Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Traffic warning

Due to the release of Facebook-based film The Social Network, editing traffic and viewing traffic will increase by a lot. Be wary of inaccurate information from the film. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 09:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Education reform innovation

The lede at present does not mention the subject's foundation endeavor, however, wp:LEAD says they are to summarize the various pertinent points of an article. To this end, a current Newsweek citation detailing Zuckerberg's education intitiative in Newark was recently contributed to the lede. It's not that big of a deal to me, however, just to point it out: An editor, in violation of basic wp:EDITing guidelines wrt avoiding removing notable, sourced material, simply deleted this reference rather than (1) restating what was culled from it and/or (2) moving the pertinent information elsewhere.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm the editor (and the accusation of violating policy is really a bit much), and I put in a pretty clear explanation for the removal: "rmvd recently added sentence about becoming an 'education reform activist' (doesn't conform to source and one donation hardly qualifies as activism." Zuckerberg donated money. It's covered later in the article. You can feel free to add the source to that part of the article, but I don't think it belongs in the lead, certainly not as phrased. We've had a discussion before about Zuckerberg's education foundation, which is along the same lines as what you inserted in the lead. It's just not notable enough to qualify for that kind of prominence in the lead, considering how recent it is and how little attention has been paid to any interest on Zuckerberg's part as to real education reform. I'm certainly open to comments by other editors on this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My point was that much wp:RS'ed attention is being paid. Read the references currently in the philanthropy section and then come back and see if you still roll your eyes and can't succeed in restraining yourself from making faces at mention of this activity, or if you'll still assert "Little attention has been paid...".--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've read the three sources. The first two just talk about the donation. The third, Reference #61, the Newsweek article, has the most depth, and it really says very little about Zuckerberg except again the donation. It talks more about local stuff related to Newark, but very little about Zuckerberg and any "activism" on his part. The closest is this sentence: "Booker and Zuckerberg also want to bring in the best talent possible. 'Don’t blink, let’s get the best of the best,' the mayor says Zuckerberg told him." Nothing more about that conversation. Hardly the stuff of activism or of any real non-monetary commitment to education. Haven't changed my opinion (although I never rolled my eyes - maybe your secretly installed webcam was unstable :-) ).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

From my memory of perusing Chronicle of Philanthropy, and CBS News, they went into more detail about Zuckerberg's education foundation rationale than Newsweek did. But, taking your word for your having read these two as well--I'll just grouse to myself that I think your internal tripwire for what constitutes notable efforts in this regard is set about as high as those blinking red lights atop the air traffic control tower and whatnot at Newark Liberty Int' Airport!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk)

I was a mean person. I had three ex wives and 7 children i left in the streets.I think we should be very careful of adding labels like "activist," "prodigy" etc. unless a very RS uses it. Some labels might require more than a single journalist's opinion. It's safer to summarize facts and let the reader form their own descriptions. Engaging in philanthropy alone is not actually activism. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If a word is bad, one fixes the word. (I dunno: changing it to "philanthropist"?)

As a response to what Bbb23 said about his following guidelines: It's true that a lot of WPdians throw out references willy nilly, so the community has built up a tolerance for this behavior. But, in point of fact, the wp:EDIT page very thoroughly and convincingly makes the case for being less lazy than simply hitting the Delete button when sourced material is involved. But, as I've said before and I'll say again, if others apparently interpret this most basic guideline otherwise, fine.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The Philanthropy section seems to cover it all pretty well. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars

The Star Wars mention in the 1st paragraph seems OT trivia IMO, especially stuck between religious topics. However, the last two sentences will then need some transition for prose and logic, and really should have one even now. Maybe "Although he now considers . . . " The "now" adds to the transition. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you about the Star Wars parenthetical. I only put it in there because it seemed to me to show what a geek he is, but I have no objection to removing it. As for the transition, I agree, but that's what the whole dispute was about, the use of the word "however" or "but" - "although" would just be a different word representing the same problem. I thought of putting in something about as an adult because the source is dated 2007, when he was in his early 20s. But of course I don't really know when he first considered himself an atheist. I only know that as of 2007, he did. I'm open to suggestions, although I don't want to restart the battle - unless, of course, you interpret Gilisa's last comment ("Do any changes you find necessary according to this discussion, I won't revert") to mean she didn't care about it anymore, but the "according to this discussion" makes it unclear what s/he meant.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I do care, I just assumed a lot of good faith. The "now" is really weasel word here. I think the "However, Z considers himself atheist" is better wording--Gilisa (talk) 07:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

An explanation would be helpful why you see it as a weasel word. The word separates his younger years with today. Without it, there is some ambiguity as to whether he considered himself atheist in his youth period described in the prior sentence. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Because we have absolutely no indication he wasn't atheist when he was young (many atheist Jews have their children Bar Mitzva for the cultural reason, not to mention that usually no one really ask one if he want it or not). Also, I still think that one can mistakenly conclude that because now Zuckerberg see himself as an atheist and isn't affiliated with any religion he doesn't see himself Jewish, which is again not implied by any source. To avoid ambiguity I would suggest that we indicate that he's not an practicing Jew and in fact considers himself atheist. I assume you're both native speakers of English, while I'm not and hence I could missed something-and if you think this is the case please explain me how, if not -let's edit it again.--Gilisa (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I found another source about Zuckerberg's atheism, and I like the wording of that source slightly better than the current source; plus, it's more recent. I'm going to add the source and reword the sentence. Wikiwatcher and Gilisa, let me know what you think - and please read both the rewording and the latest source.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Turns out my "additional" source was an existing source already in the preceding phrase (I don't think I ever noticed the atheist part in it). Anyway, I've reworded and pointed to it at the end of the sentence.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's possible that the moving target "now" might still be more accurate. As Hodgson quoted a few sections up in paragraph #2, From the November 5, 2009, issue of Haaretz . . . "Hasit, who wears a skullcap, says the 25-year-old Zuckerberg feels an affinity with Judaism. 'He fasts on Yom Kippur,' Hasit says of Zuckerberg. 'Sometimes he would come to the Hillel House, a Jewish organization that ran various activities.'" So maybe we should compromise and just say he now considers himself atheist but does not practice it ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Zuckerberg Jewishness and POV

Part 1

This is at least the third time during this month that I find myself in a soft edit war with Bbb23 who use implying phrasing. I'll explain: the paragraph about Zuckerberg's Jewish background goes like that:

"Zuckerberg was raised Jewish, including having a Bar Mitzvah (the theme of the celebration was Star Wars) as a child[5][6] and joining the Alpha Epsilon Pi, a Jewish fraternity, in college.[7]"

Now Bbb23 put this after the aforementioned:

"However, Zuckerberg considers himself an atheist.[8]"

At least twice I reverted it to:

"Zuckerberg is a self declared atheist. "

Clearly, Bbb23 version imply that Zuckerberg doesn't consider himself Jewish or that at least there is contradiction between being Jewish and at the same time self declared atheist -if that's what Bbb23 suggest then at best it fall into POV and certainly not comply with the notion that Jews are ethnic group with their own religion rather than only a religion.

Bbb23 wrote at his last revert edit summery [1] that I should use language that conform to the source about Zuckerberg being an atheist. [2] The problem with this source is that it tell, if at all, only about his religious views and therefore no place for "however" could be taken from it. The source itself is a link to an article published in the Wall Street Journal, certainly an RS, but it's not a link for the full article anyway -only to its very brief summery which by itself can't be taken as a source. Taking it all together I revert Bbb23 last edit to my last.--Gilisa (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this poor sentence has a much longer history. Originally, I believe it said that Zuckerberg's parents were Jewish, but he considers himself an atheist. Some editors were unhappy with the lack of sources for the parent phrase, so I found sources that talked about how he was raised and changed the language to he was raised Jewish. At some point, maybe at the same time, I added the material about his bar mitzvah and a source for it. But I didn't change the phrase about being an atheist. It always said "but", which is pretty much the same thing as "however". My comment about conforming to the source has nothing to do with the but or the however but the change Gilisa made to say that he is a "self declared" atheist. The source uses the word "considers", so I wanted to stick with that.

