeed a reason to delete it from the lead. That's not how articles are supposed to work. d) I realize that it's fabulously easy to hit "revert" and make a blanket reversion without a moment's thought as to how a compromise might be effected, or WP guidelines adhered to, but it makes it difficult to have this discussion. IronDuke  20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * re (d) - the revert has no impact on the discussion, merely on the version which is currently public-facing; WP:Deadline. I'm hoping others will chip in - I have to go now. Rd232 talk 20:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well, first off, I'll see your random essay and raise you an actual guideline, WP:BOLD. I'll also note your lack of desire to compromise in any way. IronDuke  20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your not desperately relevant guideline and raise you a relevant policy, Consensus. :) I'll also note that unless you're claiming to be telepathic you have no knowledge about what my desire is on anything. And you'd be wrong anyway - it's not like you've made any substantial compromise suggestion. Also, response to your point (a): no, it isn't clear at all, and with the para you wanted to delete it is. So let's just keep it. (b) the assertion that there is another significant reading of the term is, like all assertions, subject to verifiability. (c) you're wrong. WP:PRESERVE, for instance. Rd232 talk 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

i see no problems with the lead as is. removing an entire paragraph dealing with current usage of the term in a political context is not appropriate. i concur with peter and rd that the current lead is not a coatrack and it accurately represents both historical and contemporary usage. untwirl (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unshocked by your having no problems with a grossly disproportionate lead. I wonder if there's anybody who isn't an avowed anti-Zionist who would like to weigh in? IronDuke  20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm sure that your uninvolved and completely nonpartisan status makes you a perfect candidate for commenting on my supposed partisanship. in case you don't sense the sarcasm in my response: comment on content, blahblahblah   untwirl (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"Pejorative term" in lead
There is absolutely no need to say that it is a "pejorative term" because that is perfectly obvious. What else could it be, a complimentary term? Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * it may be obvious to most, but some have tried to portray this as a legitimate psychological term and that is why "pejorative' is in the lead. untwirl (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Untwirl here. IronDuke  20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * wow. i'm gonna have to frame that. ;) untwirl (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny. IronDuke  22:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Saburjian-Ahmadinejad
Several British newspapers have claimed that Ahmadinejad has identifiable Jewish roots, and that his antisemitism may only be a veiled attempt to cover these up. He was apparently born with the name Saburjian, a Jewish name meaning cloth weaver. ADM (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Even the sources are unsure about this. "May have Jewish roots" =/= Jewish. Most of the sources state openly that this is only a rumor/unsubstantiated claim. PluniAlmoni (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bunch of nonsense
What a bunch of politically correct garbage.

Since time immemorial there were Jews (former Jews, if you wish) who found great delight in creating every conceivable mischief and evil for other Jews. This is not a matter of arguments between Hasidim and Mitnagdim, no matter how bitter those got, or between Orthodox, Redorm and secular Jews. This is going far beyond. Just check Petrus Alfonsi, Nicholas Donin, Pablo Christiani, Avner de Burgos, Guglielmo Moncada, Alessandro Franceschi, and many many others.

Was it all just a gimmick? Should all this be ignored?

The phrase "Jewish self-hatred" is the name of a book by Theodor Lessing, which examines the biographies of six people. One of them, Austrian psychiatrist and philosopher Otto Weininger, committed suicide.

Is suicide serious enough for you? Or do you still insist that the whole thing is bogus?

