That would require renaming all nationality/ethnicity categories and not following the manual of style.

"...Also without assuming bad faith I have to ask why people would be so concerned with moving this category..- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg"

"Strong Oppose per IZAK, frankly I'm shocked that this is even up for discussion. ... -- Chabuk" "Oppose. ... Share Chabuk's outrage that we're even voting on this. JFW"

Perhaps, but changing the manual of style is premature at this point IMHO. A good number of the votes were as per those comments pointed out here, which is rather troublesome of course. But, I think the issue at hand is not the number of uncivil comments directed at me, but the topic at hand. I think it is good practice to toss in "people" after any ethnicity or nationality. Some of the terms can have multiple meanings at that was the original reason for this IIRC. What do you guys think? On 2/5/07, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>"...Also without assuming bad faith I have to ask why people would be so >>concerned with moving this category..- Moshe Constantine Hassan >>Al-Silverburg" >> >> >I interpreted that as assuming bad faith against the opposers, not the >proposer. It's rather ambiguous. > > >>"Strong Oppose per IZAK, frankly I'm shocked that this is even up for >>discussion. ... -- Chabuk" >>"Oppose. ... Share Chabuk's outrage that we're even voting on this. JFW" >> >> >Agreed, those are baffling and offensive comments, and should result >in warnings to the commenters. However, they are just 2 people - the >vast majority of people commenting did so with no problems at all. >

I do not believe Jews are singled out. Every other ethnicity has people after them. Jews are the only ethnicity without it. - Cool Cat

On 2/5/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: And an ethnicity, of course.

On 05/02/07, The Cunctator <cunctator(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have this most interesting online encyclopedia to hand with an article in it called [[Jew]], which, despite being fairly busily edited, has a decently informative intro and subsection on the matter.

I do not believe Jews are singled out. Every other ethnicity has people after them. Jews are the only ethnicity without it.

How can calling a Jewish person a Jew be not politically correct? That's crazy... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 2/5/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: IMHO. the That's the tricky thing, as I see it -- the ethnic categories have a strong preference to add "people," where the religious categories have a strong preference to avoid doing so. Since we've been using "Jew" to refer to both ethnic and religious aspects, I'm not comfortable saying that either of the two uses would take a clear precedence over the other. I'm all in favor of naming consistency. This is unfortunately a case where ANY result will break naming consistency -- it's sort've moot, then. With that in mind, I turn to the categories main article, [[Jew]], and I think I'm comfortable with that. Toss in the number of people who are (for reasons I don't quite follow, unfortunately) strongly and emotionally opposed to the move, and my general tendency to avoid intentionally angering good contributors likewise tips my scale a bit towards the status quo. That said, I'm left bewildered by the number of people who seem to be offended by what looks to me to have been a good-faith proposal. *shrug* -Luna _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 2/5/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_F… > I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" What For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations. Is it preferable to have "Jewish people" inconsistent with "Buddhists"? I don't know. I do know that tags instead of categories (which is what these really are) would make this easier: "Jewish", "American". Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations. Is it preferable to have "Jewish people" inconsistent with "Buddhists"? I don't know.

On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_F… "people" votes. What "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as 'Jew lawyer' or 'Jew ethics', is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as 'There are now several Jews on the council', which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun." The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. "Jew" is not a dirty word. Jay. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No, it was not a sarcasm. When used as a verb or adverb, "Jew" is offensive. When used as a noun, it is not, and, as the American Heritage Dictionary points out, implying that the word "Jew" is inherently "vulgar" can, in itself, be offensive. There's nothing wrong with the noun "Jew", let's not be afraid to use it appropriately; there's no need for wordy circumlocutions like "Jewish person" when "Jew" works just fine. On 2/8/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)gmail.com> wrote: word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_F… add connotations. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Was that sarcasm? I am a bit confused. Based on that the usage of the word Jew can be used in a vulgar manner, something we clearly want to avoid.

jayjg wrote: While true, that's a different question than presented here. "Greek" is not a dirty word either, and yet our category is at [[:Category:Greek people]], not [[:Category:Greeks]]. -Mark

I see where you are getting at. But what do you think of the consistency issue? - Cool Cat On 2/8/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: is _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

No, the exact opposite. On 2/8/07, Yonatan Horan <yonatanh(a)gmail.com> wrote: should consistency Fourth here. "Greek" [[:Category:Greek _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: "It is widely recognized that the attributive use of the noun Jew, in phrases such as 'Jew lawyer' or 'Jew ethics', is both vulgar and highly offensive. In such contexts Jewish is the only acceptable possibility. Some people, however, have become so wary of this construction that they have extended the stigma to any use of Jew as a noun, a practice that carries risks of its own. In a sentence such as 'There are now several Jews on the council', which is unobjectionable, the substitution of a circumlocution like Jewish people or persons of Jewish background may in itself cause offense for seeming to imply that Jew has a negative connotation when used as a noun." The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. "Jew" is not a dirty word.