Talk:Jesuses

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." :) 21:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for deletion - kept
Kept. 01:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy of archived discussion
 * Note: see also Votes/pl-2008-06/Plurals of proper nouns.

OK User:EncycloPetey is pulling all kinds of bullshit excuses to try to keep this deleted without discussion. If the community intends to screw over its readership let's have some real debate to show them. Kappa 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look at my talk page, you'll see there was discussion. It is you who insisted on overturning a deletion without discussion or indeed even looking at the discussion that had happened.  Your attitude and language are very unbecoming.  Please play nice.  I have started a formal discussion below. --EncycloPetey 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I'm sorry I didn't realize you were having a secret discussion, perhaps because it wasn't advertised. Kappa 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a WIKI. Discussions posted on pages are not secret.  The problem is that you didn't look, jumped to conclusions, and proceded to make accusations and use profanity.  At what point in this process did I cause you to go astray? --EncycloPetey 23:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ... where was I supposed to look? Kappa 23:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you knew I deleted it, then why not see my talk page? --EncycloPetey 23:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have waited on this to let my anger subside. Why was it OK to delete this outside of RfD/RfV? I do not believe that a discussion which someone is supposed to find if they happen to notice the deletion is in any way a substitute for the public one. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrators have to do this all the time. Not everything which is deleted is brought to rfv/d, nor could it be.  If it were, the pages would cease to function, being overwhelmed with junk.  People who make a habit of patrolling (as EP does), have to rely on their own judgment to decide what is obvious crap and what is more controversial.  There are many difficult decisions, but a good general rule is that if a word is in someway contrary to general convention (as Jesuses is), then it can be deleted on sight.  Inclusion of this entry requires a large-scale change to how we do proper nouns on Wiktionary.  I'm fairly ambivalent as to what happens, but it's certainly a change.  EP was completely in the right on this one.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. I delete items that fall within the various categories that we have for expeditious deletion. Anything that I think might be controversial I put on RfV/RfD. I try to not substitute my own prejudices and preferences no matter how superior they may be by dint of my credentials, training, experience, and expertise. I strongly disagree that "someway contrary to general convention" is adequate if it leads to this result. Obviously we have numerous problems with conflict among rules. Our "unwritten rules" ought to have little force. If we cannot write a specific rule that gains community acceptance, then there is no community acceptance and more general rules, principles and process apply. An entry such as this that can be readily cited and is a word but conflicts with some "unwritten rule" which contradicts the capabilities of the applicable template (pl parameter) and WT:CFI. It is precisely because the judgment of even our most veteran contributors is not to be trusted that we need to respect the process. The substitution of insider judgment for a more transparent process is what puts Wiktionary in a questionable position in its handling of newbie contributions. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we do not allow our veteran contributors to use their judgment, then patrolling becomes an impossible task. It is not perfect, as we often like to overturn previous conventions, but it is the best method we've got so far.  For every deleted entry that perhaps should have been left, a hundred that should not waste the community's time get deleted (without wasting the community's time).  Without the judgment of veteran contributors, we become Urban Dictionary.  I think it a bad idea to criticize an admin for engaging in the difficult and arduous task of patrolling, and failing to conceive of every possible consideration for an entry.  If we want to keep edits patrolled, we need to be a bit more forgiving of those rare individuals who actually do so (like EP and SB).  Because I'll be honest, I hate patrolling, and while I force myself to do it on occasion, I certainly don't do enough of it to keep our incoming edits under control.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indulging one's prejudices should not be a reward for patrolling. Frankly, I believe that letting a few arguable cases through is not a waste of time for those who do not patrol. I believe that I have detected a greater tendency to submit some such cases to RfD/RfV and I appreciate that. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, there are no rewards for patrolling, only aches and pains. --EncycloPetey 23:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Like this, I assume. Patrolling is just supposed to keep the vandals under control, not necessarily enforce unenforceably complex rules. DCDuring TALK 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Patrolling is supposed to make Wiktionary better. Mostly it does consist of deleting ten "Haha, lolzzZZZ" pages in a row, sometimes in consist of purging protologisms, blatant or otherwise, other times it is just a case of keeping things neat and tidy. Anyone has the right to act to improve Wiktionary. If there is no community decision on an issue, then anyone can make up the rules as they go along (otherwise we'd be overwhelmed with borderline cases). If people disagree with your decisions then the rules come under discussion and get changed, otherwise the made up rules get adopted by others and a consensus is formed. You may disagree with people's decision (that's fine, if everyone agrees then boredom ensues) but you have to give everyone the chance to decide for themselves. Conrad.Irwin 00:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK there seems to be support for the idea that borderline, controversial cases should be deleted without public discussion instead of brought to a forum such as this one. I would like it explained to me (1) why someone on the receiving end of this kind of behavior would not simply leave the project or become a vandal. Why would this not be an entirely appropriate response? and (2) why should the rest of the community not get a chance to voice their opinion? Kappa 18:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all, borderline cases should be brought for discussion. The problem lies in distinguishing borderline from not-borderline. i.e. the borderline borderline cases. (1) If they disagree they can (and, from experience, do) ask about it. (2) The rest of the community does get the chance to voice their opinion, hence this extensive discussion. As our patrollers in general do a very good job, for no reward except being moaned at by disgruntled spammers, or picked on by outraged Wiktionarians, I don't think there is any problem in the way things are done. Yes, people have different opinions; No, that isn't a problem. Conrad.Irwin 18:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AEL Jesuses
You can say "There were two Julius Caesars, a public Julius Caesar and a private Julius Caesar." When you do this, you "split" the proper noun into two common noun aspects. This means that you are no longer using a proper noun, so the grammar of a proper noun is gone. Normally, a proper noun like Julius Caesar cannot take an article like a:, but you can see in the hypothetical situation above, the indefinite article is used. This phenomenon applies to all proper nouns (except those that have an inherently plural form like Alps). The examples I listed above all return citations from Google Books: "A student of Ireland can find three different Irelands..."; "The Three Romes"; etc.

I propose we forbid all "plurals" of proper nouns. This includes "plurals" of countries like Englands, Irelands, Chinas; of cities like Romes, Berlins, Londons; of personal names like Jorges, Anitas, Pauls; and all other such "plurals". I feel the arguments run along the same lines as those we used to forbid the inclusion of all the possessives. Including these should not be allowed any more than the possessive forms, which we specifically voted to exclude.

The alternative is madness. For every Proper noun, we would have a new common Noun section with a definition like this: Rome - Any hypothetical aspect of the city of Rome, whether regional, historical, or cultural. Does the commmunity would want to add a whole section under a Noun header to each and every English Proper noun in the language? --EncycloPetey 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We do it for all plural forms of all other nouns, why make an exception for proper nouns? Conrad.Irwin 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-read the discussion above. (1) Proper nouns don't have plurals. (2) Every singular of these "plurals" will have identical definitions. (3) See the discussion on excluding possessives.  For (3), note especially the comments about how the -'s attaches to a phrase, which is true of the "plurals" of proper nouns as well. (e.g. Trinidad and Tobagos) --EncycloPetey 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * EncycloPetey, would one really say two Juliuses Caesars or two Julii Caesares? I mean, the word comes from Latin and those English words which præserved the Latin suffix, usually are declined with respect to Latin rules for forming plurals. Why would Julius Caesar be an exception? Bogorm 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might as well say it's madness to include plurals of common nouns! Personally it's never been my understanding of proper nouns that they cannot have plural forms. But even if that is the case, that is a problem with our classification system rather than with the words themselves. Manifestly, Jesuses and other similar plurals are in use, and therefore clearly we should have entries for them if they are attested. Why on earth not? All the entries need is a simple . Widsith 23:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Proper nouns don't have plurals; only the common noun aspect of a proper noun has a plural. The plural is never a proper noun because it is not a name but a class.  Further, all the possessives would need is a "possessive of", right?  Yet, we voted to eclude those; we should do the same here. --EncycloPetey 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The word exists. Whether you call it proper or common is neither here nor there.  Widsith 23:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that it is both here and there. If we have entries all over Wiktionary identifying words as "plural of" something else, and the something else is marked as a different part of speech, the general internet community will think we're nuts (OK, they probably think that already, but why add fuel to the fire). If we add these "plurals", then logically we also need to go through and add all the common Noun snese of these words.  Consider: "There's not a London like that anymore."  We don't have an entry with a definition that will fit this sentence, because we don't deal in the common noun aspect of Proper nouns. All proper nouns have such an aspect, and it's part of standard English grammar that they can be used hypothetically like this.  Any entry and definition would have to have extensive Usage notes and examples to keep people from becoming hopelessly confused.


