Talk:Antisemitism/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

That line about "self-hating Jews" in the lead (?!?)

I can't possibly understand how this line stayed unchallenged for so long, much less in the first sentences of the lead : "Though antisemitism is overwhelmingly perpetrated by non-Jews, it may also be perpetrated by self-hating Jews."

1) "Self-hating Jew" is an unambiguously pejorative, if not insulting, term: it has no place on Wikipedia in the context that it's being used in this line. If it was somehow a neutral term, and this line definitely tries to present it as such, there wouldn't be news coverage and controversy whenever a public figure uses it

2) The notion itself of the "self-hating Jew" is far from being politically neutral and is overwhelmingly used by one side of the spectrum. Presenting it as uncontested goes against NPOV and makes Wikipedia appear as taking a side in an ongoing debate

There's very little doubt in my mind that the line and its high placement are a politically motivated attempt at giving legitimacy to a highly contentious label. I encourage anyone with the necessary credentials to heavily rephrase it, at the very least. WikiFouf (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is problematic. Firstly, from MOS:LEDE: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. This comment on supposed 'self-hatred' appears not to be discussed elsewhere in the article, and accordingly doesn't belong in the lede. As to whether a discussion of 'self-hatred' belongs in the article at all, I'd note that only a single source is cited, and from a quick look at said source, the text it is being cited for is at minimum a gross oversimplification of a scholarly work. And I'd have to ask whether the book's take on the subject is necessarily representative of contemporary scholarship. If the article is to discuss 'self-hatred', it really needs more than one source to justify doing so, per WP:DUE. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Given that nobody else has commented, and given the objections discussed above, I've removed the sentence. It clearly doesn't belong in the lede, and if discussion of this controversial claim belongs anywhere in the article, we need multiple sources, not one, and we need to comply with WP:NPOV policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Good edit Zanahary (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove unsubstantiated "assertion" from non-expert

James Carroll asserted: "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million."

This seems wildly off base considering that many if not most ethnic groups that existed during the Roman Empire are now extinct whether or not they were subjected to those factors. This includes the Romans themselves as a distinct ethnic group. That they continued to exist under pressure should be testament to their survival, not a revanchist dogwhistle from a source that has little to no authority on the subject matter. 2601:19C:5101:4750:7816:2040:1C9E:6A6A (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Adding ‘irrational and unjustified’?

On the Wiki page about Islamophobia, Islamophobia is described as 'the irrational and unjustified fear of, hatred of, or prejudice against the religion of Islam or Muslims in general, especially when seen as a geopolitical force or a source of terrorism.'

In the intro on the Wiki about antisemitism on the other hand, the words 'irrational and unjustified' are not included.

When looked at in context one could understand this as if to say that 1) there is no such thing as rational and justified Islamophobia and/or 2) antisemitism can be rational and justified.

I think this discrepancy has to be resolved. The easiest road to travel would be to add the words 'irrational and unjustified' to the intro on the wiki page about antisemitism (think of the uproar when you would suggest leaving these words out of the intro on Islamophobia..). I have no experience in editing Wiki articles though.

What are other peoples views on this? And could someone help editing the page? Dadavalobe (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wise to highlight this juxtaposition given how closely linked islamophobia and anti-semitism are. 70.51.63.96 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That shouldn’t be in the lede for Islamophobia. I doubt sources land on a consensus definition including that caveat. Zanahary (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Semitism ... "policy or predisposition favorable to Jews" ... Merriam-Webster

Suggested edit ... New Section ... Definition of Semitism

"policy or predisposition favorable to Jews"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Semitism

https://imemc.org/article/the-law-of-return-and-the-zionist-campaign-to-subvert-science/ 2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Philosemitism is probably the term you’re looking for Zanahary (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Absent additional sources substantiating and/or analyzing this usage, this seems like an archaic term that is WP:UNDUE to mention in the context of the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Another example ...

"Yes, I am convinced that I have articulated what millions of Jews are quietly thinking: World domination belongs to Semitism!"

Marr, Wilhelm. Der Sieg des Judenthums über das Germanenthum. Vom nicht confessionellen Standpunkt aus betrachtet. Rudolph Costenoble. 1879, 8th edition/printing. Internet Archive. Marr uses the word "Semitismus" (Semitism) on pages 7, 11, 14, 30, 32, and 46; for example, one finds in the conclusion the following passage: "Ja, ich bin überzeugt, ich habe ausgesprochen, was Millionen Juden im Stillen denken: Dem Semitismus gehört die Weltherrschaft!" (Yes, I am convinced that I have articulated what millions of Jews are quietly thinking: World domination belongs to Semitism!) 2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty important. That’s six pages! Zanahary (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

More examples ...