So, it really all boils down to whether we should have the "but" or the "however". There's no question the self-declared should be removed and it should go back to considers. Also, although not necessarily an issue, the other addition about the Jewish fraternity doesn't belong in this sentence. The idea is he was raised Jewish and the bar mitzvah happened when he was a child. His joining a Jewish fraternity happened when he was an adult and doesn't belong (haven't removed it yet, though) in that sentence. Moreover, it's further down in the article, so it's covered anyway.

I understand the Jewish religion/ethnicity issue. I understand that one can consider oneself Jewish but not believe in god. Therefore, you can consider yourself Jewish and consider yourself an atheist. At the same time, if he was raised Jewish and had a bar mitzvah, he was raised to be a practicing Jew. Therefore, the contrast with atheism is more clear and the "however" is more appropriate. I don't believe that it implies any editorial commentary to use it, and I think the prose flows better with it.

Unfortunately, these issues are almost invariably contentious at Wikipedia as it stirs up all sorts of different feelings for different editors. I'm trying sincerely to do what I think is most logical and neutral, not what conforms to my own beliefs.

By the way, there is already some discussion of this issue on this page at Edit request from 12amrambler, 28 September 2010.

It would be helpful if others would contribute to this discussion, so we can possibly achieve some sort of consensus on this issue and put it to bed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I will start with replying to "Originally, I believe it said that Zuckerberg's parents were Jewish, but he considers himself an atheist.". I'm sorry, but if I use Okham Razor law then the best (perhaps only) way to understand this sentence you wrote is that though his parents are Jewish he doesn't see himself as one-that's because of the "but" or the "however" which imply to contradiction between the two. Jewish people are united by their ethnicity and religion and according to the very mainstream view one can be ethnically Jewish but not practicing or believing in any religion or one can be Jewish by religion by not by his ethnic origin and they are both fully considered Jewish.

Some editors in Wikipedia always will find reason to exclude someone Jewish identity with arguments get as low as "well he eat pork!" (and hence no longer Jewish). I'm not moved by that, and if you say that others didn't agree to include anything about Zuckerberg Jewish background and at max agreed to mention it but only if it will be implied that there is contradiction between his Jewish background and his personal religious believe then it's only a demonstration to very bad encyclopedic values.

Fact is that Zuckerberg, who lived most of his life among other Jews (and even attended elementary private Jewish school if I'm not confusing him with someone else here) and is very familiar with the Jewish world never said "I'm not Jewish" -there are people, many times non Jews, who confuse (many times from good faith actually) between Judaism and other religion. If Muslim openly say he's atheist then he's not longer Muslim according to Islam and other Muslims. Jewish people are not all practicing Judaism but still they are mostly consider themselves Jewish even when not being adherents of Judaism.

In similar articles what is usually done is just having in the early life lead "X was born in y/m/dd to a Jewish/other ethnicity family/parents in New York/some other place" without getting into "however" or to other issues. Here it doesn't go like that-so I mentioned the Jewish origins of Zuckerberg, adding that he's seld declared atheist and removed the "however" that connected before between the two different issues -anyone can make their own judgments according to their own beliefs based on this information. The "however" put POV judgment within the article itself. It would be justify had Zuckerberg was saying "I do not consider my self Jewish from any aspect" but not when he only said he's an atheist-you can find in Wikipedia many articles about many Jews who are totally atheists but do consider themselves Jewish nevertheless (e.g., Einstein identified himself Jewish though didn't believe in any religion during his adult life). --Gilisa (talk) 07:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Bb23's phrasing seems reasonable and accurately cited, IMO. The "self declared atheist" statement is pompous and gives more significance to his choice of words. Just the use of the redundant word "self" is improper, since who else could have declared it? In any case, I rarely hear anyone "declare" anything, except maybe a war. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher1, thanks for your comment. However, you didn't explain why "however" should be used in the article and didn't refer to any of my arguments-and this is not a poll we run here. I have no problem to remove the "self declared" (done already)-you had a point about that, still don't have about the "however" and still don't have enough to explain why a connection between Zuckerberg Jewish "past" and his being atheist in present is required with "however" as like one cancel the other. The source didn't make such connection (Just referred to Zuckecrberg being atheist) and also is not fully cited (to see the article you must have subscription to the wall street journal)-so I truly fail to understand where did you come to the knowledge that Bbb23 "accurately cited" anything.--Gilisa (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're creating a dilemma where any answer is POV. But I don't believe the "however" term "cancels" his early religious life as much as your declarative statement: "Zuckerberg is an atheist." There's a big difference IMO between "considers himself" and "is". The first at least gives him freedom of thought and adds a life-transition aspect; yours took it away. And "however" implies a movement from one space or time to another, where yours just puts him into an enclosed box with no implied connection to anything. So from my POV the word "however," is OK, and does not cancel his past as much as absolute-style phrasing. Yours implies some imaginary moment where he suddenly proclaims, "Today I am an atheist. l'chaim!" --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher's explanations about both the "is" and the "however" are fairly clear. The "however" does not deny his ethnicity - it denies any belief in god, including a Jewish god. The "is" simply doesn't conform to the source, which I've now said repeatedly. I don't believe the wording implies what you think it does, Gilisa. Rather, I think that just happens to be your own personal inference.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiwatcher and Bbb23, I now agree that "is an atheist" deny any relation of Zuckerberg to his religious past. Do any changes you find necessary according to this discussion, I won't revert.--Gilisa (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An early citation within WP's "Jewish atheism" article is this--from which I pick up that maybe the "however" between Jewish and atheist is not absolutely incorrect. However, there is no agreement as to the necessity of there being a great contrast between the two, so an easy way for the encyclopedia to finesse the issue would simply be to state that the subject is Jewish (i.e., has a Jewish mother) and that he is atheist, without adding any conjunction that would imply a contrast between the two, such as wp:HOWEVER. (<--Btw, this link doesn't actually deal with the word however but is interesting anyway, I think.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to to cite wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I'll check George Soros's blp and see how/if it handles this issue. (Note that this source says, "Soros was born a Jew but only began to take an interest in religion when he was about 12 years old. He had a bar mitzvah a year later. Several of Soros' relatives became Christians, but as time wore on Soros' own faith in a higher being faded. In the 60 Minutes interview, Soros admitted he was not religious and didn't believe in God.")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, someone plugged in "none" in the religious beliefs parameter in his blp's infobox but further down the article reads:

"At a Jewish forum in New York City, November 5, 2003, Soros partially attributed a recent resurgence of antisemitism to the policies of Israel and the United States, and to successful Jews such as himself:

"There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that. It's not specifically anti-Semitism, but it does manifest itself in anti-Semitism as well. I'm critical of those policies... If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can't see how one could confront it directly... I'm also very concerned about my own role because the new anti-Semitism holds that the Jews rule the world... As an unintended consequence of my actions... I also contribute to that image."