 * Further, lots of words exist that we exclude. Existence of a word does not mean we will include it. We exclude protologisms, possessives, many brand names, names of specific individuals, and many more besides.  --EncycloPetey 23:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Prolotogisms aren't words. The justification for deleting English possessives is that they are not actually words, but words plus a clitic. We have a test for whether or not a brand name can be considered part of the language. Kappa 23:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The thread of this particular line is that we do exclude some words. Can you agree that existence of a word is not automatic cause for inclusion?  That is the point I was making just above.


 * If you note in the other thread above, the "plurals" of proper nouns are formed exactly as the possessives. A suffix is added to a complete phrase functioning as a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 23:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * suffix != clitic. Thryduulf 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wiktionary aims to be descriptive not prescriptive, so why not just say that proper nouns can be used uncountably to describe a specific person, place or thing, or countably in the singular or plural to describe aspects of a specific person, place or thing or multiple specific people, places or things with the same name? Why must we be hidebound by traditional grammars if they do not describe what we observe? Thryduulf 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because that would be misleading rather than descriptive. "Proper noun" implies a number of grammatical properties of a word.  The "plural" of a proper noun never exhibits those properties; it exibits the properties of a common noun.  More importantly, the singular of that plural is also a common noun.  If I say "The apostles of Christ included two Jameses, I do not mean that there were two "male given names".  I mean there were two "people bearing the name James".  This is akin to the use-mention distinction.  When James is used to refer to a specific individual, it is a proper noun. However, when it refers not to a specific individual, but to one of a class of such items, then it is a common noun, as in: "Is there a James here?"  Notice that in this example, we have an indefinite article preceding the word James, which is contrary to use as a proper noun.  It also does not refer to a specific individual, but one of a class, much as: "Is there a doctor here?"  If we include the "plurals" of proper nouns, then we have to include, for every given name, the common noun sense of "an individual bearing this name". --EncycloPetey 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Are we really sure that we want an across-the-board prohibition? Also, would we not want to provide some indication of how a plural might be formed for an entry we call a "Proper noun", especially if it is not by mere addition of "s". For surnames, for example, the plural is very natural and common: "Let's invite the Smiths over for dinner." How would you say that for the "Jones" or "Johns" family? Because we do not have a very effective and accessible presentation of the grammatical "rules" of English, I don't really see how we can rely on those "rules" to make up for entries that are not present or information not present in the entries. It is not as if all grammar texts have identical definitions of "proper nouns". It is even less likely that the senses in the entries we have characterized as "Proper noun" would really meet many of the definitions of "Proper noun". DCDuring TALK 00:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We went through this same discussion for the possessives and decided not to include them. I have begun an appendix explaining grammar of English proper nouns, but it will need much more work before it is complete.  I have not had a suitably long block of time to focus on writing it, since, as you have noted, it is a difficult topic and most grammars I've examined casually skim over the subject without addressing it. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I gotta say EP, that's pretty phat. I look forward to seeing it in the appendix namespace.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think something which should be borne in mind here is the frequency. Common nouns are commonly used in the plural, while proper nouns are only rarely used in plural, and in an obscure function. I see zero difference between this and the possessive forms. It is still a bound morpheme attached by normal rules. You can argue 'til you're blue in the face that this is a clitic or whatever, but it's still a suffix of some type which attaches to nouns (and phrases) in a determined fashion. Now, I don't have much of a problem with including possessive forms, nor do I have a problem with including these common plural forms of proper nouns. However, as EP duly notes, this is a lot of work for little gain. Also, I think that each such form should be subject to rfv, as it is an odd form. Additionally, DCDuring makes an excellent point that we lack good grammar appendices, certainly a current shortcoming of our project. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. EP raises good points, but I'm not convinced. Since indeed every proper noun can be used as a common noun, I don't think it's necessary to include a separate "Noun" section at every proper-noun entry, because an English-speaking reader will see the "Proper noun" section and know what do make of it; however, plurals are different, since you can't visit [[Chinas]] and see a "Proper noun" section. However, I'm not going to vote "keep", because I think that neither Jesus: nor Jesuses: meets WT:CFI, and while I don't really mind making a few exceptions, I certainly won't vote to. —Ruakh TALK 02:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The word obviously exists. We aim to include ALL words. Therefore we should keep it. I notice the in Mary, for example, it is defined as a Proper noun, then is used to generate the headword. That seems a reasonable compromise to me. SemperBlotto 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you want to label it on the entry as a "Poper noun", but categorize it as a common noun? Or are you proposing dual categorization for every proper noun? --EncycloPetey 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The last time I looked allowed a pl= parameter. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It also allows uncountable, but I cannot think of a single Proper noun that is uncountable. For the typical proper noun, the count is "one". --EncycloPetey 21:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

delete - and writing a grammar appendix is a very good idea. Hekaheka 17:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * keep as it is commonly used in such usages as "The square in front of the shrine had many vendors selling plastic Jesuses." not so rare, as can be seen from this b.g.c. search. I also agree with Ruakh's point about the need to maintain access via entry of the plural.
 * Also:
 * The plural needs to be indicated in the lemma entry.
 * Further, I would suggest that the RfV process is the means for removing spurious plurals, when as and if they occur.
 * Most of the "rare" plural forms of proper nouns are much less rare than many of our other entries, including many not marked with rare tags.
 * The existence of rules that we can effectively render comprehensible and accessible for our normal users, which would truly substitute for the plural entries, has not been established. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Simplest would be to apply the normal CFI, three independent durably archived citations spanning three years. Jesuses meets this trivially, as do many people's names. Some town and city names do not meet this, and it seems dependent on the size of such places - seems to me to be a reasonable metric. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we apply "the normal CFI", as you call them, to Jesuses:, but the actual CFI to Jesus:, then we'd keep only the former. Are you sure that's a good idea? —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 19:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As I haven't read through the CFI in a long time, I just remember the "three independent durably archived three year-spanning cites", If we are looking for that then there is no question that Jesuses would be includable (see google books). But, if there's something else that I've forgotten please correct me. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should also be considering uncountable nouns like alfalfa. These follow a similar pattern, whereby they normally do not take a plural, but can in certain contexts.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 21:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * One of my personal hobby horses is uncountability. "alfalfas" would be readily attestable in agricultural literature. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, definitely. I wasn't saying anything to the contrary.  However, we really ought to come up with a nice way of noting such things.  Because nearly every common noun could have a sense of "a type of xxxx", and yet it seems a bit redundant to note that in every single definition, just as it seems kind of dumb to include an abstract common noun sense for each and every single proper noun.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether the default views of Wiktionary for non-registered users shouldn't have with all kinds of grammar lessons and extensive display of the obvious through templated text and links. Registered users should get a choice of views that reflect what they think they know. Adepts could get a more fine-grained choice like WT:PREFS. Getting rid of the obvious would be a reward for registering and signing in. I don't know what the software prospects are for that degree of control, but a good number of our presentation concerns derive from the broad range of capabilities of our users. I don't entirely believe that Simple is going to fully address the needs of a very broad range of users, as useful as their efforts seem to be. If we had some sense for the realistic time-frame for that degree of customization, we could resolve many of these disputes much more easily. If there is no time-frame, then the disputes are essentially about who the target user is and what capabilities we can assume, all in the absence of any real facts. The current situation gives personal tastes of contributors excessive weight relative to the needs of users. I don't know to what extent this leads us to have something like 1/60th the visits that WP has, but I'd be surprised if it didn't make a contribution. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a couple of extra comments for this already huge debate. 1 – Users shouldn't be expected to know that "proper nouns can't have plurals" – they see a word like this, they're entitled to look it up.  How we classify it is our own, secondary, problem.  2 – I totally understand EP's position and I take the point about similarity with possessives.  For me the simple difference is that the apostrophe in possessives makes it more obvious that we are dealing with two distinct lexemes, whereas with plurals there's no obvious clue.  However, if it came to it I'd rather keep both than exclude this.  3 – Even if in general such plurals are discouraged, arguably Jesuses (and some others) is a special case, because "Jesus" = "artistic representation of Jesus" is so incredibly common in art contexts.  Widsith 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

AEL Jesuses again

 * Keep with full support for each comment of Widsith right above. --Gauss 10:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Admirably said Widsith, but the question remains: How do we format it? Do we make  identical to, so that all proper nouns have plurals?  Cuz that seems at least a little silly (but perhaps necessary).  Do proper nouns only get plurals on a case by case basis?  The burden is really on those in support to figure out how this will work, because hasn't anyone thought that it might be just a bit misleading to our readers if our proper nouns have plurals?  Cuz proper nouns don't have plurals......largely.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 14:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems clear that these should not be linked from the PN inflection line (though I expect that at some point we will need to hash out more thoroughly whether names are always PNs or not) . If they exist, they should either be one-way links (Jesuses -> Jesus but not vice versa), or linked only from a usage note in the lemma entry. -- Visviva 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Visviva on this. There are cases where knowing how to form the plural of an item we present as a proper noun is useful. The cases include all of those that form the plural other than by adding "-s" or "-es" or where it is not 100% obvious whether -s or -es is correct and taxons and other words (where Latin or non-English rules apply). It might also be useful to indicate whether (or when) a proper noun takes a plural verb (eg, mountain ranges). To me it seems that how to form a plural is a dictionary question and whether one should use a plural is a question of grammar. Grammar has not been our strong suit and, evidently, does not fit very well into our entry structure. Perhaps we ought to use our entry structure to do well what it can do and not try to make it do what it is not especially well suited to do.
 * As to Atelaes' question, frankly, the print-dictionary approach (inserting a "-s" or "-es" after nouns that form plurals simply and only spelling out plurals that are "irregular" or where there are alternative forms) devotes about the right amount of space to the task. I also see no reason to show red-links for missing plurals, though blue links for plurals that are entries can show that there might be more to be learned from the plural entry. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 17:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ugh, this section is getting too long. I have to scroll up for a half hour just to find an edit button.  Anyway, I absolutely agree with Visviva.  While some of these plurals might not be a bad idea to have, if we have them, they should be linked to from the lemma in a usage note, or not at all.  Anything else would be, in my opinion, misleading to our readers.  As to the regularity of pluralization......I don't know if that is really relevant.  We certainly don't make a distinction between regular and irregular plurals in our common nouns.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess if our users don't know how to form a plural of a proper noun, we shouldn't tell them because they might use plurals more often than we think they should.
 * We certainly waste our users' attention with red-linked, spelled-out regular plurals for our ordinary nouns. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 17:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to assume from the apparent tone of the above response that it was intended to be facetious. So, the reason we're saying that the "plural" of the Proper noun should not be linked from the Proper noun inflection line, is that it's not actually a plural of the Proper noun.  Rather, Jesuses is a plural of a common noun definition of Jesus.  If we link the "plural" from the inflection line, it will positively mislead our readers.  Think of it this way: we don't list adverb "forms" of verbs on the Verb inflection line; we don't like hyphenated adjective forms of compound nouns on the Noun inflection line; and so on.  When the part of speech is different, because of different grammar, we create a new section or even a new entry (in cases where the spelling is different).  Logically then, we shouldn't like to a plural common noun from a proper noun section's inflection line. --EncycloPetey 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The first comment was facetious, but it reflected my reading of the direction of the discussion. The second comment on redlinked plurals was not facetious at all.
