Return to "Jesuses" page.

Please, do not erase the note about intentional incorrectness. There are no nouns in English ending in -us whose origin is Latin and which could swerve from the rules in Latin for forming plurals (campi is non-standard, but it must be the only exception). This one is fourth declination, which means that the plural must be (hypothetically) Jesus as well. It is not only a religious blasphemy, but also a product of glaring ignorance of the rules for forming plurals. Bogorm 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

  • It is very clear from the citations that none of these authors intends for the word to be incorrect. It is also the case that a knowledge of Latin is not necessary for speaking correct English. Besides, the name is not originally Latin, but Greek, and before that Hebrew. Should we consult these grammars as well? Wiktionary is here to record which words are used and how. Very clearly, ‘Jesuses’ is not intended to be incorrect or offensive, and nor would most people consider it either of those things. Ƿidsiþ 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Most sæcular people or members of other confessions. We are speaking about the ignominious effect this botched up form evokes in devout Orthodox or Catholics and I assure you that it evokes such effect in me as well. As for Latin, it is the immediate source for the English word. As a conclusion, all quotations are not only sacrilegious, but ignorant as well. I consider the expurgation of the usage notes ineffably lamentable. Bogorm 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I am not religious, I am surprised that you consider this (or any word) sacreligious in itself. When the word is used it tends to be as part of a rhetorical device, rather than actually implying that there are or were literally lots of individual Jesus Christs. So I am confused about what aspect of Christian scripture or practice this is felt to violate. If you can show that it is genuinely regarded as an offensive term though, a Usage Note would probably be desirable. Ƿidsiþ 21:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
We already have had... a usage note. This is a commonly misunderstood thing, it also came up recently on Talk:epithet. We should probably make a page somewhere titled, "Words don't offend people; people do." :) —This unsigned comment was added by Conrad.Irwin (talkcontribs). 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Requests for deletion - keptEdit

Kept. 01:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For me the iſſue is burning - it encroaches on the innermoſt of my ſpiritual believes. And I ſtill bide the reſponse on my quæſtion about the appropriateneſs to quote M. Luther in tranſlation. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: "And I ſtill bide the reſponse on my quæſtion about the appropriateneſs to quote M. Luther in tranſlation.": Your "question" needs no response, since the quotation was removed. (See google:mootness and liveness.) But if you want to wait anyway, be my guest. —RuakhTALK 13:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Green check.svg

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Beating a dead horse here, the comments in the previous discussion indicated the offensiveness of this form is obvious (all but one contributor.) The one contributor that removed all indication of the offensiveness of this form marked the previous discussion as closed, which I believe is very bad form.

Again, since this form cannot survive on Wiktionary with any indication of being offensive, the entry itself should not remain.