Here is some writing from another of these, Viennese journalist Arthur Trebitsch,

"I force myself not to think about it. But what does it help? It thinks within me... it is there all the time, painful, ugly, deadly: this knowledge about my descent. Just as a leper or a person sick with cancer carries his repulsive disease hidden under his dress and yet knows about it himself every moment, so I carry the shame and the disgrace, the metaphysical guilt of my being a Jew. What are all the sufferings and inhibitions which come from outside in comparison with this hell within? Jewishness lies in existence. You cannot shake it off. Just as little as a dog or a pig can shake off its being, just so little do I tear myself away from the eternal ties of existence, which hold me on that step between man and animal: the Jews. I feel as if I had to carry on my shoulders the entire accumulated guilt of that cursed breed of men whose poisonous elf-blood is becoming my virus. I feel as if I, I alone, had to do penance for every crime those people are committing against German-ness. And to the Germans I should like to shout: Remain hard! Remain hard! Have no mercy! Not even with me! Germans, your walls must remain secure against penetration. They must not have any secret little door in the rear which could be opened for single persons. because, surely, some day through this little door treason would creep in... Close your hearts and your ears to all those who from out there still beg for admission. Everything is at stake! You last little fortress of Aryanism, remain strong and faithful! Away with this pestilential poor! Burn out this nest of wasps! Even though along with the unrighteous a hundred righteous ones are destroyed. What do they matter? What do we matter? What do I matter? No! Have no mercy! I beg of you."

Is this not self-hatred? 75.82.34.127 (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Just look at Wikipedia entry for Fascism. Just because today everybody calls everybody “fascist," does it mean that the whole thing is bogus, that there never was any fascism? Not at all. Wikipedia correctly devotes a huge entry to fascism, which also includes a small explanation about the pejorative and near-meaningless use (or rather misuse) of the term.

Same should be happening here. 75.82.34.127 (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Uncited quote
Kenneth Levin, a Harvard psychiatrist says that Jewish self-hatred has two causes: "Stockholm Syndrome, where population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous", as well as "the psychodynamics of abused children who blame themselves for their situation and believe they could mollify their tormentors if they were 'good'."

- moved from the page, as my attempts to cite it online have failed, which suggests that whoever added it, probably from an offline source, needs to add it. Rd232 talk 10:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I searched for this and found it first time. You are a POV editor and should not be editing this page. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact that link can source substantively the same points, but not the exact quotes given above. 1. That link has "The paradigm on the level of individual psychology is the psychodynamics of abused children, who almost invariably blame themselves for their predicament, ascribe it to their being "bad," and nurture fantasies that by becoming "good" they can mollify their abusers and end their torment. " 2. It has "population segments under chronic siege commonly embrace the indictments of their besiegers however bigoted and outrageous"; "Stockholm Syndrome" isn't mentioned til much later in the text. Anyway I've fixed it in the article and expanded the citation. Feel free to apologise. Rd232 talk 22:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Dead Link
Antony Lerman, Jewish Quarterly is used about 8 times and the link is dead. Telaviv1 (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Task Force
The Jewish Task Force likes to use this term, mention them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.197.107 (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are dozens of right-wing Zionist and Jewish groups that attack their (Jewish) opponents by calling them self-hating Jews. I don't think there's any reason to mention them. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Curb Your Enthusiasm
Someone should include some pop cultural references, such as the episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm where Larry David is accused of being a self-hating Jew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.67.39.120 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Please, no "In popular culture" section. Please. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Definition
I'm a Jew but am quite anti zionist and have been accused of being self hating before. However I know that self hating Jews exist because I've come across them online, they don't think the holocaust existed and repeat Nazi dogmas. Is there a recognition that sometimes the whole definition of a self-hating Jew can include anti-zionism, but that's not the only thing it could include? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Criticism section?
Considering the number of high profile Jews who have been accused of it and criticized the phrase and/or allegation, doesn't the article need a criticism section, not just a paragraph with two sentences of criticisms surrounding one sentence which seems to support the phrase (unless it is written unclearly). CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. How can we have balance if we're taking large portions of this concept at face value? Clearly, there are large number of Jews who abhor the treatment of Palestinians by the State of Israel, e.g. Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and who are proud of their Semitic heritage, and yet the article wholly ignores them. This article's grasp of self-hatred is contrived at best and rather politically-inclined, specifically surrounding the Arab–Israeli conflict. The main problem with this article is the absolute lack of balance and lack of differing points of view. IMHO, this should be resolved ipso facto.--TheBridgekeeper (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a major cause for many of us Jews would be extreme embarrassment - not self hatred. If you grow up and largely live outside the Jewish cultural ( racial fairly pure but never immersed in the day to day propaganda of a culture ), you are embarrassed. It is strange to see blind adherence to beliefs that are irrelavant ( even provably false ) to most questions. Boy would I have had to be beaten as a kid to believe most of it - probably still wouldn't have, just been sore. Even the article on SelfHatred can't escape the indoctination. 159.105.80.220 (talk) 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's the purpose of the term to imply that if a Jew does not agree with racist and elitist views of Jews, Jewish political destiny, and/or Zionism, they are somehow not a "real" Jew, and worse, must loath being a Jew. It sounds rather like a extreme form of bigoted PC brainwashing to me.