--I think the above, with regard to Soros, is not unreasonable, in light of this financier's interviews, speeches and whatnot wherein he's apparently fleshed out his thoughts about Judaism somewhat. In any case, IMO, in Zuckerberg's case, becuase we only have Zuckerberg's brief mention of his not believing in God, alongside so many references terming him Jewish and recounting his Jewish affiliations, I think WP should err on the side of caution and simply avoid the whole issue: such as, by our simply stating the facts with regard to Z's religious affiliations, past and present, as well as his declamation of atheism without implying the two necessarily are mutually exclusive.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1. From the "Only Half-Serious Dept.": Um, the intrepid reporter Mr. Perez Hilton wrote on October 12th: "The paparazzi have invaded Palo Alto! Ha! Welcome back to the spotlight, Mark Zuckerberg! On Sunday, photogs traveled a bit farther out than they normally do to catch up with the Facebook CEO as he spent the day with his girlfriend, Priscilla Chan in Palo Alto, CA. The duo took in a Farmer's Market and a enjoyed a Jewish festival nearby."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
2. From the November 5, 2009, issue of Haaretz (in English): "[Arie Hasit] met Mark Zuckerberg in 2002 after they had joined the same fraternity which primarily concentrated on activities within the Jewish community.

   "'We ate Shabbat dinner together,' Hasit said. 'Every year we raised money for charities in Israel. Mark was one of the members of the fraternity, like many other Jewish students at Harvard.'

   "Hasit, who wears a skullcap, says the 25-year-old Zuckerberg feels an affinity with Judaism. 'He fasts on Yom Kippur,' Hasit says of Zuckerberg. 'Sometimes he would come to the Hillel House, a Jewish organization that ran various activities.'"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

3. From "'The Social Network' Review" by Weiner, Ph.D. Octopus (a blog by some Ph.D. candidates in history):

   "[...]I never met him, though in the interest of full disclosure, I did go on two dates with his sister Randi (I had a good time and I think she did, though nothing ever came of it). But since I never met him, I can only go by what I’ve heard and what I’ve read. [...]

   [...]

   "I can attest to the spectacular lameness of AEPi parties. Alpha Epsilon Pi, the Jewish fraternity, has a mixed reputation nationally, but an especially bad one at Harvard, where frats are considered the poor man’s Final Clubs. In some ways, this was literally true: the frats at Harvard, because they did not have fancy mansions right by campus, appealed to a less elite, or elitist, clientele. As a result, they were generally eager to attract members, and were basically inclusive rather than exclusive. I never joined one, but appreciated them for that.

   [...]

   "Beyond all this, however, the character of Summers-–Harvard’s first Jewish president-–fits in perfectly with Sorkin and Fincher’s anti-WASP narrative. As reviewer David Denby of the The New Yorker describes the movie’s Summers-Winkelvoss encounter:

   one can feel, in this seemingly unimportant scene, history falling into place, a shift from one kind of capitalism to another. Fincher and Sorkin wickedly imply that Summers is Zuckerberg thirty years older and many pounds heavier. He has the same kind of brightest-guy-in-the-room arrogance, and little sympathy entitled young men talking about ethics when they’ve been left behind by a faster innovator.

   "It would be nice to think of Zuckerberg as a sort of Jewish Horatio Alger type in 2003. Truth gets in the way of course: the real Zuckerberg comes from an upper-middle-class Jewish family; his sister went to Horace Mann and he went to Exeter. When I was at Harvard, many Jews were on the inside of Final Clubs looking out. The same is true today. Jews are over-represented (based on their proportion of the population) and extremely comfortable at America’s elite institutions.

   "Nonetheless, the story in the movie works, though Sorkin takes some license to make it work especially smoothly: Divya Narendra, the Winklevoss’ South-Asian sidekick, is portrayed as something of a nebbishy outsider himself: the real Narendra is athletic and handsome (I met him in the summer of 2002, before any of this went down). At the very beginning of the movie, Zuckerberg makes fun of a fictional ex-girlfriend “Erica Albright,” noting that her last name used to be Albrecht, as her family too sought entry into a more elite, more gentile realm.

   "Zuckerberg’s opening conversation with Albright may be the most realistic scene in the movie, not for the too sharp yet entertaining dialogue, but for the disdain that so many Harvard students hold towards less selective universities and the people who attend them. I noticed this when I was there, I notice it even more today. I’m an elitist, and I think a certain amount of elitism is ok and even good, but Harvard probably goes to far, telling its students over and over that they are “the best and the brightest” from day one. It often turns smart people into worse human beings."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've decided not to fight the however issue because I can't see myself getting any traction if I seek assistance outside this Talk page, and there's no consensus on the issue here. I've changed the language to be "considers himself" to conform to source. I removed Hodgson's change to wikilink Jewish atheism because it is not supported by the source and because there's no indication that Zuckerberg self-identifies as a Jewish atheist. Finally, I'm going to remove the material about his membership in the Jewish fraternity in this part of the article because the idea was to be talking about his childhood, not his adulthood. It will, of course, remain in the other part of the article as information. Hopefully, all of this is agreeable. If not, I'm sure I'll hear about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone considers themselves atheist they are atheist

Per WP:BLPCAT; "self-identification" is primal in religious matters. If we have RS saying Zuckerberg "considers himself atheist" then he is atheist, as far as WP is concerned. Unless there is objection I'm changing "although, as an adult, he describes himself as an atheist" to "although, he is now an atheist". NickCT (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I object. You could have joined the earlier discussion about this issue instead of jumping in now and starting a new section. Some editors might think "describes himself" or "considers himself" to be weasel words, but it's what the sources say, and it's a little softer than he IS. That point was also made earlier in the discussion. If we had a quote from Zuckerberg, I'd feel differently, but I think it's fine the way it is, and I don't like the word "now" because "now" is a moving target.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, is not only a religious matter. Also, I against both "now" and "as an adult". He's an atheist, we don't know since when he's one so lets leave it as "though Z describes himself as an atheist". --Gilisa (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem, as Wikiwatcher explained so well, is without some time qualifier, it sounds weird juxtaposed against the preceding phrase about his childhood. I have two possible alternatives, although I'd also like to hear from Wikiwatcher before we pick a wording: (1) "although, as of 2007, he describes himself as an atheist" or (2) "although he has since described himself as an atheist." I think "although" is a bit better than "though", and the earliest source is dated 2007.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Several replies

Re "You could have joined the earlier discussion" - If I had seen it, I probably would have.

Re "but it's what the sources say" - We're under no obligation to quote the sources verbatim as long as we don't change what they say.

Re " If we had a quote from Zuckerberg, I'd feel differently" - Are you saying you don't trust the sources?

Re "I don't like the word "now"" - Ok. How about "although, he later became an atheist"

Re "is not only a religious matter" - Yes it is. Please take the whole "ethnoreligious" shenanigans somewhere where people care. WP is not a place to insert your personal views about religion.

Re "He's an atheist, we don't know since when he's one" - The current wording is ambiguous regarding when he became an atheist, so what's wrong with switching to new wording which is also ambiguous? NickCT (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Replying NickCT "Yes it is. Please take the whole "ethnoreligious" shenanigans somewhere where people care. WP is not a place to insert your personal views about religion." -NickCT, who exactly appoint you to be Wikipedia spokesmen or specialist for Jewish people? Where in wikipedia exactly being Jewish is matter of religion only? The only thing shouldn't be care of in WP is uncivil purposely provoking POV comments (e.g., Yours is cited at the beginning of my reply) on articles TPs. And as for "The current wording is ambiguous regarding when he became an atheist, so what's wrong with switching to new wording which is also ambiguous? ", Wikipedia have declared quality standards we should meet when getting to edit on it. It's every editor responsibility to keep them in mind when he reply on TPs and certainly when edit. So, we don't have any source that tell when he became atheist but we know he grew up Jewish. So ambiguity is within the source-and that's very common ambiguity that BLP Wikipedia articles normally contain. Your suggestion is to add unnecessary ambiguity and hence it's not an helpful one.--Gilisa (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "appoint you to be Wikipedia spokesmen or specialist for Jewish people" - No one. I'm a specialist on WP:RNPOV and WP:BLPCAT. WP is not here to endorse Jewish religious POVs, or the POVs of any other religion.

