Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Manual of Style - Wikipedia

I've expanded the guidance on sources - identifying some sources that are standard in biblical research and adding some information about modern trends in biblical criticism. The material needs citations but I've got a wiki backlog and its going to take time for me to get around to preparing proper footnotes. I thought it was important though to add them even sans citations since they largely support what should be a truism from 4th grade on - don't write an essay relying on a single source.

I also think my writing is a bit wordy and complex. I'd be grateful if someone wanted to copy edit what I've written.Egfrank 06:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

There seem to be a number of places where editors have used the phrase "reliable Torah sources". In some cases, it seems simply to be an attempt to define "what's Jewish". No one would object to a more neutral definition using secular terminology. In other cases, I wonder if the author really wants Wikipedia to focus on "the Truth" and wants to protect the reader from being mislead.

In this case I replaced the phrase because I think the editor meant the former. However, I think there is a larger issue here that needs to be addressed. Torah and Wikipedia reliability standards are not necessarily synonymous. Torah standards of reliability have as much to do with the goal of study (mitzvot, yirat hashem, ahavat Israel, tikkun olam, etc) as they do the content of study. As a (former) Hebrew school teacher, I would not want to use up some of my precious classroom time discussing every single view point that Wikipedia (or even the academic world) considers relevant. I would choose to focus on those that deepened my students understanding of Torah and their obligations as and joy in being Jews. I don't think I am alone in this.

I realize it is easy to confuse the goals of Torah and the goals of Wikipedia. It is impossible to ignore the thought that Wikipedia is the likely first stop for an uneducated Jew wishing to learn more about their Judaism. But Wikipedia isn't designed as a kiruv tool, it is an encyclopedia. There are many fine kiruv tools out there - let's let them do their job and lets focus on ours. Egfrank 07:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

From the User_talk:egfrank page:

Hi! I appreciate your efforts on the Manual of Style but beg to disagree with you on one issue. You recently made a change from a reference to all sources reflecting the "Torah" viewpoint (admittedly rather badly worded) to a reference to medieval commentators. My personal view has been that reliability of a source is determined within a field of expertise. Orthodox Judaism regards itself as a field of expertise and, whether or not one agrees with its outcomes, it has a self-correcting peer review process for determining which individuals are considered experts and which viewpoints are considered notable and acceptable within that community. Accordingly, the community's position has always been that sources that have been published and are considered reliable within the "Torah community" are reliable for Wikipedia purposes because they reliably articulate a notable viewpoint and have been vetted by experts in that viewpoint. This has been the position of all administrators from the Orthodox community and has historically been the position of the Judaism WikiProject. Although the statement of this position could be better and more neutrally worded, I don't recommend unilaterally departing from it without discussion. I particularly disagree with changing to a reference to "medieval commentators". It's vitally important for this community to have the ability to explain its contemporary situation and offer contemporary viewpoints, and we have to have the ability to have the sources generally used to articulate notable contemporary viewpoints considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Wikipedia guidelines provide some flexibility to support this; for example, the fine print in the verifiability and reliable sources say that it's OK to quote a self-published work (such as a letter from a figure like Moshe Feinstein or the website of a well-known Yeshiva) if the author has been determined to be a notable expert in the field through published sources. Part of my job in dealing with the general Wikipedia community has been to advocate for the need for this leeway continuing and to explain the special sourcing problems of religious topics and editors. I also don't believe that undercutting the ability of the Orthodox community to have its sources for articulating its contemporary positions considered reliable creates any general advantage for the purposes of the Encyclopedia or benefits anyone else. Once again, doubtless this special need of the Orthodox community could be articulated in better and more neutral language that more closely tracks existing flexibility in the guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 13:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm so glad you responded. I absolutely can't imagine how we could have any reasonable discussion of Jewish thought without including the gaonim, rishonim, and more modern thinkers like Moshe Feinstein. I only limited the list to medieval commentators because the paragraph was about figuring out the meaning of rare words. It was my impression that interest in philology moved out of the yeshiva and into the academic world around the time of the haskalah. After that point the yeshiva tended to quote older sources rather than do their own research, but if there were noted philologists in the yeshiva world of the 19th and 20th century, by all means we should include them.

Part of what is going on here - I think - is a dance between the language of academia and the language of the yeshiva. Both are rich sophisticated intellectual traditions. The best possible article should be comprehensive in the eyes of both worlds. Perhaps I am too idealistic, but I would hope we can strive to that goal. To make it a reality we need to explain the language and standards of each world to the other.