The word antisemitism was coined from the word semitism. Also IHRA denies there is such a word as semitism. All these examples are in this Wikipedia article. So, why deny that the word semitism exists as the opposite of the word antisemitism?

"This use of Semitismus was followed by a coining of "Antisemitismus" which was used to indicate opposition to the Jews as a people"

"The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance has stated that the spelling without hyphenation is preferred, because the spelling with hyphenation implies that "Semitism" is a valid concept." 2601:444:300:B070:C400:B2D4:8181:4DBC (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

These quotations support that “Semitism” is not a real concept. But anyways, try reading WP:DUEWEIGHT. Zanahary (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

POV tag: discussion regarding contemporary antisemitism and weaponization of antisemitism

The section on contemporary antisemitism, in the lede and the main body, does not appear to describe the parallel phenomenon of weaponization of antisemitism. Is there a reason for this? Without mention of this parallel phenomenon the article's description of contemporary antisemitism is unbalanced. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

A parallel phenomenon? Says who? Why should it deserve significant weight in this lead? I noticed you just created this article a few weeks ago. "Weaponization" is not widely recognized or commonly discussed when addressing antisemitism from an encyclopedic perspective. I don't see why it should be mentioned in the lead for this extremely important and widely researched topic as if it was a notable main topic. It's certainly not. HaOfa (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The lede currently says (and the body follows):

In the contemporary era, a manifestation known as "new antisemitism" was identified. This concept argues the exploitation of the Arab–Israeli conflict by a large number of concealed antisemites, who may attempt to gain traction or legitimacy for their antisemitic hoaxes by portraying themselves as criticizing the Israeli government's actions.[15]Likewise, as the State of Israel has a Jewish-majority population, it is common for antisemitic rhetoric to be manifested in expressions of anti-Israeli sentiment,[16][17]though this is not always the case and such expressions may sometimes be part of wider anti–Middle Eastern sentimentwithout an exclusively antisemitic motive.[18]

This concept described here, in a large number of scholarly publications, is mirrored by the suggestion that this "new antisemitism" was coined and exaggerated for the purpose of silencing political debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both phenomena are real phenomena, i.e. there really is antisemitism driven by or concealed by anti-Zionism, and there really is weaponization of false antisemitism claims in order to silence anti-Zionists.

Describing one side of this phenomenon, without the other, is clear POV – the sources treat them together, and so should we. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Use your good sources and add to this article Zanahary (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Equally: why does our article on racism not mention playing the race card? Why does our article on rape not give lots of space to False accusation of rape? Why does our article on climate change not mention climate change denial in the lead? Because these are not "parallel phenomena". Antisemitism has a long history and played a major role in world history; so-called "weaponisation" is something a few people have written about recently. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

However, I agree that new antisemitism gets too much space in the lead, and also note it's worded really weirdly. Why is the word "hoaxes" there? Presumably that should be "tropes"? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It definitely shouldn't occupy an entire paragraph out of four - that is ridiculously disproportionate and undue. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the "phenomenon" of "weaponization of antisemitism" is, it most certainly does not meet the threshold to be mentioned in the lede of this article.

Editors should be aware this POV tag was placed by the article creator and principal author/contributor of weaponization of antisemitism, which is currently both under a renaming discussion as well as a neutrality dispute pertaining to both its title and definition/article scope.

Given the above neutrality and title disputes (along with WP:POVNAME and WP:FRINGE accusations which have been (2) on the "weaponization" page almost as long as the article has existed), the insertion of this tag could be construed as a WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:GAMING bad faith response to those long standing neutrality discussions (if not an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:SOAPBOX an item under currently WP:FRINGE accusation).

