http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What do you think?
- Cool Cat
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What do you think?
I don't see any panicking going on. People are just opposing, generally with valid reasons. I understand why you proposed it, but by the look of that discussion, it would seem the preferred consistency would be achieved by removing "people" from all the categories where it isn't necessary (so [[Category:Christian people]] becomes [[Category:Christians]]), rather than adding "people" to the other categories.
That would require renaming all nationality/ethnicity categories and not following the manual of style. - Cool Cat
On 2/4/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add
"people"
to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes.
What
do you think?
I don't see any panicking going on. People are just opposing, generally with valid reasons. I understand why you proposed it, but by the look of that discussion, it would seem the preferred consistency would be achieved by removing "people" from all the categories where it isn't necessary (so [[Category:Christian people]] becomes [[Category:Christians]]), rather than adding "people" to the other categories.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What do you think?
I don't see any panicking going on. People are just opposing, generally with valid reasons.
Did you read the comments?
"...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"
Frankly I'm shocked that these kinds of personal attacks towards a good-faith contributor are tolerated on Wikipedia, even if one of them hilariously prefaced the attack with the phrase "without assuming bad faith".
-Mark
"...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.
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?
- Cool Cat
On 2/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com 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.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Cool Cat 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?
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.
It's just another exercise in political correctness. All sorts of words can have multiple meanings, and freezing out a term because some minority wants to read additional connotations into the use of the word does not warrant suche an exercise. Are we also changing "Buddhists" into "Buddhist people", and doing the same for all the other religious groups? Such a discussion would be better placed at that general religious level instead of singling out the Jews.
Whatever I may think of the specific issue I also think that anyone who finds those opposing comments to be offensive is only looking for excuses to be offended. Also assuming that the the other person assuming bad faith only seems to elevate the conversation to the silly level of meta-bad-faith.
Ec
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@telus.net wrote:
Cool Cat 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?
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.
It's just another exercise in political correctness. All sorts of words can have multiple meanings, and freezing out a term because some minority wants to read additional connotations into the use of the word does not warrant suche an exercise. Are we also changing "Buddhists" into "Buddhist people", and doing the same for all the other religious groups? Such a discussion would be better placed at that general religious level instead of singling out the Jews.
Whatever I may think of the specific issue I also think that anyone who finds those opposing comments to be offensive is only looking for excuses to be offended. Also assuming that the the other person assuming bad faith only seems to elevate the conversation to the silly level of meta-bad-faith.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/5/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cool Cat wrote:
I do not believe Jews are singled out. Every other ethnicity has people after them. Jews are the only ethnicity without it.
- Cool Cat
It's not an ethnicity; it's a religion.
Ec
And an ethnicity, of course.
On 2/5/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Cool Cat wrote:
I do not believe Jews are singled out. Every other ethnicity has people after them. Jews are the only ethnicity without it.
- Cool Cat
It's not an ethnicity; it's a religion.
Ec
And an ethnicity, of course.
Please, please keep this off the list.
I mean, I know that I am horribly guilty about getting into off-topic discussions that border on flame wars, but I remember dealing with this dispute on Wikipedia in 2001....
On 05/02/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Please, please keep this off the list. I mean, I know that I am horribly guilty about getting into off-topic discussions that border on flame wars, but I remember dealing with this dispute on Wikipedia in 2001....
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.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 05/02/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Please, please keep this off the list. I mean, I know that I am horribly guilty about getting into off-topic discussions that border on flame wars, but I remember dealing with this dispute on Wikipedia in 2001....
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.
Exactly. That subsection establishes that Judaism is multi-ethnic.
Ec
On 2/5/07, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Please, please keep this off the list.
(nods in agreement).
Luna seems to have all the points covered. My suggestion would be to not use exonyms for cultures at all and use only the native language term.
-SV
Cool Cat wrote:
I do not believe Jews are singled out. Every other ethnicity has people after them. Jews are the only ethnicity without it.
It's all part of of the grand Zionist conspiracy, of course.
I don't think that the the point of adding people. "Politically correctness" plays no role in categorization.
- Cool Cat
On 2/5/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
It's just another exercise in political correctness.
How can calling a Jewish person a Jew be not politically correct? That's crazy...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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@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
If people are offended in me calling Jews people, I have nothing to say to them. I observe the offended people with one raised eyebrow, much like Mr. Spock. - Cool Cat
On 2/5/07, Luna lunasantin@gmail.com wrote:
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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What do you think?