 * What are you talking about? What "racist and elitist views of Jews, Jewish political destiny, and/or Zionism?" Do you even have any idea what Zionism is? What have you been reading? Where did you get this stuff? Are you really Jewish, or are you a Jew-hater troll pretenfing to be Jewish as a part of your ugly game? Or are you both? (If you are both, that proves the reality of se;f-hating Jew.)


 * For your information, I have been beaten too many times to remember for being Jewish. And worse than beaten.

75.82.34.127 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Changes to archive settings
The settings on this page governing the activities of the archival bot previously read: I have changed them to: Wikipedia provides some reasonably clear Talk page guidelines. One of the sections within the guidelines concerns: When to condense pages. It says: "It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections". At the point of this edit the page contained 6.8 KB I have set the time setting to a relatively moderate 30 days but a higher value might be considered. Gregkaye (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just want to add that I appreciate that some admin type Wikipedia pages have low level settings in "minthreadsleft" and, in this context, I can understand how a low level setting might have been installed here.


 * In my pov, talk pages like this connect to subjects to which a wide variety of views may be ascribed. It seems to me that adequate space should be given for the address of relevant issues and by a variety of editors.  Gregkaye (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Self-hating Jew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203190825/http://gisborneherald.co.nz:80/html/Articles/ArticlesPrint.aspx?id=8879 to http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/html/Articles/ArticlesPrint.aspx?id=8879

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit explanation
In my last edit I have made two major changes to the article.

First of all, a "Controversy and criticism of the term" section. Please note that this section is not criticism of the concept of a Jew being bad for the Jewish community (so Jewish Anti-Zionism does not qualify per se), nor is it about people who may or may not be considered "Self-hating Jews" (so don't turn the section into a discussion whether or not someone is a "Self-hating Jew"); the section is specifically for cases where reliable secondary or tertiary sources have either noted controversy around someone being called a "Self-hating Jew" OR directly criticize the way the term is commonly used today. The term "Self-hating Jew" or "Self-loathing Jew" (or something unambiguously close) MUST be present in these sources lest it becomes a WP:SYNTHESIS section.

Second of all, I removed several groups and persons from the "See also" section. This was merely a bold action that I feel complies with our policy related to how we no longer assign ideological categories (e.g. Antisemitism) to pages of persons and organizations, no matter how obvious it is that they are. This is not meant to be censorship, though. A sourced section that describes known cases of self-hating Jews or self-hating Jewish groups would be perfectly viable. Thanks. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Original research and BLP violations
The rabbis of the Talmud didn't write about self-hating Jews, so citing the Talmud is impermissible original research. Ditto for most of the other sources cited in the text I reverted.

This is an article about the phrase "self-hating Jew", not about Jews perceived (by whom?) to be acting against the interests of other Jews. If the source isn't about the phrase, chances are you're engaging in original research.

Finally, writing about living people requires special care, such as only citing sources of the highest quality. That care was not exercised. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. The article is not just about the "phraze" Self-Hating Jews, it's mainly about Jews with antisemitic views (and of course not about people who hate themselves).