This tag should be removed immediately and initiating editor should follow normal procedure and attempt to include items cleanly supported by RS instead of dragging us (and this article) into a pre-litigation around a clearly contested topic. There are no grounds to contest the neutrality of the page based on the initiating argument. Mistamystery (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of which "disputes" were initiated primarily by your good self, just sayin' Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not true. Only an informal poll and a POV tag were (recently) initiated by me in response to multiple and lengthy renaming and neutrality discussions - none of which I initiated myself (nor the recent RM, which you yourself initiated...just sayin' ;) Mistamystery (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the most important points covered in an article in a concise manner. The "weaponization of antisemitism" is not central to the broader topic of the article, which deals with the millennia-old plus phenomenon of antisemitism. The idea to devote significant portions of the little real estate we have in the lead to these accusations is ridiculous. Marokwitz (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm shocked. A new, non-neutral, controversial article has been created. And now there are those who try to promote it in questionable ways. This tag should be removed immediately. This is an inappropriate way of working in my opinion and it looks very bad. Eladkarmel (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A "non-neutral, controversial article" is a far better description of other recent creations, not least the daft absurdities that are Calls for the destruction of Israel, Use of human shields by Hamas and the like – as opposed to the very common currency term and definitely academic topic that is the weaponization of antisemitism (accusations). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You should bring those articles to AfD if you find them to be "daft absurdities". Not really relevant to this discussion. Zanahary (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Depends if you consider the authorship and if you think editors should have a modicum of consistency in their editing. Any comments that also consist largely of personal opinion are also in principle largely irrelevant. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The difference between "anti-Semitism" and "antisemitism" should be made more clear in the article.

I fear that many users online will read the first paragraph and believe that all of those spellings are considered proper and acceptable, and may not use the Note icon to find the info suggesting otherwise, or read further to find the "Usage" section describing the discrepancies, deeper in the article.

I believe it is important to emphasize the discrepancies and make it as first and foremost as possible in the article. If my search results reveal anything, it's that we may be the only people doing so. Even Britannica has the non-proper spelling in my searches. - TheVGMLover 2607:FEA8:A99F:D600:1D1B:7F38:F2F8:3995 (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

All the spellings are considered proper and acceptable. The footnote indicates a preference, not a rule. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

This Article Needs Review and Maybe Replacement

The text of this article contains deep subtexts of racism and political bias. It need to be reviewed immediately. The wording of this article could lead to very real crimes 2605:A601:AF6C:1700:A915:DB4F:28EA:266A (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you seriously expect anyone to take the slightest notice of such evidence-free assertions? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think most editors would need some examples. 99.152.118.240 (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Origins of Concept

"From the outset the term "anti-Semitism" bore special racial connotations and meant specifically prejudice against Jews."

I believe this is historically false, as outlined under the topic of AntiSemitism in The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, starting on p.341. The term was, by design, a racial/racist one, tied to a (now antiquated) concept of there being a Semitic race, characterized by certain physiognomic features. It was meant to label prejudice against people of that race, i.e. people with those features, among whom Jews were one subset, the one most general to Germany, so in practice in Germany it was almost exclusively Jews who were the targets, but the concept was very explicitly NOT intended to mean prejudice specifically against Jews. Part of the reason given for coining a new term was to distinguish discrimination and prejudice on a racial basis from those against Jews on a religious, political, or other bases.

"....there are many speakers of Semitic languages (e.g., Arabs, Ethiopians, and Arameans) who are not the objects of antisemitic prejudices..."

Thinking anyone is an object of antisemitism based on language is a stretch. Yes, ethnic hostility is often also considered "racism" insofar as ethnicity and race can be conflated, but again this is a term deliberately coined in reference to what was imagined to be biological qualities, so generally one only is an object of antisemitism to the extent that one's physique fits the (antiquated) model.

Even replacing "languages" in this sentence with something like "ethnic origins" or "physiognomy", to conform to the meaning of the term antisemitism, I think this sentence would also still be false. I think there ARE widespread racial/racist prejudices against Arabs, Palestinians, Arameans, etc, often based on physiognomy/appearance, in precisely the way that the term antisemitism was originally meant to convey, the antiquated nature of the Semitic Race as a biological or anthropological concept notwithstanding. Indeed, I think prejudice against "arabs" *on a racial basis* generally exceed and are more prevalent than those against Jews. Many Jews do not even look "Semitic". 2601:980:C000:2E30:8C2B:24EC:96B9:1C6B (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no semitic race, Semitic is simply a language family. There is no semitic race, that is a literal Nazi inspired myth. 74.71.4.108 (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

What do we call the race laws in Germany race laws for? 74.71.4.108 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Because they're based on a Nazi inspired racial myth. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually it is a myth that the Nazis invented the concept of a "semitic race". Go to google books, search for "semitic race" (including quotes) then select "19th century" from the "Any time" pull-down. You will find many examples. It is even too simple to say that the Nazis adopted the concept, since they did not consider Jews and Arabs to be racially equal (though both were inferior). Note that the Nuremberg Laws specially say "Jews", not "Semites". Zero^talk 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't the Nazis. Predated them by a few decades. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

The Nazis inherited a number of ideas from older political and scientific movements, such as their preoccupation with eugenics. Their ideological ancestors in the Völkisch movement "conceptualized a racialist and hierarchical definition of the peoples of the world where Aryans (or Germans) had to be at the summit of the white race. The purity of the bio-mystical and primordial nation theorized by the Völkisch thinkers then began to be seen as having been corrupted by foreign elements, Jewish in particular.". Dimadick (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting Edit - Link to Etymological Fallacy

I've lost my previous Wikipedia account (or maybe it was on a different language, don't remember) and so I've created this account, but it is too new to edit this page.

