On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
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?
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