In the context of the yeshiva "Torah source" is shorthand for a long list of sources that have a high level of trust when explaining Jewish text and halacha. If we want people in the academic world to understand what that means, we need to explain who is in the list. I started a partial list in the bible verse section, but it was by no means complete. I was rather hoping some one would add a section after the medieval commentators to include the bright lights of modern Torah study from both worlds: people like Samuel Hirsh, Moshe Feinstein, Nehama Leibowitz, and Aviva Zornberg should certainly be in the list. The Halakhah section also needs to be fleshed out.

But maybe there is also another issue. Not only do we need the manual of style to explain how the other half thinks, but we also need to see ourselves in it. We need to be able to say - Yeah! that is what I think is important. So may be we need to include the phrase "reliable torah source" or something like it, because if you are from the yeshiva world - it means something to you. With that in mind, shortly before you wrote to my user page, I reworked the paragraph to include that phrase. Please feel free to rework it further. Kol tuv, Egfrank 17:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

added it to a couple of places but maybe too prominently. perhaps it should just be included in the list of medieval commentaries? I hope others will figure ou the best thing to do, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Some articles on Jewish matters use "G-d" rather than "God". Obviously that's correct in quoted material, but otherwise, I feel this violates WP:NOTCENSORED. The G-d article-section would suggest it does. Any comments? Regards, jnestorius^(talk) 18:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should every single biography of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? For example Sharon Osbourne or Sarah Michelle Gellar? Or is the project more for articles directly connected to Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

IMHO the latter. Debresser (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Debresser. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, every bio of a Jew should be part of Wikiproject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not every bio of a Jew should, necessarily, be part of WPJudaism. This is an old debate. Should every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity? No. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why shouldn't "every bio of a Christian person be part of WPChristianity?" Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Because the simple fact of a persons belief or ethnicity doesn't mean anything he does is related to that. I wonder how this isn't obvious. Debresser (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Debresser — a person isn't a sum of unrelated parts. It is possible that a person could be a bundle of contradictions but we should leave that to the reader to decide. You are talking about "beliefs," but approximately fifty-percent of Jews are nonobservant. It seems unlikely that a nonobservant Jew is going to be espousing "beliefs." And what you are saying sounds like the end result could be that the (approximately) 50% of Jews who are nonobservant would, by dint of their nonobservance, be ruled out of possible inclusion in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Actually, responding to the question about Christianity, we have no come to the point where our, admittedly unofficial, basis for inclusion in the project is that for a biography to be one we tag, the article should contain some content which indicates that the person's faith was something they considered important. A nominal Catholic who rarely if ever went to Mass and had no other indicators of the church being important to him would not be included, for example. Not limiting the scope of the project in such a way quickly makes the project less managable. Granted, there is a lot of leeway in the vague terms above, but that is partially by design. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair question. I guess my argument was similar to WP:OTHERCRAP. Let me try again. I think that inclusion in WP:Judaism should be similar to inclusion in the categories related to Judaism. I fully agree with WP:BLPCAT where it states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs ... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief ... in question; and the subject's beliefs ... are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Albeit that's applicable to categorization, I think it should apply here too. -shirulashem^(talk) 21:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Said guideline basically renders this debate moot. Debresser (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Debresser — the "said guideline" refers to "beliefs." What of nonobservant Jews? Are only observant Jews eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" Consider the following: if a nonobservant Jew states explicitly that he is Jewish, wouldn't he or she be eligible for inclusion in "Wikiproject Judaism?" The only part of that "guideline" applicable to the question raised by Jayjg is the stipulation that the "subject's beliefs" be a part of their notability. Also, as Shirulashem points out, those are guidelines for placement in "Categories." It is not clear that those guidelines apply to "projects" such as the WikiProject Judaism. I think if an individual has an article on them and if they are Jewish, they should be included in the "Wikiproject Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but there is a similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. For the obvious reason I mentioned above. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can you please link to that so I can see it in its context? Where are you finding the "similar guideline for ethnicity, sexual orientation" that you are referring to? Bus stop (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is parallel to the guideline for categorisation in Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. Debresser (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is not about placement in categories. The question concerns the placement into Wikiproject Judaism. If someone is a Jew, and they have an article on Wikipedia, then I think an argument can be made that they should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. My reasoning would be that the person is the embodiment of Judaism. If they are a nonobservant Jews, as 50% of all Jewish people are, approximately, then obviously they cannot be noted for their "beliefs." Nevertheless, they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