Could someone please mention the Etymological fallacy page somewhere in the following paragraph (just before the first heading):

Due to the root word Semite, the term is prone to being invoked as a misnomer by those who incorrectly assert that it refers to racist hatred directed at "Semitic people" in spite of the fact that this grouping is an obsolete historical race concept.

I intended to write it as below, wouldn't stress on that exact wording though.

...those who incorrectly assert (as an etymological fallacy) that it refers to racist hatred...

Edit: this is even mentioned on Etymological fallacy itself.

RatherQueerDebator (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Done! Good edit. ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! RatherQueerDebator (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If semites include arabs, why is Wikipedia still defining it as discriminations towards only jews

If semites include arabs, why is Wikipedia still defining it as discriminations towards only jews. This is misinformation and is in line with the current propoganda war that is ongoing in 2023/2024 and even previous to this time.

Arabs feel the discrimination and racism towards them when it comes to the word antisemetic or antisemitism.

After reading the etymology of the word, it further supports the claim and provides further evidence that the defintion antisemtisim should be changed in wikipedia to the discrimination against any group of people of semitic descent. Abdlrdt (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Check out etymological fallacy for why breaking down a word's constituent parts to derive its true meaning is not a good strategy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Causes

With such a large article I was surprised there were only two paragraphs on "causes". Maybe this section should be expanded. 2604:3D08:137F:6100:7845:A17:B6DA:430 (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thomas Carlyle's use of 'anti-semitic' (1850)

Thomas Carlyle uses the word in his 1850 'Life of Sterling':

It was not as a ghastly phantasm, choked in Thirty-nine-article controversies, or miserable Semitic, Anti-Semitic street-riots,—in scepticisms, agonized self-seekings, that this man appeared in life; nor as such, if the world still wishes to look at him should you suffer the world's memory of him now to be.

This English example long predates Wilhelm Marr's supposed coining of the term. Wouldn't this warrant a mention in the article under the discussion of the history of the word's usage? 206.85.204.137 (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting! Is this discussed in any secondary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There isn't much written about it that I can find, but the Oxford English Dictionary's entry confirms that Carlyle's is the first known example in English: "OED's earliest evidence for anti-Semitic is from 1851, in the writing of Thomas Carlyle, author, biographer, and historian."

From p. 42 of "The Rise and Fall of the Man of letters: Aspects of English Literary Life Since 1800--

"Curiously enough, in the Life of John Sterling (1851) he uses the actual word 'anti-semitic', which is generally supposed to have been coined in Germany some twenty years later."

Closer to thirty years later in fact. It is perhaps unsurprising that Carlyle, as a prominent translator of German literature and interpreter of German culture during the early Victorian age, was the man to coin this word (in English at least--perhaps in any language). He was well acquainted with the jargon of German philological research. Note that the context leaves no doubt that Jews are being referred to--he is addressing anti-Jewish riots that broke out in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions. 206.85.204.137 (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Carlyle's intention for the word is unclear. What is "Semitic, Anti-Semitic" supposed to mean? As far as I can see (given how hard this book is to read) there is no other mention of riots in his book and no mention of the 1848 revolutions. Nor mention of Jews. Without support of a secondary source, using this example would be OR. However, at Talk:Antisemitism/Archive_35#Origin_of_the_term_and_etymology: I gave an 1854 newspaper usage which is extremely clear and I believe it can be cited: "Mr Disraeli cannot stand up in the Commons and accuse us of anti-semitic propensities and a desire to persecute his people." [Cambridge Independent Press, Feb 18, 1854, a commentary on an Act before Parliament]. Zero^talk 04:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Carlyle is writing about then current wranglings between scepticism and what he saw as the outmoded forms/doctrines that are particular to the Judaeo-Christian religion (in Carlyle's language 'Hebrew old-clothes') which he's sees as worn out, and valuable only insofar as they imperfectly embody a kernel of metaphysical truth. The Semitic, anti-Semitic 'riots' (based, I presumed, on analogy with actual recent riots--this period saw many anti-Jewish pogroms and it was a time of vociferous debate on the question of full Jewish emancipation both in England and on the continent) in question are ideological contentions between these groups: on the one hand, those who believe we must remain rooted in biblical (essentially Jewish) traditions; and on the other, those who believe these forms outmoded, and that the inner core of religion can be separated from them--or that there is no valuable inner core at all.