Re " The only thing shouldn't be care of in WP is uncivil purposely" - With respect, I'm being uncivil towards your position, not your person. We all have a few silly ideas Gilisa. I certainly do at least. We should all be grateful when others are willing to try to point them out to us. I know I am.

Re "suggestion is to add unnecessary ambiguity" - Don't understand this comment. Isn't my rewording equally ambiguous to the current wording? NickCT (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

NickCT, I didn't accuse you for PA me, just for being uncivil. And being disrespectful through one who have different opinions than yours, asking him to take these opinions to somewhere where someone would actually care about them and then moderating that by referring to them as just "silly" is not complying with WP:CIVIL. As for the issue itself, I can't see how RNPOV make your point any stronger or suggesting that I'm wrong. RNPOV doesn't say that you can call the very common view of Jewish people as being ethnic and religious group at the same time ""ethnoreligious" shenanigans" -on the contrary, it asks you to be careful when you referring to the views and edit on other people. As for WP:BLPCAT I just wanted to remind you we're not discussing the category here, just the personal life section, so just keep in mind that it's not very relevant here. Self identification is important for the category only and though he's an atheist he does see himself Jewish -and reliable sources with such self identification by him are available.--Gilisa (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that the sourced info about Zuckerberg been Jewish fraternity was removed. I don't remember that we agreed about removing relevant sourced content. Please restore it. --Gilisa (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a few paragraphs down along with other random details. It actually might fit better in the first paragraph which focuses more on on religion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with having made a new section out of this. I said that the part about the fraternity didn't belong in that sentence because it was contrasting his upbringing as a child and his beliefs as an adult (at least that's the first time we have a source for it). The Bar Mitzvah was when he was 13, but the fraternity was when he was in college (no longer a child and no longer being raised). Plus, the fraternity IS covered later down, so the "sourced info" is not lost.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Please reply to my suggested alternatives for the wording. NickCT got hung up in an argument without responding. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm against the "describes himself" language. It seems to leave room for doubt that that's actually what he is. NickCT (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no "room for doubt", either in the phrase "describes himself" or "considers himself". It's just a turn of phrase that conforms to the sources and we would not be putting either phrase in quotes because it's unnecessary. Just as the journalists used it, it's a softer phrase, but it's not equivocal. It also works better with the two alternatives I proposed because both are qualified by time.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The connecting phrase, "although he has since described himself as an atheist" seems fine, even without proof he's taken vows. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There being no further responses, I've changed the text to Wikiwatcher's choice of my two alternative wordings. I know that not everyone is 100% pleased, but I hope we can put this to rest now.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "he does see himself Jewish -and reliable sources with such self identification by him are available" - Can you point to this for me? If this is the case, then my viewpoint would completely change. NickCT (talk) 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• NickCT, yes, he may or may not have recently written somewhere that he is Jewish. (I've just skimmed this section and those above but am putting in two cents anyway.) Nonetheless, we should avoid saying one way or the other, really. When we "divine"/guess, we may make ourselves seem geniuses/dummm, but doing so simply ain't WPdia's game--rather, it's to follow the sources. Which show him to be Jewish; so I again suggest Wikipedia should avoid implying him not to be, in my opinion, period.

  I'd already linked to WP's "Jewish atheism" article; what follows is one on "Humanistic Judaism." And, in the following piece (-->www.suite101.com/content/atheism-and-humanistic-viewpoints-in-judaism-a134891) about this "branch" (one could argue) of Judaism, it is argued:

  Some Jews however, see themselves as atheists, and interpret Judaism as a matter of culture and history. Many, such as members of the Society for Humanistic Judaism, and affiliated congregations, do not place their belief in God, but rather in the cultural, ethical and humanistic nature of Jews as a historic people.

  Founded by Rabbi Sherwin T. Wine in 1969....

  ...

  Humanistic Judaism is actually a religious perspective. Humanistic Judaism congregations serve as a social support for its members through affiliation, education and acknowledgment of life-cycle events, much like Orthodox, Conservative and Reform congregations do. The congregations are led by rabbis, who serve as leaders of the community and Jewish holiday events.

  Congregations that endorse Jewish humanism don’t support formal conversions to the religion; rather, an individual who identifies with and wishes to be a part of a Humanistic congregation joins together with the congregation to “adopt” each other into their existence. This perspective is in part founded in the belief that Judaism should be a pluralistic existence and is enriched by others’ experiences and cultural backgrounds.

  Atheism and Jewish Acts and Beliefs. Humanistic Jews believe in many of the same precepts as theistic Jews: Tzedakah, or charity, is a fundamental element in Jewish ethics, and it is no less so for Humanistic Jews. Performing acts of loving kindness (visiting the sick; doing acts of good for others) are a foundation for all Jewish congregations. [...]

  It seems that Mark and Priscilla recently celebrated one of the Shalosh R’galim: a phrase that Mark knows to mean the "Three Pilgrimage Festivals", since he reads and writes Hebrew. [Note that his older sister knows Hebrew enough to have filled in as a cantor. WP's "Hazzan": "In practice, those with the best voice and the most knowledge of the prayers serve much more often."] IAC, during Sukkot, we can assume that Mark and Priscilla entered into the temporarily constructed booths (or tabernacles, as they are called in the New Testament) and shook a lulav: a citron, a palm branch, three myrtle twigs and two willow branches. Yet, were their hosts Orthodox? Conservative? Reform? Reconstructionist? or a group professing Humanistic Judaism? We don't know. Sure, Orthodox thinking holds that other branches aren't of Jewish "faith," even though there may be people who qualify as being Jewish according to halacha that follow them. Likewise, many probably philosophically hold that those adhering to Jewish humanism don't actually engage in a form of religious expression. But, the fact is, such forms of culture and worship exist! It's not up to us to make judgments on these issues. However, we do have word from Mark's roomies and even from the Palo Alto paparazzi (via Perez Hilton) that Mark and Priscilla do Jewish stuff. So I would say that such indications should lead WPdia to avoid implying him no longer Jewish, absent his own specific words to this effect.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Pic, atheist Zuck in kippah--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

IOW, the title of this discussion is a little misleading. The question isn't whether or not Mark is atheist but whether or not he is also Jewish. Right? This isn't an unusual situtation for Wikibiographers to be in. (See Sigmund Freud, Noam Chomsky, Ayn Rand, etc.) How to proceed? By whatever the person says about hi/rself. For example, the recent Pew survey first asked follks... OK, let me Google the exact question. OK, the source is here. Its survey first asked American folks, ""What is your present religion, if any? Are you Protestant, Roman Catholic, Mormon, Orthodox, such as Greek or Russian Orthodox, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, something else, or nothing in particular?" Then, to those respondents who identified themselvese, at the time of their taking the survey, as more-so Jewish than atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular, the Pew survey asked these self-identifying Jews if they believed in God or a universal spirit. Fifteen percent of such respondents did not. (Note: See also the WP article "Demographics of atheism.")--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I also notice that random WPdians have put WP Category:Judaic studies in academia as a sub-cat of not only WP Category:Study of religion but also of WP Category:Ethnic studies.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I've started a discussion on the underlying issue at the blp noticeboard, here.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image vs reality