 * 2. The rabbies of the Talmudic era (The Byzantine empire era) had actually spoken exactly about "self hating Jews", of course not in English, but this is the term taken from the biblical Hebrew: Meharsayich - your destroyers. That is what Lessing wrote in the book Der Jüdische Selbsthass, with some of the examples I brought up!! And he quoted some of the Hebrew and Yiddish books (about Frank, the Chmelnitsky massacres, during the Spanish inquisition and the crusades. and more). So Lessing definitely was not the first to bring up the topic, nor even the first to create the phraze in any language (In Hebrew and Yiddish, rather than using the term Self, the term Israel was used: "Soyneh Yisroel").


 * 3. The other parts of my edit, and edits added to it (hey people, identify yourselves!), were DEFINITELY NOT original research but all good sources (which I will immediately discuss), showing that every person discussed was accused of being a "self-hating Jew" or of holding antisemitic views. Two anonymous people added to what I wrote, with good sources as well. In the FEW cases of living people, I listed them under controversy, explicitly spoke of the accusations being accusations and claims, and in each case brought down their own response - some of them refuting the claim, others agreeing with it wholesale. When bringing their own words, it is acceptable to use opinion sources, but those were the minority (Trotsky, Chomsky etc.). If the living person herself says that she is being accused of being antisemitic, then there is no need for a second-hand source to show it. And still, most of the sources I brought down were secondary and well-sourced, showing the accusation itself, from published books and accepted mainstream media outlets. The very few personal accounts were brought down to show the person's response.


 * 4. I definitely understand MShabazz' concerns, but think they had been fairly treated. MShabaz, under his original username user:Malik Shabazz, writes about the Israeli law prohibitting support of a boycott against it: I always felt that Israel was one of my homes. Not any more. This week, the Israeli government decided that people like me—who support Israel but not its illegal colonies and human rights abuses in the West Bank and the Golan Heights—are not welcome, even for a visit. For several decades, the Israeli government has tried to convince the world that criticism of its policies was antisemitism. Today it turns a blind eye to genuine acts of antisemitism, aided and abetted by people at the highest levels of the U.S. government. and links to a site discussing the Israeli law against supporters of boycotting Israel. I wish to point out that when writing my edits, I was careful to differentiate between the controversial name-calling of Jews with leftist or extreme-left views as "self-hating" and the sadly unquestionable antisemitism of some Jews in the past and possibly in the present (If not for the convoluted history and identity of Israel Shamir, he would be a perfect candidate to prove the point with his at times self embracement of the term).