 * I had not appreciated until this extended discussion why it is that most dictionaries don't have proper nouns as entries (excepting taxonomic names and abbreviations of proper nouns). Their presentation is almost inconsistent with the manner of presentation of other kinds of words. Part of the problem I have been having is with denigrating the common-noun use of the entries we label as proper nouns. Then, by assumption, we don't need to bother with plurals. I think even the most obtuse of our users would not mistakenly pluralize a word we present as a proper noun, used as such. But a user might want to know how to refer to the Joneses (or is that Jones or Jones's) in writing or whether (or when) it should be "the Andes is" or "the Andes are". If calling something a proper noun leads to us being unable to present useful information, then we should not call it a proper noun. Perhaps it would be better to call them nouns and limit the label proper noun to the senses that are the true proper noun senses (or, less plausibly, show the plural only at the common-noun senses). If I thought that users would find such information in usage notes when our entry layout has trained them to look a the inflection line for a plural, then I could simply have accepted that suggestion without further discussion. I would be disappointed if we could not address this kind of usage question consistent with our overall manner of presentation. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 18:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

As I read this discussion, there seems to be - at least partly - an issue on how to format the Proper Nouns such that the reader gets the information that *plural can exist, but *only exist in very few cases. The template has already been mentioned: thus I wonder why it doesn't include a "plural" point with the explicit remark "for use as common noun only" (or better formulated)? The plural entries could have a "Noun" header, and the inflection template explains to the user why the PoS's (PoS'es?) seem to differ. I have, however, no comment on whether they *should* be given or not... Just that the issue IMHO *could* be solved. \Mike 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonable enough. Perhaps we could work a link in there to an explanation of what's happening, when and why proper nouns have plurals, etc.  I could live with that, as long as there's a note of caution screaming at the user, I have no qualms about putting it into the inflection line.  -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pending the arrival of the Perfect Solution, that seems like a good approach. Something brief like (rarely plural), with "rarely" a bluelink to a appropriate section in the Proper Nouns appendix, one of the much-anticipated magnum opi from EP. If that is too terse, the (plural for common noun only), with "common noun" bluelinked to the same (not to common noun) would be OK. Perhaps a "plc=" parameter to optionally generate the text on provision of the plural form. DCDuring <i >TALK</i > 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like this sounds great imo.&mdash;msh210 &#x2120; 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Connel MacKenzie 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Obviously, this is a no-brainer. It's the plural of a non-proper noun word "Jesus" which can be seen for example in the lyrics of Depeche Mode's "Personal Jesus", or in numerous examples listed above. I've gone ahead and added this to the Jesus entry. I got too restless to cite the artistic representation sense, someone else cite that. Language Lover 21:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least two pertinent senses. People named "Jesus" (of which there are many) and competing conceptions of the Biblical "Jesus" (of which there are also many, as cited). <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 13:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Consider, in fact:
 * Multiple conceptions of the Biblical figure: 2005, Richard A. Burridge, Four Gospels, One Jesus?: A Symbolic Reading, p. 165:
 * Four portraits or four Jesuses? The first question concerns whether there are four gospels and one Jesus, or four Jesuses.
 * Multiple figurines or other physical objects constituting depictions of the Biblical figure: 1996, Rick Reilly, Missing Links, p. 59:
 * One Christmas, he talked me into going around town stealing all the baby Jesuses out of creche scenes.