"Fencing star," "dated...Chan since he was 19," "prodigy (computer programming) app developer," "enterprising computer scientist under 30": Yep, speaking of the film, the NYT says about the "the real Mark Zuckerberg, the 26-year-old Facebook founder, is a broad-shouldered former Exeter fencing star and prodigy app developer who has dated a knockout named Priscilla Chan since he was 19." Which, IMO, when added to the slew of other media mentions of such things, shows their importance in our article!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree, up to a point. The article you quoted is more of a movie review with personal opinions by the writer mixed in. Should we therefore describe his girlfriend as a "knockout" in this article, for instance? It might be safer to stay clear of fictionalized movies as a source of facts. But it does describe the "real" Zuckerberg by his professional terms, computer scientist and software developer, which should be listed. Describing him as a "philanthropist" may be a stretch at this point. Philanthropists are often people who spend much, and sometimes most, of their time contributing and supporting various causes, especially after they retire. Ambrose Bierce's description:

Philanthropist. A rich (and usually bald) old gentleman who has trained himself to grin while his conscience is picking his pocket. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we should put the quote in the infobox. :-) On a more serious note, I was reluctant to label Zuckerberg a philanthropist, but I think the source about his pledge helped significantly.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions

Parts of the article could use some more details from the numerous sources already listed. As it is, it's off-balance with legal cases and court minutia. The cases can be trimmed since they have their own articles. Feel free to edit and rephrase at will. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a typo....search for "sofware"...should be "software" --Jabofdeath (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Edenc1 • Talk 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

China

He's in China. Will put mention in past wp:TENSE.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC) From here: supposedly on a vacation with his girlfriend, but analysts say there seems to be a bigger purpose to his China visit.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Priscilla Chan

I don't think the link for Mark Zuckerberg's girlfriend is correct. The current link goes to Priscilla Chan, who is a Hong Kong singer born in 1965, apparently not the right person. Would someone with necessary privileges please fix this? --114.246.153.117 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a disambiguation page is necessary for this. --114.246.153.117 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed — Disambiguation is useful when and if she has her own article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Has Mark Zuckerberg Really Given any wealth to anyone?

I know we keep hearing the articles and news from mark zuckerberg in google and yahoo news but has anyone been able to confirm he has given anyone anything? If mark really gave away half of his wealth and is looking for other billionaires to do the same I think he is going to be pretty lonely. After all I don't really think that these numbers are ever real. Its seems so grandios and how many times has a google account been cancled or other media giants cancled a affilliate simply because they can't come up with $100 bucks even. How is it these guys get away with braging about billions and we never see even a 100 bucks from them? Seems all so silly really I do believe one thing with all 100 thousand people in the us employed by this industry I believe they all lose over 1 billion per year. Can anyone confirm that this gut really got half of Marks money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.200.232 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources indicate that Zuckerberg donated money. Reliable sources indicate that Zuckerberg pledged to eventually (not yet) donate the "majority" of his money. The reliable sources are confirmations of what he has done and intends to do. There's nothing in the article about this "guy" and Zuckerberg.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientist? Majored in computer science?

This man is not a scientist nor he ever majored in computer science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.32.193.81 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, a computer scientist studies theoretical aspects of computation -- it's not an applied field, and is more like, say, set theory, than it is like website development. There's nothing in Zuck's bio to back up the claim that he's done any theoretical work whatsoever. Just being good at what you do doesn't make a scientist, or even a computer scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.212.176 (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider the detailed definition in the book, A Balanced Introduction to Computer Science, by David Reed, Ph.D. (2008), p. 177 -[3] He makes it clear, even with diagrams, that computer scientists work in the areas of software, hardware, or theory. He summarizes the definition (p. 192):

• "The three recurring themes that define the discipline of computer science are hardware (the physical components of computers), software (the programs that execute on computers), and theory (an understanding of the capabilities and limitations of computers)."
• "The discipline of computer science encompasses many subfields, including algorithms and data structures, architecture, operating systems and networks, software engineering, and artificial intelligence and robotics."--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't say he's a scientist, just a computer scientist. However, I agree that there's little support for such a claim. I have changed the language in the Harvard section because the sources do not say he majored in computer science. One source says he studied computer science. I have not removed the reference in the infobox for Fields (computer science), even though there's nothing to support that field in that source. I have also not changed the lead, although I think it's a gross exaggeration to say he's a computer scientist. I'd like to hear from others before doing that. I also think that putting his Facebook activities after the other stuff in the lead makes zero sense. Unless I hear from other editors, I'll make further changes.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it's not a "gross exaggeration to say he's a computer scientist," or to say he majored in it, based on what's been written. But because he dropped out, as did Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, it's not presumptuous to say they were "computer science" majors. I think the problem is we're reading too much into the word "scientist" and "major." It's almost impossible to enroll in any major U.S. college without declaring a major, even if you're enrolling for a "general" or "liberal arts" education.

Since we know that Zuckerberg had already taken "advanced" college computer studies while in high school, had his own private tutor in computers, programmed at an early age, and "studied" computers in college, it's no great stretch to claim he "majored" in the subject - on the contrary it's a logical one.

In U.S. colleges, "computer science" is still usually the umbrella term for any computer-related majors. There can be courses related to almost any specialized programming language or area of computers and they typically still are under the "computer science" umbrella. Maybe in other countries the term "computer scientist" is used more literally, as in chip-designers wearing white lab coats and static-free white gloves, it's not the case in the U.S. So as another POV comment, it's not contradictory to say that because we don't consider programmers "scientists" that they can't be considered "computer scientists." It's just that the English language doesn't have a better phrase. A 100 years ago, an "engineer" was usually assumed to be a train conductor. Not anymore!

An example of its use as a a typical common language term: "Harvard's program in computer science and electrical engineering has a core group of faculty, renowned for its contributions to artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, computer security, computer networking, computing theory, distributed systems, programming systems, systems engineering, and robotics." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the source (which is his own bio) says he took courses. I don't think we should draw any inferences from that statement about his major(s). People can do all sorts of things in high school and then major in something else. Unless we have a source saying computer science was a major, we simply can't say it, as logical as it might seem to some.

In any event, that's not as important as deciding what to do about the lead and the infobox. If others agree with you that we can call him a computer scientist, I'll, of course, defer to the consensus, although I think the label "computer scientist" is much more than somebody who took computer classes. If you look at Wikipedia's own article on computer scientist, it's considered a science, not just someone who can program. In other words, a computer scientist might be able to program, but a programmer isn't necessarily a computer scientist.

Finally, if the consensus is to leave computer scientist in, what about prioritization? Shouldn't Facebook come first?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying to insist that Zuckerberg isn't a scientist because he doesn't have an advanced degree nor teach at a university, etc, is silly. According that that definition--ie that despite Zuck's innovations and patents, he is not someone making notable contributions in computer science--Edison would be said not to have contributed to the field of electrical engineering, etc., or even Mendel to have not contributed to the science of breeding. After all, he was "just a priest!") Iac, I'll add Virginia Heffernan's piece to the "computer science" field in the infobox (note that Heffernan's blp says she started as a fact checker w The New Yorker, has been noted as one of the up-and-coming editors, blah blah....and is now a critic for the NYT).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edison had three months of schooling but somebody put "scientist" in his wikibiography's lede. Hmm. And Mendel at 26 (ironically: Zuck's current age) got the "certificate for the completion of his theological training". --so, that means he...was a theologian right?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

John Muir,"attending classes for two years but never being listed higher than a first year student," is considered a "botanist" and "engineer," based on what he accomplished, not what he received a degree in. Seems that definitions have changed a bit since then.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Heffernan, not only an experienced researcher and editor but with a Harvard PhD, wrote, "a computer scientist, Zuckerberg knows his attention is his chief asset"--and her apprenticeship with an American literary mag/ownership of some fancily-caligraphed sheepskins don't bely her competence in reasonable usage of "computer science" wrt dropout computing wizzes such as Mr. Zuckerberg, at least IMO.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