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
Buddhists should also be named [[Buddhist people]] to be consistent. - Cool Cat
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add
"people"
to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes.
What
do you think?
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:11:31 +1100, "Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
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.
Any tiny bit of Jewish heritage allows notable individuals to be claimed - they don't need to be Jews, just a bit Jew/ish/.
OK, I am a cynic. Certainly in respect of groupings like these, anyway.
Guy (JzG)
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What do you think?
For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.
"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.
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. - Cool Cat
On 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add
"people"
to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose"
votes. What
do you think?
For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.
"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@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@gmail.com wrote:
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.
- Cool Cat
On 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add
"people"
to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose"
votes. What
do you think?
For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.
"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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
jayig my nomination was to maintain consistency. It wasn't a political message of any sort. You are welcome to use the word Jew on any article but when it comes to categorization "people" should be used with it for consistency among other reasons.
- Cool Cat
On 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com wrote:
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.
- Cool Cat
On 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we
add
"people"
to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose"
votes. What
do you think?
For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate
connotations.
"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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/9/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
jayig my nomination was to maintain consistency. It wasn't a political message of any sort. You are welcome to use the word Jew on any article but when it comes to categorization "people" should be used with it for consistency among other reasons.
Is "X people" really a circumlocution? There are lots of examples where X people is somehow more acceptable than "Xs": Blacks, whites, gays, Asians - all these sound better as "... people". This may be an Australian thing, but I was certainly taught that it's better to use an adjective rather than a noun when describing people. Describing someone as "a gay" seems to subconsciously imply that they're not a person - instead, they're something different. It's not perfect though - "Lesbian person" sounds bizarre to me.
In summary: to me this has more to do with aesthetics than any racist undertones.
Steve
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
On 2/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
Steve Bennett specifically said that he finds the word "Jew" to be "awkward" and have "unfortunate connotations". The response was made in that context.
Jay.
I see where you are getting at. But what do you think of the consistency issue?
- Cool Cat
On 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
Steve Bennett specifically said that he finds the word "Jew" to be "awkward" and have "unfortunate connotations". The response was made in that context.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm pretty sure jayjg was agreeing with you, saying that the category should be named Jewish People.
On 2/8/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I see where you are getting at. But what do you think of the consistency issue?
- Cool CatOn 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
Steve Bennett specifically said that he finds the word "Jew" to be "awkward" and have "unfortunate connotations". The response was made in that context.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure jayjg was agreeing with you, saying that the category should be named Jewish People.
On 2/8/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I see where you are getting at. But what do you think of the consistency issue?
- Cool CatOn 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
Steve Bennett specifically said that he finds the word "Jew" to be "awkward" and have "unfortunate connotations". The response was made in that context.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Ah, my bad I really shouldn't barge into conversations when I haven't read them fully. Anyway I, as a Jew, am with jayjg - if someone finds it offensive they're overly sensitive (of course as long as you're not saying "don't jew me out" and the likes).
Yonatan
On 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, the exact opposite.
On 2/8/07, Yonatan Horan yonatanh@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure jayjg was agreeing with you, saying that the category
should
be named Jewish People.
On 2/8/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I see where you are getting at. But what do you think of the
consistency
issue?
- Cool CatOn 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language:
Fourth
Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
Steve Bennett specifically said that he finds the word "Jew" to be "awkward" and have "unfortunate connotations". The response was made in that context.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". Ralph Waldo Emerson in "Self-Reliance".
On 2/8/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
I see where you are getting at. But what do you think of the consistency issue?
- Cool CatOn 2/8/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/8/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The American Heritage(r) Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
"Jew" is not a dirty word.
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
Steve Bennett specifically said that he finds the word "Jew" to be "awkward" and have "unfortunate connotations". The response was made in that context.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
jayjg wrote:
On 2/8/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/5/07, Cool Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_Fe...
I proposed a rename as per wikipedias categorization scheme, we add "people" to any ethnicity. There appears to be a number of panic "oppose" votes. What do you think?
For what it's worth, I do find the formulations "Jews", "American Jews" etc rather awkward and find they have unfortunate connotations.
"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.
Excellent analysis. There are still some situations where Jew might be used attributively, like "jewfish", but these are mostly uncommon, and in a context which would be recognized by those concerned. Using "Jew" to refer to an ethnicity is dangerous. That practice has allowed certain governments to call anyone with a Jewish great-grandparent a Jew, even if the person has left the Jewish community and converted to some other faith.
Devising politically correct euphemisms often only serves to exacerbate the problem.
Ec