 * So I call on my fellow wikipedians to please decide. As it is written currently, the article is in terrible condition, discussing "the phraze" instead of the term and phenomenon, reducing it to the claims today only, and hiding the full scope of the phenomenon which definitely exists and existed as scientific research shows, albeit not necessarily as claimed by some and refuted by others.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC) Edited פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. The article's first sentence reads "Self-hating Jew or self-loathing Jew is a pejorative term used for a Jewish person that holds antisemitic views." It doesn't say anything about "Jewish self-hatred". The body of the article acknowledges that such a thing exists and summarizes the limited psychological study that has been done into the phenomenon, but most of the article is about the use of the phrase "self-hating Jew" as an epithet for "fellow Jew who doesn't agree with me", usually about politics but sometimes about religious issues.
 * 2. As another editor commented below, your lists of examples were unhelpful.
 * 3. As another editor commented below, your lists of examples were unhelpful. WP:BLP violations don't go away when you add the section heading "Controversy". Likewise, opinion columns are almost never acceptable sources for name-calling (see WP:BLPSOURCES) unless the name-calling itself is note-worthy and has been written about by reliable secondary sources.
 * 4. Please read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. So you show that the body of the article acknowledges the phenomenon and even shows limited research that has been done into it or its causes. For that exact reason, IMHO and if we wait for the end of Sunday, we'll probably see a few others that agree with me, the article is actually ABOUT the phenomenon, and not just the phrase and its usage today.
 * 2. OK, meanwhile I am one against two. I, of course, think that the lists I brought were important and even critical to understanding the term and the claims. Lets give it a day or two and see what other people think.
 * 3. Read crying BLP.
 * 4. You wrote in your entry that you are pro BDS and anti current Israeli policies. Therefore it is obvious that you are concerned and disagree with the calling of BDS supporters or anti-Zionists "Self-Hating Jews". I wrote in the discussion above that I (still think that I) was careful to note the difference in topic between known and agreed antisemitic rhetoric by certain Jews, vs. the topic of being Anti Israel and derogatory terms in that category. I did NOT simply put it under controversy, but rather gave a short introductory about the claims. So this was supposed to be WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I'm sorry if it was understood otherwise, and can, if you wish so, erase any mention of your publicized views on the topic.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If you think one editor's personal essay somehow trumps a Wikipedia policy, you are sadly mistaken. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I have a personal essay on my page too. You obviously keep on reading my answers as a personal attack, or as siding with rightist name calling, which I don't. I do accept Debora Lipstadt's research about Irving, Zundel and Faurisson's hidden but proven hatred and antisemitism (see Irving interview about antisemitism and racism) and therefore tend to agree with Prof. Yakira's worries when Chomsky agreed to write a preface to Faurisson's book and therefor bring his case up. Trotsky on the other hand, just before dying, is an example of someone who openly dealt with similar accusations, refuting them and showing his worry that Zionism would actually become a death trap for Jews. If the article is about the phenomenon and not the phrase, then these examples are critically important (at least in my opinion). So I ask again, would removing the mention of your views in this discussion, which have been understood by you as attacking you, be acceptable? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Rfc Vote to return the edited version

 * This article is about the phenomenon of Jews with antisemitic or antisemitic-like views, and not just about the phrase.
 * The phenomenon and term in other languages has existed for many years before Lessing, who compiled it in a book.
 * The last deleted version was well sourced and the discussion of the living people was legitimate and widely discussed in mainstream media. So this is Crying "BLP!"

Please read the discussion above at length.

Revert MShabazz's bulk deletion (twice! once without discussing). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ - as discussed above פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Close this RfC, which is not a "vote", is premature (there has been no discussion of the issue), and lacks a "brief, neutral statement ... of the issue". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 10:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You bulk erased at least three people's edits, each not done offhand but careful work. There was a (surprising to me) discussion in the edit summaries. And the lack of ealry discussion was yours! Please respond to the discussion rather than just closing it off. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The present article needs work, but it is not clear that lists of Jewish individuals accused of Antisemitism are helpful. Cl ea n Co py talk 18:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * But it's not just "lists" its categorizing the type of phenomenon, and bringing up the more famous cases. That's what the book did, and hiding the names does good to no-one. I just read a piece by famous Prof. Shalom Rosenberg about Hitler and others in the Nazi regime being influenced by a Jewish antisemite namded Otto Weininger (and now read extensivly about his philosophy and about Hitler's "the only good jew I knew" quote). When looking up the web to give a link here to the article, I found an article about the pathology of self hatred in פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't vote. A request for comments is not a vote, and the person who closes this discussion will ignore the comments of people who have never contributed to Wikipedia before. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do vote. Malik (presumably not Malik Zulu Shabazz), I recieved emails from several established wikipedia contributors with their usernames, and their real names. I am of course not calling readers of this discussion who are not wikipedians or are anonymous to join. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