OK people, now I'm just mad. I trusted that my fellow editors are competent so had the impression that something about Zuck's majors was hard to verify. But then it took me all of three seconds to come up with--on the top of my Google search list, a New York magazine article about the recent TIME PotY designation where Zuck says he "was a psychology major at the same time as being a computer-science major." I mean come on! I know Wiki isn't written by experts, but just because some...uninformed person (I'm trying to be nice) opens this section with the statement, duhh, "...nor he ever majored in computer science"..........does that mean we just sit down at our computer and type in a response that says, "um uh yeah! wow! the reference cited implies he majored in it but doesn't concretely say so. Let's remove that statement." Huh? WITHOUT OUR EVEN TAKING FIVE SECONDS TO GOOGLE THE QUESTION? <shakes head>--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Until now I thought you needed to be a certified "Search engineer" to use Google for that kind of research. But could you clarify whether it was "three seconds" or "five seconds" to do it, since time is always an issue, especially with holidays coming up. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Biography (Channel): The 26-year-old American computer scientist and software developer was chosen over the Tea Party...
2. NYT: Mr. Zuckerberg has become a prominent philanthropist.
3. David Kirkpatrick (interviewed about his book Facebook Effect): [...W]hy Facebook trumped MySpace and Friendster, in particular[...]is that Mark Zuckerberg is really[...]a real computer scientist. And being a computer scientist, he had that sort of iterative desire to continually improve his service from a technology point of view, but he also had that Andy Grove [of Intel] point of view, “Only the paranoid survive,” so he never rested. [...] Facebook was always intended to be a service to communicate with people you already knew in the real world, and that has been its sort of DNA from the beginning.
4. Guardian: the cocksure computer scientist says it is 'almost guaranteed" to reach 1 billion users eventually'
5. New Yorker: decided to major in psychology ... Between classes, he continued to write programs ... acquiring a reputation on campus as a programming prodigy

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lede professional descriptors

Although (according to Wikipedia), "As a discipline, computer science spans a range of topics from theoretical studies of algorithms and the limits of computation to the practical issues of implementing computing systems in hardware and software," and therefore Zuck's activity is certainly within the field of computing/computer science--rather than term him a computer scientist in the lede perhaps we should precisely specify what his subfield of activity is, namely, "programming/website development"?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Worth a try, but it might be safer and easier to just describe his activities rather than "precisely specify" them. As an "entrepreneur" and creator of such a large and growing enterprise, he must delegate those activities, even though he should be credited with them. But if WP:RSs start using any others, along with "computer scientist," etc., we can add them also.

A bit OT, but even though "entreprenuer" has a nice ring to it, it's possibly too generic nowadays to use here. Anyone who is self-employed is technically an "entrepeneur." How about, "is an American computer scientist, and software developer known for creating the social networking site Facebook, of which he is CEO and president."?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(What does OT mean? Smiles - I'm unfamiliar w that Internet initialism.)
I think the decision one way or the other is stylistic and minor. Still, as an argument for taking out the word scientist from the lede, I think the case is akin to a rapper's lede saying s/he is a poet. Well, yeah. But emphasizing the obvious point makes it seem that we may be saying eg s/he is someone who publishes in prestige (...well, so-called) literary mags. So, it is clearer simply to avoid the possible misinterpretation by saying the person is a rapper in the lede and then further on down, mention the delight that critics have expressed in this particular rap artist's poetry, if that be the case. The bottom line is which descriptors are used the most in the sources. If rapper shows up exponentially more than reference to poetry then my supposition is that using rapper as a descriptor in the lede would likely be more CLEAR--despite the fact that a rapper is obviously a poet, too. (Oh, and as for the distinction you've just made between WP's accurately describing something and our precisely specifying it: you've lost me; innit one ovem desame as deother?) To bring this all home now--more sources say that Zuckerberg is a software developer and Internet entrepreneur than mention his obvious, professional contributions to C.S., so perhaps our specifying the former (or, if you prefer: describing the same) in the lede would be more precise, in that it would be less likely to imply that Mr. Zuckerberg is a credentialed academic, that's all. Obviously, as soon as they read further they'll figure out that he is a gifted C.S. person who nonetheless is a drop-out, but just to avoid any confusion, we could finesse the issue and avoid mention of "scientist," etc., so early on in the article. At least until the context has been laid? Just my two cents.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
In case it appears I'm contradicting myself in this thread: My frustration with the initiator of the thread had to do with hi/r essentially saying something like Whaa? Dis guy ain't no philosopher! and dey didn't major in philosophy"--when talking about someone known for having written an influential book of thought, despite having been a philosophy drop-out at university...after, YES, having majored in the subject!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the "OT" ("off topic") shortcut term. But per the numerous reliable sources you found, it seems that "computer scientist" is a logical umbrella term and understandable by average readers. I responded to Bbb23 with examples of many sub-fields within that "common language" umbrella, and depending on one's perspective, even "software developer" can be considered a broad term. But I think for the lede, at this point, they both work fine together since the body text can be used to either "describe" (generally) or "precisely specify" his activities at the company, if we have sources that describe them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ww1: Fair nuff!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Girlfriend

Does anybody know where exactly Priscilla Chan is from? I have read things saying she is "Chinese" but that is so broad. Any info? Thanks! 220.130.153.7 (talk) 07:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese-American from Boston.[4] --Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the criticism SECTION??

NOTHING in this blatantly slanted so called encyclopedic piece. I guess most of us have to rely on authentic truthful websites instead of Wikipropogandia. And Aaron Sorkin should win an award for fiction. http://www.businessinsider.com/is-the-social-network-true-2010-10# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Trim per BLP talk guidelines--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Would this quote from Mark Zuckerberg in the early days of Facebook be worth to be mentioned in this article?

Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask.
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks.

http://www.businessinsider.com/well-these-new-zuckerberg-ims-wont-help-facebooks-privacy-problems-2010-5

Excessive vandalism

It seems the ratio of value-added edits to disruptive ones is shifting to the negative side. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Still scientist?

Here I see that some of the Wikipedia users are pretending to know the correct question and the correct answer to the correct question. This man was one of few who was never recognized as scientist by (true) scientists. This type of "promotion" of an ordinary opportunist who managed to establish monopolistic position on the Internet market is called in the Wikipedia lingo POV.

Ah, yes! "......... the more obvious, though exponentially more controversial choice, would have been Assange, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Wikileaks, who embodies anti-authoritarianism and who also happened to top a reader’s poll in which Zuckerberg came in 10th.". All from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/12/zuck/.--71.163.233.241 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies Mark Zuckerberg as a Computer Scientist? Wikipedia may say (in the associated CS article), "Computer scientists typically have some kind of degree in computer science", but a BSCS degree is almost always inferred when someone states that qualification. Opening the article by stating that he is a computer scientist is probably misleading to most who are unfamiliar with his background...given that he dropped out of college and has yet to attain an undergraduate degree in any subject. I suggest changing "Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is an American computer scientist, software developer and ..." to "Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is an American software developer and ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.223.116.200 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, IP (immediately above). I'd suggest you either start a RFC or an informal poll of mere passersby here on the talkpage. I would make such a change myself but don't think the reader is all that misled in that Zuck IS a computer science, albeit NOT one that generally instructs in this field--other than with immediate colleagues, I suppose.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Young billionaire?

