On 2/5/07, Cool Cat <wikipedia.kawaii.neko(a)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