disputed text under discussion HERE. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose and Comment I have to say that I find the disputed text very problematic, at times blatant WP:OR, and sometimes not attempting to give context. E.g. "Paul Eisen Jewish revisionist who describes himself as an antisemite and Holocaust denier". (reffed to his own blog: Paul Eisen: My life as a Holocaust denier) Is it not obvious that Eisen is being ironic? 'My life as a Holocaust denier'='How I came to be called a denier', not only is this OR, it's very bad OR. I spent some time reading his blog, do I think he's a denier? Probably, he certainly questions the extent of the Holocaust, but regardless, this is OR of a primary source, and does not attempt to give any context to how he came to be accused. Jonathan Miller is listed, (admittedly in the 'Jewish descent' section), Miller AFAIK is a noted atheist, born of secular Jewish parents. Has he been called a self-hating Jew? By whom? Under what circumstances? We are not told. I think the biggest problem comes about because of point 1. above: this article is about the phenomenon of Jews with antisemitic or antisemitic-like views, and not just about the phrase..... Well, no. The term is inherently critical, every racial/national/religious group has negative terms for those who are perceived as 'turning against' or 'turning their backs' on their native group, but we could discuss people who have been accused of being Uncle Toms, or Anti-American Americans, but there is simply inherently no objective way of assessing whether any particular person is such. Therefore the article is necessarily about the phrase, and how used, not about those accused except to give some context and even then within the constraints of neutrality. Even less can it be about those who ARE s-h-J's, since this is not an objectively verifiable descriptor. Time and time again when reading the disputed text, I found myself saying "hold on here". I'm not that familiar with the details of Hanna Arendt, but the added text about her seems very PoV, selective, and simplistic, and more geared to trying to prove she WAS anti-s than in imforming about the context in which she was so accused. Pincrete (talk) 10:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. That is serious discussion. I agree that Arendt is NOT antisemitic, and did not give antisemitic like remarks. Her arguments WERE but against a national (any national) Jewish body of Jews. She was accused by Gershom Scholem, famous professor. Both were formerly from Germany and for a long time were in contact with each other arguing about the Holocaust and the Jewish nation. Here's a list of NOT SO GREAT sources, but just pointing out that the accusation was quite widespread following Scholem's way of depicting it:
 * From Hannah Arendt to Gerald Kaufman
 * Hannah Arendt on Trial (The American Scholar) (Arendt suffered ferocious personal attacks that continue today, 37 years after her death. Criticism of her Eichmann book inevitably incorporates some variant of the assertion that she felt herself to be more German than Jewish and was a self-hating, anti-Semitic Jew—a strange charge against a woman who worked on behalf of Jewish organizations most of her life.)  published also in Florida University as a PDF (where the author lectures), on a website dedicated to Arendt and on Shoah.org - the Palestinian holocaust website.
 * Self Hating Jews are not necessarily leftists (From Hannah Arendt to Woody Allen, almost every Jewish thinker or creative artist of the 20th century was accused of self-anti-Semitism. The right wing is busily engaged in exposing self-hating Jews on niche Internet sites and in a range of professional literature devoted to the subject. “Catch the Jew!”, the recently published book by journalist Tuvia Tenenbom, is a particularly ludicrous example of this right-wing obsession. read more: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.664162)