According to http://www.forbes.com/2010/10/06/americas-youngest-billionaires-business-young-billionaires.html, the youngest billionaire is Dustin Moskovitz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.216.94 (talk) 04:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere in this article is stated that Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire. Either way, both born in the same year, so both are youngs and billionaries, but Moskovitz still the "placeholder". Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 04:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Plausible.fabulist, 21 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The current Personal Life section has: "At a party put on by his fraternity during his sophomore year, Zuckerberg met Priscilla Chan, who subsequently became his girlfriend.[1] In September 2010, Chan, now a medical student, moved into Zuckerberg's rented Palo Alto house.[1] Zuckerberg studies Mandarin Chinese every day, and the couple visited China in December 2010.[15][16] As of 2010, Facebook is blocked by that country's Internet firewall.[17]"

This can easily be read to give the impression that Chan was briefly encountered in college and showed up in 2010, once Zuckerberg was rich and famous -- an interpretation which would be consistent with the "Mark Zuckerberg" character in Sorkin's recent movie "The Social Network." So it's perhaps worth including the quote, from the same New Yorker article referenced in [1], "[H]e has been dating [Chan], with a brief interruption, since 2003". cf. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas#ixzz1BenScKqG

So the paragraph would then read: "At a party put on by his fraternity during his sophomore year, Zuckerberg met Priscilla Chan, who subsequently became his girlfriend.[1] They have been dating, with a brief interruption, since 2003.[1] In September 2010, Chan, now a medical student, moved into Zuckerberg's rented Palo Alto house.[1] Zuckerberg studies Mandarin Chinese every day, and the couple visited China in December 2010.[15][16] As of 2010, Facebook is blocked by that country's Internet firewall.[17]"

Plausible.fabulist (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done Thanks!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a typo in Legal controversies/Pakistan criminal investigation

Hi, the hyper link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day is masked with "Draw Muhammad" - with a 'u' and an 'a'.

Is this a small typo or an intentional correction of "Mohammed" original to the correct "Muhammad"?

greetings!

According to sources is "Muhammad". Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Eduardo Saverin

I wonder why Eduardo Saverin is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Wilcabral (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Check the 1st paragraph. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so he is mentioned. But I still wonder why there is a whole section in the article about court cases involving the creation of Facebook and Saverin is not mentioned THERE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilcabral (talk • contribs) 05:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a biography of Mark Zuckerberg, not of Eduardo Saverin. Take a look at the history of Facebook. Corvus cornix_talk 06:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Wilcabral. There is a subtopic in the article called Legal Controversies, which discusses other legal controversies involving Mark Zuckerberg. That subtopic is not complete without some reference to the Eduardo Saverin controversy.VickiMeagher (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Request image restoration

User:Tbhotch decided, without discussion, to delete the Sat. Night Live photo. He did so under the rationale that "as a reader, [I] can only see Zuckerberg and Eisenberg and free images of both exist." As stated on the image Summary and on its Talk page, that was not the point of the photo — it was the event that was supported by the photo. IMO, the image should never have been tagged for deletion or removed under such a misinterpretation. Feel free to visit the image Talk page and add your comments either way. If anyone (else) wants to restore it pending discussion, feel free, and add a "pending deletion" tag to it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when users have to "discuss" when an image violates the Non-free content criteria (NFCC)? The image, which anyone can describe it as "An image of Mark Zuckerberg and Jesse Eisenberg shaking their hands", hardly have a encyclopedic purpose. In this file they are not playing a role on Saturday Night LIve (SNL), and they are only meeting each other. With this, it fails the following points of the fair use rules:

• 1.- Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created -> As living people free images exist, as I commented. A free image of Eisenberg can be added to this article and comment the same: Zuckerberg and Eisenberg appeared in an episodie of SNL
• 3b.- Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used -> The image is 657 × 614 pixels when copyrighted works mustn't exceed 300 x 300 pixels
• 8.- Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. -> I, as a reader (and I bet that all readers will agree), only see two men shaking their hands. In any moment I feel my understanding of The Social Network increase just because they met each other. According to its purpose of use this file "Support[s] critical commentary about their appearance on this show." but its caption is only "Zuckerberg and Eisenberg on Saturday Night Live, Jan. 29, 2011", which is not a "critical commentrary", it is just an obligated caption.

As you can read the images violates the NFCC in at least three different ways and it easily can be replaced by free content. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 03:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that image since it was first uploaded. I don't think it is necessary to help the reader better understand what happened. It's just the two of them standing next to each other, not really that momentous an occasion. Gary King (talk · scripts) 06:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

To allow all viewers of the photo a chance to comment, instead of just talk page readers, I'm reinserting the image with a tag stating it's up for deletion and is open for comments. This is only reasonable and fair. I also added a more detailed rationale to the image file itself to substantiate its value to the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with editor Tbhotch. The image does not qualify under non-free use rationale and should be deleted. As was explained, images of both men are available. The act of shaking hands on a network TV show does not qualify the image as a subject of commentary. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree with Tbhotch. The image should not be in the article. I also think the speedy deletion template is truly ugly. I'm surprised Wikipedia allows for that kind of display to the general readership. As for the fair use rationale, it sucks. If that were a correct rationale under the law, then we could pretty much use any picture we wanted to and call it commentary.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of non-editors, could you explain what you mean by "it sucks?" That phrase is a bit generic and POV and adds nothing. Implying that any photo from anywhere could just as easily be called "commentary" is strange. The commentary from the WP article and the matching photo caption, are taken from a reliable source, People magazine. They use the exact "commentary" in their article title and body. The photo supports those directly, so there is an overwhelming connectivity. If that doesn't qualify as "fair use," it would seem that nothing possibly could. Are you honestly saying that anyone could take any old photo and support it just as easily with a major magazine story, a major TV show, and a WP article that uses them in its commentary? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly having trouble following you. First, the phrase "it sucks" may not be elegant, but I wouldn't call it generic. Second, I explained what I meant after I said it. Third, I'm talking in a legal sense, which is what this is all about. Fair use is a complex legal issue and involves the analysis of four factors. As a lead-in to those factors, the statute says: "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, ... is not an infringement of copyright." 17 U.S.C. sec. 107. However, even when a copyrighted work is copied for the purpose of "comment", it still must be analyzed using the four factors. In other words, just saying the use is for comment or for criticism doesn't end the inquiry. If it did - and as I said - then any copyrighted work could be copied when it's arguably used for comment regardless of the particular case. I don't understand your last sentence, but I think I said precisely the opposite.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence was from your conclusion: then we could pretty much use any picture we wanted to and call it commentary. In other words, because you seem to be equating this image with any typical photo, and ignoring the significant connections between the TV show, magazine, movie, the photo's caption, and this article's commentary, I wanted to be sure I understood what you said, which is that none of it really matters, at least in your opinion. Correct me if I misread you. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, this is just a picture, the copyright of which belongs to someone else. Wikipedia is copying the picture. Even assuming the copy is being used for comment, it's not fair use. To reiterate, IF the only thing required for fair use was to say that a copyrighted work is being used for comment, then Wikipedia could probably copy just about any picture it wanted, as long as there was a connection between the picture and the article. The "connections" that you place so much emphasis on are only relevant to support your view that it's valid comment. But that's just the beginning of the legal analysis, and the remainder - and more important part - fails.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

In reply to Tbhotch's list of 3 reasons above:

• 1: No free equivalent image of the "event" is available or could be created for obvious reasons. Again, this is not another photo of a notable person, but of the sourced commentary about the event itself;
• 3b It's easy to modify pixel size, and is no reason for a Speedy delete;
• 8 The sourced commentary is in the article, not the caption.

Basically, just because you personally "only see two men shaking their hands," is no justification for deleting the image. In fact, that comment alone hints at a point of view rationale for your action.