--Connel MacKenzie 19:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete - all arguments have been enumerated in the archived discussion on Talk:Jesuses, no reason for this entry to remain. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I'm not particularly convinced that the noun Jesus really meets CFI, but: (1) we just had an RFD discussion; (2) it was open for more than nine months; (3) you participated in that discussion, including in the week after I said "I'm closing this after a week"; and (4) you don't seem to be giving any new reasons, but rather, simply repeating your previous points. In other words, I'm not voting "we should have this entry", but rather "we should accept the results of community discussion for a reasonable amount of time, unless new issues arise". —RuakhTALK 19:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The comments I see in that discussion, (except yours) agree it is obvious it is offensive. But your edit to it removed any trace of accurately describing this word form, as such. If someone in this community agreed with your removal, they didn't speak up. Doesn't sounds like "accepting the results of community discussion" to me. --Connel MacKenzie 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
First of all, Connel, a number of people have agreed that the term is not, in and of itself, offensive. For example, BD2412 added one of the quotations, using the edit summary "add wholly non-offensive plural use". And I was not the first one to remove your bogus additions; Widsith was.
Second of all, your analogy is specious. There was an RFD discussion, that clearly reached the conclusion that the entry should be kept. You are refusing to accept that conclusion. By contrast, there has not been a discussion on whether the context labels you added (“(offensive, intentionally incorrect, violent misconstruction)”) and usage note you added (“This mis-construction cannot be used without purposefully offending Christians; the mere suggestion of more than one is heresy.”) should be included. If you would like to start such a discussion, you are more than welcome to. But I can't imagine you really believe that the community would support the note.
Third of all, when I removed the usage note (because it was blatantly wrong), I left you a comment on your talk-page that read in part, "perhaps you can help craft an accurate context tag and/or usage note". You ignored that, and instead began to push for the entry's deletion. So, as far as I can tell, you would only be willing to keep the entry if it had exactly the usage note that you put there. Is that indeed the case?
RuakhTALK 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
No, I am not concerned with the wording, only that a usage warning appear. --Connel MacKenzie 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The apt usage notes can be called blatantly wrong only from a non-Christian point of view. They are true for every Christian (at least for every Catholic and Orthodox) and since they concern exclusively Christianity and the blasphemy which this plural form presents, non-Christian views are to be considered irrelevant. The quæstion is: does the Christian part of the community agree that the plural form is purposefully offending them (I certainly do) and that the usage notes are sound rather than: does everyone agree... Exactly if there were the usage notes: Lotus Sutra is considered apocryphal for Theravada Buddhists it would not be up to Christians to decide whether to remove or add such a usage note on Lotus Sutra, but to Theravada Buddhists. The situation is the same here. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm a Christian, and (as I said below) I don't consider a single one of the examples currently on the page to be offensive. None of them suggests that there was more than one Jesus of Nazareth, and none of them is either heretical or blasphemous. That's not to say the word couldn't be used in an offensive/heretical/blasphemous way, but it is clear that the word "Jesuses" is not in and of itself offensive, heretical, or blasphemous. Angr 21:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the most convincing solution would be to write a letter to Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei and if they express the same concern as in the usage notes we are discussing here, to keep them. Probably not everyone would agree, but for me that would be an incontrovertible criterium. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 21:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's either a viable or a desirable solution. CDF is responsible for Roman Catholic doctrine, but (1) this issue is not restricted to Catholics, and (2) this isn't a matter of doctrine anyway. Angr 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Do they speak English? And anyway, the context labels claimed that it was "intentionally incorrect", and the usage note claimed that it couldn't "be used without purposefully offending Christians" (emphases mine). Those are claims about the person using the word, not about the person hearing it; so unless you're saying that the CDF uses the word Jesuses, and that you want to ask them if they do it to be incorrect and offensive, their opinion isn't quite relevant to these claims. —RuakhTALK 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, and none of the examples provided in the article at least is offensive, so it while it can be used offensively (like virtually every word), it isn't necessarily offensive. Angr 20:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I have a box of Jesuses in my desk drawer right now, and I know of no one who is the least bit offended when I bring them out. bd2412 T 23:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, the idea that we would remove an entry because someone finds it offensive is absurd. While the entry may well benefit from some contags and usage notes, the ones inserted by Connel were rather over the top. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I have added a usage note, the wording of which should be discussed on Talk:Jesuses not here. Conrad.Irwin 13:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Recent RFD showed keep, and I agree with the reasons anyway.—msh210 16:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep, passed RFD, if offensive to some then that is not a reason to remove. I doubt it needs ANY usage notes to this effect at all.--Dmol 10:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
IMVHO, the real "blasphemy" is the production of "plastic Jesuses on a cross" and displaying images of how our saviour died as if it were something to boast about! But the word itself is OK. Without it, how else could I denounce that aforementioned real blasphemy? It is a word in current use. It should be in the dictionary. Keep. -- ALGRIF talk 10:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, the box of Jesuses in my desk are not crucifixes, they are just serenely standing there (and their feet light up when you press a button). bd2412 T 20:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I was astounded when, while in the military, I learned that some people in the northern U.S. consider the word Jesus offensive, and that if you say it in their presence, you could have your face slapped. In the South, Midwest, and West, there is nothing offensive about it. More recently, I’ve heard of Hispanic men being savagely beaten because their name was Jesús. It’s all very odd to me. It reminds me of the Bizarro world in Superman comics, where everything is backwards. I suppose that if somebody finds it offensive, they probably won’t be looking it up here. If they are offended by it, they already know they are offended and don’t need to be reminded. —Stephen 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Satanism is heretical and offensive to many Christians, that does not make it an offensive word. Ƿidsiþ 20:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Kept still/again. —RuakhTALK 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Last modified on 21 June 2013, at 15:34