 * Arendt holds up a mirror to today's hysterical Israel discource (Hannah Arendt, directed by Margarethe von Trotta and starring Barbara Sukowa as the German-Jewish philosopher, feels strikingly contemporary despite being set against the backdrop of the 1961 Adolf Eichmann trial. By showing the harsh attacks Arendt endured for daring to portray the Nazi as anything other than the devil incarnate, this film reflects today’s often-hysterical discourse surrounding anti-Semitism, Israel, and the Holocaust.)
 * Encyclopedia of German Literature 1st edition (google books) Immediately following the book publication, eminent Jewish thinkers around the world publicly castigated Arendt as an irresponsible, unsympathetic and self-hating Jew....
 * Arendt and America, Richard King (Wolin's larger purpose is to build the case for Arendt as a self-hating Jew who wants to feel superior to the masses of common Jews. Here the contrast between Wolin and Stangneth's treatment of Arendt is striking. Stangneth had no problem calling Arendt out on her mistaken judgement as to Eichmann's essential character... not a mere desk murderer... But in contrast... Stangneth saw herself in "dialogue" with Arendt...
 * Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arendt (The prejudice against Arendt alone, almost the reverse of this one, is that Arendt's eagerness to implicate Jews in the making of modern anti-Semitism reveals her to be a self-hating Jew who can have nothing to teach us about nationality in the nonterritorial sence in of ethnic or ethno-religious feeling.) - This too of course is a book critisising the call of Arendt as self-hating or antisemitic.
 * The myth of the self hating Jew (Palestina Dosier) (There is one charge against Jews who criticise Israel that seems to me particularly misguided, and that is the charge that we are self-hating Jews... When Hannah Arendt was accused by Gershom Scholem of lacking Ahavat Yisrael, or love of the Jewish people, after the publication of Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1963, she famously responded by citing these words spoken to her in a conversation with Golda Meir: "I do not believe in God, I believe in the Jewish people." Arendt was dismayed that this great people who had once believed in God, and "believed in Him in such a way that its love was greater than its fear", was now to believe only in itself. "What good," she asked, "can come out of that?")
 * Encountering the Jewish Future with Elie Wiesel, Martin Buber... By Marc H. Ellis (Although in the early 1960s Arendt's reporting was much better known than Wiesel's, the Jewish community ultimately vilified Arendt and followed Wiesel. From the time her first reports on the Eichmann trial appeared, her Jewishness and her love for the Jewish people were questioned. She was demeaned to be a lover of the German culture and the Nazis. Like Rubinstein, she was labeled a self-hating Jew.  A milestone in this vilification came from the noted German scholar Gershom Scholem. A German Jew by birth, and a leading scholar on Jewish mysticism... left for Palestine in the 1920s... begins his letter... difficulties and complexities ... about the catastrophe of European Jewry. Yet it seems to him... the weakness of the Jewish people is emphasized... her analysis loses objectivity and aquires "overtones of malice"... shame for Arendt herself.
 * Quote from Scholem's letter:
 * In the Jewish tradition there is a concept, hard to define and yet concrete enough, which we know as "Ahavath Israel"... In you dear Hannah, as in so many intelects who came from the German left, I find little trace of this. ... precisely because of the feelings aroused by this matter, this matter of the destruction of one third of our people - and I regard you wholly as a daughter of our people, and in no other way. Thus I have little sympathy for the tone - well expressed in the English word "flippancy" - which you employ so often in the course of your book.