An atheist is not "the embodiment of Judaism". Can you explain the relationship between Andy Bloch and Judaism? Please be explicit. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I misspoke. It wouldn't be correct to say that a person who claims to be an atheist is the embodiment of Judaism. But, if the person is a Jew, then it is axiomatic that he embodies Judaism. I don't know whether Andy Bloch is or is not Jewish. The question is whether he is Jewish or not. But if we determine that he is Jewish, it would not matter if he were additionally an atheist. If he is Jewish I think he should be included in the WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think the argument in favor or against inclusion in a WikiProject should be even more stringent than for inclusion in a category, so I find that guideline very relevant in outlining the intent of Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

It isn't the guideline relevant to this issue (it is the guideline relevant to placement in categories), so you are expressing your opinion. Bus stop (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'd say that such is my interpretation of the intent of a related guideline, yes. Debresser (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

An example: Woody Allen seems fine in this WikiProject as his work touches on Jewish identity. He's not included just because he's Jewish.WikiProject Atheism has claimed him too and it seems his statements of agnosticism or atheism have been white-washed out of the article, but hey, that's another issue. Fences&Windows 11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Should every BIO of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? Strong NO. No to Jesus, No to Sandy Koufax. Chesdovi (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I wonder about Sandy Koufax. In an earlier generation, his refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur was considered quite notable.Mzk1 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is true, concerning Sandy Koufax. Except that notable or not should not matter. All that should matter is that he is Jewish. The role that Jewishness plays in his life is not for us to evaluate. Why would we decide in advance that all nonobservant Jews are ineligible for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism? That is in essence what we are doing if we accept, as some are suggesting above, that a person has to be notable for their Jewishness in order to be considered for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Can you give me an example of a nonobservant Jew who is notable for their Jewishness? While a nonobservant Jew may not be notable for their Jewishness, they are every bit as Jewish as an observant Jew. Judaism is a religion that has always posited that failure to be religiously observant does not in any way detract from one's status as a Jew. The distinction that some editors above are articulating is not only meaningless, it is also misleading. Bus stop (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We do not add observant Jews either. Only Jews who are directly involved with Judaism as a religion, e.g. rabbis. Paul Reichmann also does not belong. Chesdovi (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Criteria for inclusion should have nothing to do with being involved with the religion. For Wikipedia purposes we want to know if the person is Jewish. If Sandy Koufax did not pitch on Yom Kipper — he was involved with the religion. If he simply affirmed that he was Jewish, he would be involved with the religion. Were people not involved with the religion they would probably not identify themselves as Jews. For Wikipedia purposes a statement from an individual to the effect that he or she is Jewish should suffice. The hurdles you are suggesting, in the form of rabbinical ordination for instance — are arbitrary. For a nonobservant Jew — simply saying one is Jewish should satisfy Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion in WikiProject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Respectfully disagree with Bus stop. At least over at the Christianity WikiProject, we have recently come to the conclusion that at the very least for an article to be tagged by the project now it should have some substantive content which indicates that, at least, Christianity is a matter of significance to the person. So, an article about one of the Catholics who went to mass twice a year or less, when by church doctrine they should go weekly, and has no content directly relating to the individual's religious status could reasonably not be tagged. I think some standard similar to that might be the best way to go. However, it really would be a good idea to have some sort of formal standards for relevance to the project in place somewhere, whether they agree with me or not. This would be the case for this matter more than a lot of others because of the existence of the related Jewish history project, which is not replicated with other religions. John Carter (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Christianity and Judaism are two very different religions. You refer to "Church doctrine" — Judaism has no counterpart of anything like that. Judaism expects no affirmation either verbally or in the form of acts from an adherent. Even the word "adherent" would be incorrect in relation to Jews because there would be no distinction between "adhering" to the religion and "not adhering" to the religion. In effect, observance is something that can weave in and out of a Jew's life without relevance to the person's status as a Jew. Bus stop (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just one little revision. "Adherent" does apply to Jews. It's one who adheres to/observes the laws of Judaism. HOWEVER, as Bus stop writes, the level of adherence does not affect whether one is a Jew or not. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The essential point I think is that it probably would not be in the project's best interests to overextend itself, which it might to by including articles which are at best peripherally related to the project's subject. Trying to create some sort of de facto guidelines for categorization and tagging, like possibly only doing either when there is a significant amount of content in the article directly related to the project's subject, might be effective. A lot of the geography and some of the religion projects do have such overextension concerns, particularly those discussed a lot in English. Having some sort of content-based criteria for determining if categories and/or banners be placed (something beyond just having the "religion" section of an infobox filled in, for example) would probably be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You mention, "articles which are at best peripherally related to the project's subject." But a nonobservant Jew would not be "peripherally related" to Judaism. A nonobservant Jew would in fact be just as much related to Judaism as an observant Jew. Bus stop (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are talking about individuals, I am discussing articles. What I am trying to say is that, depending on how the scopes of the various projects are defined, it might make sense to perhaps create one "Jewishness" banner for all articles, and drop-down parameters for biographies and other articles which deal with specifically religious, cultural, historical, or ethnic aspects. But, dependent on how the scopes are defined, taking advantage of the extant related groups to give people whose interest is only or primarily in only one or a few topics a chance to focus their attention on those articles, and possibly mitigate the problem of overextension, which a lot of projects have these days, is something I think should be considered. And it is the option of this project and any other project to determine exactly how their scope relates to the various relevant content. John Carter (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