 * Multiple people who happen to share the name, "Jesus": 2003, J. P. Mendum, D. M. Bennett, Revelations of Antichrist Concerning Christ and Christianity, p. 42:
 * We may perhaps accept the Talmud as authority for the existence of a distinguished Professor Jesus and his pupil James ; but what feature has either of them in common with the Jesus or the Jameses of the Gospels, that would not apply as well to almost any other of the numerous Jesuses or Jameses of the first century ?
 * <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> T 14:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruakh again has wheel-warred this entry, removing all meaningful warnings. Nothing I said in my edit was incorrect, nor did I remove any of the citations provided.  However, this entry, as it exists now, is purposefully misleading.  It promotes a particular point of view with the explicit intent of offending more than a billion people, by its misrepresentation.  IF the entry is to be kept, it needs to say why and how the term is offensive.  It is not neutral to promote this term as a ordinary correct English term - it simply is not.  Since the entry can't seem to exist without meaningful warnings, it should instead be deleted again.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again, you find yourself lying transparently on a widely-read page. Doesn't bother you that most editors realize within a few days here that they can't trust anything you write? —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 00:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Raukh, what lies? You made this edit to the entry, so you cannot claim that it was not edited by you as you stated . Connel is correct that many Christians are offended by the mere concept of more than one Jesus, just as many Moslems are offended by images of Mohammed, and it is an official and historic heresy. You are splitting hairs in saying that this does not apply to the word that is used to communicate that concept, and are being rude in your response to Connel. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * EP, thanks for your comment. :-)  Connel says "Ruakh again has wheel-warred this entry". Seeing as I've edited that entry exactly once, he can't even claim that I've wheel-warred (except by a very loose definition that construes a single revert as "wheel-warring"), much less that I've "again wheel-warred". I understand that many (even most) Christians would be offended by the concept of more than one Jesus; but most Christians have enough brain cells to rub together and figure out that the word Jesuses: does not, in and of itself, imply such a thing. Connel's edit described the word itself as "intentionally incorrect" and a "violent misconstruction", and said that its use must "purposefully offend[]" Christians. Nonsense; none of that is true, and he knows it, and that makes him a liar; and everyone else here knows it, too, which makes his lies very transparent. As I said on his talk page, he can help craft a useful context tag and/or usage note; but lying his ass off and POV-pushing won't get him anywhere, especially since I suspect (but admittedly cannot prove) that he's trying to abuse religious sensitivity to push his usual prescriptivist this-&#x200B;sounds-&#x200B;wrong-&#x200B;to-&#x200B;me-&#x200B;so-&#x200B;Wiktionary-&#x200B;must-&#x200B;lambaste-&#x200B;it-&#x200B;in-&#x200B;the-&#x200B;harshest-&#x200B;terms POV. (BTW, this isn't a big deal, but I didn't "claim that it was not edited by" me; I stated — correctly — that I hadn't edited it, meaning that I hadn't edited it by the time Connel made his over-the-top edits to it.) Thanks again for your comment; it's good for me to be aware that not everyone sees through Connel's shit. :-/   —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 12:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ruakh, our definition of wheel war says nothing about multiple edits. Granted, Connel made a mistake in saying that you had "again wheel-warred this entry" as you had not edited that particular entry before.  However, your choice of words ascribes malicious motive to Connel's statement, and your latest response broadens the insult to other users here.  Using profanity repeatedly in an attempt to vent frustration will not endear you to anyone. --EncycloPetey 05:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * EP, our definition of wheel war says nothing about anything like my edit. However, I'm sorry that I insulted you; you didn't deserve the insult, and certainly I was wrong to characterize your bold assumption of good faith as failure to see through an editor's lies. (I can't share your bold assumption in this case — I did my best and failed — but that doesn't give me the right to criticize you for your success.) You're also right about the use of profanity, and thanks for that important reminder. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the usage notes of Connel and I was incensed when a reversion befell my essay to restore them in a mitigated version, implying the grammatical ineptitude which this entry præsents with regard to the rules for forming adjectives with Latin origin. (see Talk:Jesuses). I would rather not see the entry deleted but instead provided with the due admonition, since there are some arguably literary citations (arguably - because using this form shews disrespect for Latin and English grammar). But having been impeded by Widsith's revert of the addition of the usage notes and surmising the impossibility to restore the notes I feel obliged to indorse the deletion. Bogorm 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. For arguments vide supra. Bogorm 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