Some other things to consider for further context--Carlyle was one of the most widely read of early Victorian authors (novelists and poets aside) and his idiosyncratic language was widely imitated and affected. The introductory matter to the standard 1997 Oxford edition of his autobiography singles him out as "the most influential of Victorian cultural leaders." The fact that in the early 1850s he was perhaps the single most eminent living man of letters (whether he ought to have been is another question) in the English speaking world makes it highly likely that the example you've found is ultimately imitative of Carlyle's coinage, despite the difference in shade of meaning. On the question of imitating "Carlylese," as it was called, it's funny that your example mentions Disraeli. In his massive biography of Carlyle, Froude says, "Disraeli had studied Carlyle and in some of his writings had imitated him. Carlyle did not thank him for this. Carlyle detested Jews and looked on Disraeli as an adventurer fishing for a fortune in parliamentary waters." But indeed it's difficult to think of any notable Victorian author whom he didn't influence. Walt Whitman towards the end of his life: "I am disposed to think of him as more significant than any modern man--as in himself a full answer to the cry of the modern spirit for expression."

Carlyle himself was deeply anti-Semitic, in the unambiguous sense. Derogatory remarks pertaining to Jews occur throughout his writings--it's a recurring theme. Froude describes an occasion in which he and Carlyle were standing in front of the Rothschild mansion: Carlyle, indicating the residence, made mocking gestures as if he were painfully extracting teeth. This refers to tortures practiced on medieval Jews to extort their money, a practice which Carlyle had gleefully written in Past and Present (1843), one of his most widely read large-scale works:

"Benedict the Jew in vain pleaded parchments; his usuries were too many. The King said, “Go to, for all thy parchments, thou shalt pay just debt; down with thy dust, or observe this tooth-forceps!” Nature, a far juster Sovereign, has far terribler forceps. Aristocracies, actual and imaginary, reach a time when parchment pleading does not avail them. “Go to, for all thy parchments, thou shalt pay due debt!” shouts the Universe to them, in an emphatic manner. They refuse to pay, confidently pleading parchment: their best grinder-tooth, with horrible agony, goes out of their jaw. Wilt thou pay now? A second grinder, again in horrible agony, goes: a second, and a third, and if need be, all the teeth and grinders, and the life itself with them; -- and then there is free payment, and an anatomist-subject into the bargain!" 206.85.204.137 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Another pre-Marr example from an article in "The Reader," dated 7 Feb 1863, reviewing the Universal History of Architecture by Daniel Ramee:

"Here, on the contrary, the architectural descriptions and the anti-Semitic diatribes are merely interstratified, with as little connection as the alternate lines of and of sympathitic ink in which secret despatches are said to have been written."

The review takes the author to task for attributing the decline of Greece to Socrates whose idea of God was "conformable to the Semitic view." Ramee is quoted further: "From an Oriental race, inferior to the races of the north...the spirit of disorder has not ceased to disturb the Western races of noble blood." He speaks of the imposition of "Religious laws made for a nomade and credulous society," and goes on to criticize the "Mosaic code." 206.85.204.137 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

And here's another for the collection of early uses from an article on "Mahometanism" in the January 1855 issue of "The Christian Remembrancer":

"The very notion of a goddess would have shocked them hardly less than it would have shocked a sincere Hebrew. The idea is perhaps essentially anti-Semitic."

Here, the sense seems to be "contrary to the Semitic nature" in the broad ethnographic sense, encompassing both Arabs and Jews. The "them" refers to Arabs. He is discussing what he calls the "Arabian mind."

With reference to your newspaper example, is there any way to look it up online? What is the name of the newspaper? Where exactly did you find it? 206.85.204.137 (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If this question is for me, the newspaper was called "Cambridge Independent Press" and I found it in a collection called "British Library Newspapers" that is available through major libraries. I don't know of a way to access it for free. Zero^talk 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. I was able to view it through a free trial. Looks like a fine example. I don't see why it shouldn't be cited. 206.85.204.137 (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)