The reason I am "talking about individuals" is because the question at the top of this section concerns "biographies."

The question posed is:

"Should every single biography of a Jew be part of Wikiproject Judaism? For example Sharon Osbourne or Sarah Michelle Gellar? Or is the project more for articles directly connected to Judaism?"

I'm just trying to address that question. (It consists of 3 questions, but I am thinking of it as one question.) Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Understood, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. Based on those questions, my own response, as an outsider, would be to answer "No" to the first, probably "No" to the second (I haven't checked them for Jewish article content, so I don't know that), and "yes" to the third, and try to develop some sort of non-confusing way for the various extant Judaism-Jewishness projects to define their own individual scopes, preferably in a way which doesn't necessarily cause excessive overlap. And again, based on Christian material, which is at least somewhat similar, the possibility/probability of having the project spend a lot of its attention on articles that contain less if any content directly relating to "Judaism" (however that gets defined) is probably a good idea. Granted, that does dump a lot of content, potentially, on other projects, like the Biography WikiProject, but if overextension is or becomes a problem, giving a more "focused" scope could well be a benefit to the project and wikipedia in general. John Carter (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Aside from User:Bus stop, do any other editors here think that the biography of every single Jew should be part of Wikiproject Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Busstop is confusing Judaism with Jewish. If Bustop wants to start a wikiproject on Jews, then all Jews can be included. Wikiproject Judaism clearly is dealing with the religion of the Jews, not members of their ethnic group. Chesdovi (talk) 11:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)3Reply

Chesdovi — you are attempting to decide what Wikiproject Judaism is about. You are describing lines of distinction that do not exist. I fully understand your described criteria for inclusion of biographies in Wikiproject Judaism and I have a fundamental opposition to them. In my opinion we are not here as editors to set down distinctions between different "types" of Jews. The most fundamental criteria applicable to the question we are grappling with is whether a person is Jewish or not. It is not a question of what they are notable for. If we are writing a biography of a Jew, we should not be concerned with whether or not their area of notability is "religious." That is for the fundamental reason that Judaism does not make that distinction. Judaism considers a person fully Jewish if they involve themselves with something religious or not. Sandy Koufax is just as Jewish as man who wrote an important text on Shabbos observance. That one is notable for sports achievement and the other has notability in Jewish textbook publishing (for instance) is of secondary importance to the factor of them both being Jewish. The articles on each of these men will no doubt make clear that they each led very different lives. But Wikiproject Judaism does not grant its banner to one and deprive the other of its banner. Wikiproject Judaism represents a general field. We are not here to dictate to the world which Jewish life we approve of and which Jewish life we would rather not comment on. Both Jewish lives should have their biographies graced with our banner. Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do NOT think that this debate should have anything to do with the "Who is a Jew?" question, so I don't think this is the place to talk about it. The bottom line is which biographies should be included in the wikiproject. So let's take a step back and re-think the question: just because someone happens to be Jewish, should they necessarily be included in the WP? For example, should Alan Greenspan be part of this WP? True, he is Jewish, but to my knowledge he has made no notable contributions to Judaism. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