AEL Jesuses 2009-02-20
Look. Not all editors here gave explicit !votes, but I've read all the comments thoroughly, and it is my belief that !votes should be !counted as follows: If you disagree with any of my interpretations, or if this !tally omits anyone who commented here (or elsewhere) on this topic, please let me know. Absent an explicit and polite objection within the next week, I plan to resolve this discussion as kept. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 02:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: 5 !votes: ; ; ; ;
 * Keep: 9 !votes: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
 * No !vote: ∞·0 !votes: !; !; !; !everyone who didn't participate in the !vote


 * Looks like a good summary. I indeed didn't !vote, but would lean towards !delete (by which I mean keep) at this point.  I haven't seen any plausible arguments raised against having the entry; the real question seems to be how/whether we should address the plural in the lemma entry. -- Visviva 05:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Summary good. Perhaps we should limit showing plurals in Proper noun inflection lines to those that are somewhat irregular (ie, not ending in -s). The alternative of non-display for plurals ending in either -s or -es wouldn't be terrible. I still don't understand how the metaphysics of what something "is" determines how we choose to present it. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The entry as it exists now is flatly wrong and misleading. The "plural" form is only incorrect, used to offend.  Even in the citations given to show incorrect innocent uses, the context of them is absent, not conveying how intentionally offensive the writing they are in, actually are.  Since this community can't create an accurate entry for it with a NPOV while still warning against the inherent offense of the misuse, it is better off being entirely removed.  --Connel MacKenzie 02:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept, with another quote from Martin Luther to back it up. There's no reason whatsoever to delete this page. Clearly attestable, for all forms of the noun and proper noun Jesus. --Jackofclubs 18:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Unkept. Clearly, several editors disagree with you. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 18:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for unkeeping. Can we have some sources supporting that this claim that Jesuses can be offensive? It may seem obvious to some people, but to get a fairer view of the description of the word, it can only help IMHO - in the "usage notes" section. And, of course, Wiktionary does not remove words because they are offensive. Searching for Allahs, as a side note, doesn't give as many hits, but it is attestable, especially in the negative form akin to "there are not two Allahs". The Martin Luther quote I added is analagous to this. --Jackofclubs 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to achieve by involving Martin Luther? Every one knows that Luther did not write in English and that in Latin the plural form of this particular nound would coincide with the singular one. In German too, since German always accepts the Latin declension of words whih it borrows with the Latin endings. You are not going to convince me until the sentence is found in the original language. It may simply by translator's ruse. The uſer highteth Bogorm converſation 18:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept. The original debate was whether to include the plural of the proper noun "Jesus". This is still contentious, however, "Jesus" is defined as a Noun too. Therefore it should have a plural, like most other English Nouns. We even went through the bother of explicitly allowing the plurals of common nouns derived from proper nouns, which would give yet another reason to keep this entry. The debate later got sidetracked by a possible "offensiveness" of many "Jesuses", however Wiktionary cannot exclude offensive words - doing so would make it notably less useful. In short there are no relevant reasons to delete this. Further, the community !vote is in support of keeping this. Yes, it will always be contentious, but please take any further discussion to Talk:Jesuses and Talk:Jesus - it might be worth combining the two. Conrad.Irwin 19:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why y'all are so unwilling to wait the full week I offered potential objectors — this sat here untouched for months, it's not like it's a burning issue for anyone — but whatever, striking. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 00:28, 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 .) But if you want to wait anyway, be my guest. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 13:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jesuses
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". —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 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 (“”) 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?
 * —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 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. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 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. <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> 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. -- <i>A LGRIF </i ><font color="#FFD700"> 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). <i style="background:lightgreen">bd2412</i> 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. —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)