 * Arend'ts response to Scholem is striking:
 * I found it puzzling that you should write: I regard you wholly as a daughter...
 * The truth is that I have never pretended to be anything else... I know of course that there is a "Jewish problem" even at this level, but it has never been my problem... such an attitude is bound to have also political consequences, though... in a negative way... makes certain types of behavior impossible -- indeed precisely those which you chose to read into my consideration.)


 * Eisen is being sarcastic, but at the same time agreeing to the term. He is saying that he is a holocaust denier: Here:
 * No, Holocaust revisionism or 'denial' if you like is confined to three main contentions in the typical Holocaust narrative, namely:
 * That there ever was an official plan on the part of Hitler or the National Socialist regime to systematically and physically exterminate every Jew in Europe.
 * That there existed homicidal gas-chambers.
 * That the number of Jewish victims was around six million.
 * Having examined all these contentions and found them questionable to say the least, it seems to me that a Holocaust revisionist (denier, if you like) is an entirely honorable thing to be. So why should I rush to deny that I am one?


 * Just to make you sure of it he writes:
 * ...Professor Faurisson's words were honorable and courageous and probably accurate, so even though I didn't write those words, why should I now rush to disown them?
 * ...The same is true with Ernst Zündel. Why should I not support Ernst Zündel? Ernst Zündel has never committed an act of violence, nor has he ever called on anyone else to commit an act of violence...
 * ...It is true that Adolf Hitler and National Socialism... and both may well not have been any worse than many other brutal regimes and their leaderships, notably Bolshevism...
 * ...But above all I support Ernst Zündel and the revisionists because they, along with the Palestinian and other Arab peoples are the ultimate victims of, and resistors to, an abusive Jewish power. (Why else are they dealt with so harshly?)
 * Did I write about Miller. Don't think so. Who's he? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. Sorry, yes I did. I just carefully re-read the tragic-funny take on the whole topic in The Guardian, showing the extent of accusations and despise received by all atheist Jews, from the accusing Jews who see themselves as "the real Jews":
 * We are those cop-out, fair-weather Jews that "real" Jews despise more than they do antisemites: the secular, cultural Jews, the amoral majority, the ones who want to have their bagel and eat it. The ones who, with their marrying out, their going to the pub on Yom Kippur and to the football on Saturdays, and – God forbid – with their ambivalent view of the Middle East, are doing Hitler's work for him and conspiring in the erosion of the already disappearing UK Jewish community – currently about 250,000 and counting, downwards. Leaving aside what's supposed to be wrong with having your cake and eating it (what else are you supposed to do with a cake? Frame it? Bury it?), I can't help feeling the time has come for us race traitors, half-breeds and "apathites" to stand up for ourselves. (end of quote from guardian) So Miller (who according to this article was a defining individual of the liberal Jewish community) is actually a case of lumping together liberal Jews and their views as antisemitic although lacking any active writings or actions that point to it. In high contrast to Carl Marx's (equating Jews and Judaism with capitalism) or Anton Margaritha's (writing that the Jews were filthy externally and internally, and should be loathed for their inherent disbelief), and with no ties to antisemitic groups like members of the IHR as opposed to Atzmon and Chomsky.
 * I brought him down after reading (and linking as source) the Wrestling with Shylock book, in a section titled "Writing back" to Shakespeare, which reads: ...but for British authors who are Jewish and claim Shakespeare's heritage as their own it is a particularly difficult barrier, and any corrective must of necessity be also a claim of culutural identity by the Jewish artist stamped with the image of Shylock. Arnold Wesker is not satisfied by attempts to whitewash Shakespeare, to posit Shylock as a product of less enlightened times... His blood boiled at Jonathan Miller's 1970 production... in which Laurence Olivier played Shylock as a Victorian Rothchild, a banker who's revenge was motivated by... his daughter's defection to intermarriage, which Shylock avenges by inflicting on Antonio the lessons of prejudice and and intolerance... Wesker protested... Venice in terms of Victorian Capitalism showed the Jew to be pitiless and sadistic in his money making... The very idea that Shylock could cut another man's flesh was a libel... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Self-hating Jew. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070411151533/http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec02/102087.asp to http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec02/102087.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726190939/http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-12/200912-Ask_Rabbis.html to http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2009/2009-12/200912-Ask_Rabbis.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216211943/http://www.communautarisme.net/Les-traitres-juifs-d-Alexandre-Adler_a108.html to http://www.communautarisme.net/Les-traitres-juifs-d-Alexandre-Adler_a108.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Time magazine as a source
As far as I know, Time Magazine stopped being satire in the 1920s when Burton Hadden was forced out. I put a review | of a book from there as a source of an addition I made. One of the administrators deleted it with a "stop pulling my leg" comment. Nowhere in the review does the author claim it was satire and Time published it as a genuine report. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First you added the source to the sentence "Similar accusations of discomfort with ones own Jewishness were already being made by some Jews against other Jews, before Zionism existed as a movement" but that refers to a period much earlier than the 1930s so the source is irrelevant. Then you added a new section "The most notorious phenomenon relating to "self-hating Jews" was during the late 1920s and '30s, when Pro-Hitler groups formed that were affiliated with the NSDAP." but the source doesn't support it. Who says it was "the most notorious"? You? Where does the source support "affiliated"? That word refers to an offical attachment, not just support. Where does the source judge this as "self-hating" anyway? You can't just use your own judgement. According to Association of German National Jews, the impossible slogan "Down with us" was a contemporary joke. If you think this source is reliable, take it to WP:RSN and see how far you get. Zerotalk 14:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)