We do not concern ourselves with whether someone made "notable contributions to Judaism." All that is under discussion is whether or not a Jew's biography should be included in Wikiproject Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

"We do not concern ourselves with whether someone made 'notable contributions to Judaism'"? This discussion is precisely to answer that question. Do we put a bio in WPJudaism just because they happen to be Jewish or do they need to have some notable connection to Judaism. In other words, as I mentioned above when I quoted WP:BLPCAT, we want to reach a consensus on whether the guideline regarding categories (i.e., biographies are only included in the category if their religions "are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources") should apply to inclusion in WPJudaism also. -shirulashem^(talk) 15:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Being Jewish is notably being connected to Judaism. People do not say "I am Jewish," unless they are "connected to Judaism." All we should be looking for is a reasonable connection to Judaism. Multiple Wiki Projects can claim an individual if need be. But when someone is clearly Jewish — you mentioned Alan Greenspan — I think it would be inconsistent with Judaism (not Christianity) to make an arbitrary distinction between contributions to the field of economics and areas of work more ensconced in a religious realm. Torah Umadda posits, if I understand it correctly, that an individual Jew's secular life is not entirely distinct from his religious life. And I think in many other places that Jewish thoughts are developed this idea comes out. What we are confronted with is a question of where religion drops off and secular life begins. This is especially unclear concerning Jews. Judaism does not regard the religious realm as distinct as for instance Christianity does. Bus stop (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

You state: “Judaism does not regard the religious realm as distinct.” That being true, you are relying on Judaic Law to make that assertion. Many secular Jews would not make that connection. They would view themselves by their nationality, as Henry Kissinger said: I’m an American first, a secretary of state second and a Jew third. Instead of relying on who the Jewish religion says is a Jew, rather let the person themselves show that they belong in Judaism. (And let’s also remember that although Judaism may view unconnected Jews as part of the Jewish nation, they are not considered part of the Jewish religion, and for all intense and purposes are considered gentiles; hence their wine is prohibited and their lives not to be saved on the Sabbath, etc.) Chesdovi (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Chesdovi- for the record, it is irresponsible to make the assertion that Jews who are not religious are not allowed to be saved on the Sabbath, etc., for many reasons. First of all, you are wrong. What I think you meant to say is that it's forbidden for a Jew to violate Shabbos in order to save them. And even that is wrong. Find me one current posek who supports this. And who says they are considered gentiles? It might be that Rav Moshe Feinstein is machmir and doesn't permit them to be counted in a minyan, but other poskim are makil on this issue. Nonetheless, this is a completely separate discussion that you're welcome to continue on my talk page, but not here. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Busstop, your opinion is wrong. Jews, a nation and ethnoreligious group, is not synonymous with Judaism, the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people. Anyone who's claim to fame is due to their influence on Judaism, (namely it's religion, philosophy or way of life), should be included in the project. Under your designation, Jean-Marie Lustiger would belong here. That is ridiculous. This project is simply not for Jewish people, but for the religion of the Jewish people. Someone wanting to help expand Judaism articles will not be helped having every single Jew, most with scant religious affiliation, existing on the project. They wish to have articles with a link to Judaism, not Secular Jewish culture. Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Chesdovi — you say that, "This project is simply not for Jewish people, but for the religion of the Jewish people." Judaism posits that a Jew does not forfeit his identity as a Jew as a consequence of failure of punctilious observance. The religion itself does not stake out special ground for religious punctiliousness. On the contrary it recognizes 100% the Jewishness of someone who is either a Jew by birth or a Jew by conversion. Those are the applicable strictures. Dividing people (Jewish people) by whether or not they've contributed to Jewish studies is just a Wikipedia creation. Judaism doesn't pay particular recognition to such a division. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oy. I feel like we're beating a dead horse. Bus stop - nobody is arguing about who is, or is not, a Jew. All we are discussing is whether they should be included in this Wikiproject just because they happened to be Jewish! In the example I mentioned before, I don't think Alan Greenspan should be in WPJudaism (and, by the way, he is not) because his contributions to society have nothing to do with the fact that he's Jewish. Therefore, I don't think WPJudaism should care about him, and he shouldn't be part of the project. WPJudaism exists to bring editors together to focus on articles that are related to Judaism, and I don't think Greenspan is relevant to Judaism. Try to see it this way: if you opened a book titled "Judaism", would you find the name of every single Jew that ever lived? -shirulashem^(talk) 18:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Reply