Note also that the value of the photo to readers is implied in that over 4,200 viewers clicked on the image during the 3 days it was in the article. This compares to other images in the article, including one with Zuckerberg and Robert Scoble which was viewed 33 times during the same time frame, and Zuckerberg at the World Economic Forum with just 30 views. In comparison, readers clicked the image you removed over 100 times more than the other images, proving its value to readers who apparently saw more than just "two men shaking hands." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The number of clicks on an image has nothing to do with whether it infringes copyright. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, since it is a recent event the image obviously will have much more popularity than any other image. Just because of this the image, automatically, passes the NFCC rules. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that you replied to my points of the NFCC, which you apparently don't understand, copyrighted files are used ONLY if they could not be recreated. In the article Empire State of Mind, the author used a free image in the music video section rather than a copyrighted image that would be used for the same purpose, that is what the NFCC1 states, the use of copyrighted images are only used if you could not recreate the same work. You also insist, that this is not "for the photo", that it is because of the "unique moment". According to you, this "moment in history" will increase readers' interest because, again according to you, this is the very first time they met each other. This is complety untrue (and unsourced). If you, as an actor, are going to play a non-fictional character, you have to learn how the character is. Thus, you have to meet the person in a moment, or learn about him. On the other hand, your argue that "free images don't exist", is also untrue. Saturday Night Live is a show where people exist and they can take pictures whenever they want, and therefore, someone could take a photo of both. If this image exist, many others of SNL exist. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to let others give their opinion without budding in. But since you keep stating blatantly untrue facts, I'll comment some more:

First, when you quote someone, i.e. "unique moment," or "according to you, this 'moment in history'", etc. the quotes shouldn't be made up or interpreted. Those quotes were not what anyone wrote. Secondly, you wrote "again according to you, this is the very first time they met each other. This is completey untrue (and unsourced)." You obviously have not yet read the sourced section or viewed the video clip link. If you had, you would have discovered it was true and sourced. Third, your suggestion that the photo is replaceable, since they can actually be brought back to SNL, where "someone could take a photo of both" of them meeting for the first time, is interesting.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I support restoring the photo. Eisenberg said he'd never met Zuckerberg until that night. Saying they'd do the show again for your camera is dreaming, sorry. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys sure that they really hadn't met each other before that moment? Since SNL episodes are always rehearsed a few times in advance. Even Zuckerberg's appearance was rehearsed at least once, maybe just before the show perhaps, so that there was as few screw-ups as possible (even though he may not looked like he rehearsed at all). Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Gary King. It doesn't matter whether it was rehearsed or not. If you watch the video they said they'd never met (if they rehearsed saying that, so what?) -SusanLesch (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Image problems noted above have been fixed by extensive commentary. Admin who deleted the file has been notified but has not been active on WP for nearly a week. So instead of submitting to deletion review, the image has been restored pending any comments from the admin. or anyone else that finds any new problems. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Image tagged for deletion (again) due it still failing the previous points, and it is used for decorative purposes. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 07:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Engie207, 18 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Depictions in media - Other depictions section Mark Zuckerberg recently showed up on Saturday Night Live to confront the man who played him in 'The Social Network'

Reference: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/jesse-eisenberg-monologue/1279517/

Engie207 (talk) 11:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The information is already in the article. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 19:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible attribution source for article.

According to Zuckerberg, the group planned to return to Harvard but eventually decided to remain in California.[attribution needed]

Possible attribution:

From a video on Businessinsider.com an interview with Mark Zuckerberg

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-2010-10

But we expected to go back to Harvard in the Fall and the thing that made it so that... that we didn't was that Harvard has this great policy that let's you take as much time off as you want. So we decided, "Okay let's go ahead and take one semester off and continue just building things out." And more people joined our team and at that point, we formally incorporated the company and got our investment from our first investor, Peter Thiel. And then things were just growing and we got up to a million users on our first year of running the site. And then we decided, "Okay, let's take a second term off from Harvard." And then, you know, just things kept on growing and we got up to about 5 million users and we were like, " Okay, let's take a whole year off." And then like, "All right, I guess we're not really going back." Gkashtan (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gkashtan (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Youngest Billionaire ?

Dustin Moskovitz is the youngest billionaire, younger than Zuckerberg 8 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.97.79 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Source: http://www.forbes.com/profile/dustin-moskovitz

Future

What is he gonna do next? Any plans to continue developing FB? Any new ventures? Retire young? I think it would add to the article.

Jhunt47 (talk) 09:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 1 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Hi,

Can you please delete that Mark Zuckerberg is a computer scientist. Mark Zuckerberg is smart and a great business person but he is not a scientist.

Thank you for removing that.

Regards

174.0.108.71 (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: I think you are misunderstanding what a computer scientist is. Additionally, the information about him being a computer scientist is sourced, so you will need to provide a source claiming that he is not a computer scientist. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia editors who decide what a person is or is not, but the reliable sources we use. The fact that you wrote "he is not a scientist," implies you're confusing the common term "scientist" with the already discussed "computer scientist" terminology. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading the debate over the "computer scientist" term in the lede I have changed "computer scientist" to "Internet entrepreneur" as requested because it's more reflective of Mr Zuckerberg's current role.

"Computer scientist" has a certain academic connotation that seems inappropriate for someone who has never published in a respected CS-related academic journal (consider that Bill Gates once co-authored a CS paper, but even so he is not described as a "computer scientist" in his Wikipedia article). The only sources that mention "computer scientist" in connection with Mr Zuckerberg are journalistic articles that use the term in an imprecise, colloquial way, and I don't think that Wikipedia should propagate this informal usage or treat these as "reliable sources" of terminology given the writers' lack of subject matter expertise (as an example, if Mark Zuckerberg were added to the List of computer scientists, which includes names greatly respected in the community of professional computer scientists for work in that area, it would no doubt meet with a speedy deletion).

The fact that Mr Zuckerberg majored in computer science and psychology while he was an undergraduate does not make him a computer scientist any more than it makes him a psychologist. We could of course say he was a "former computer science student", but "Internet entrepreneur" seems more appropriate. --Squishy (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought computer scientist is an absurd label to use for Zuckerberg. However, I was outvoted and gave up (on this issue and many others associated with this article). Although I agree with your reasoning, it's unlikely your change will hold up. Good luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. I can understand why a layman might have decided to add "computer scientist" to the article, but under closer scrutiny it really is an absurd label as you've said. Unfortunately, "computer scientist", like the term "hacker", is widely misunderstood among the general public and serves as a nebulous description of anyone who has a knowledge of computer programming or has taken a few CS classes in college, whereas in fact computer scientists are academic researchers (generally PhDs), often working in areas of advanced mathematics, and some of them are not even particularly good programmers! If at all possible I'd like to keep the terminology accurate. Who knows, the correct usage might even rub off on people? --Squishy (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that internet entrepreneur is fine as a commonly understood term, considering that it's followed by the bio details. The irony in this is that he probably has a team of hundreds of "computer scientists" working under him. But it's also true that anyone selling anything over the internet nowadays calls themselves an "internet entrepreneur," so that term is also not ideal, but in the reverse way. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is ironic. He's also a college dropout who has hundreds of graduates working under him, but that doesn't make him a graduate...at least not until he finishes another couple years of college! Also, while Zuckerberg is certainly much more high-profile than your run-of-the-mill Internet entrepreneur, I think he still belongs in that category. After all, Tom Cruise is still described as an "actor" even if he is far more famous than the actors who appear in local theater productions. --Squishy (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Winklevoss twins lost the case against Facebook creator and owner Mark Zuckerberg…for accusing him to steal the idea of the social networking site which he owns today. mark Zuckerberg wins case against Winklevoss twins.

Winklevoss brothers…Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss…argued that their settlement with the Facebook was unfair and claimed that the company had hid the information form them. This settlement took place between Mark and Winklevoss brothers in the year 2008 when the judge ruled that they will get $20 million in cash and $45 million in Facebook Stock…and the same claim stand till date.

The big objection by the twin brothers was that they got the share holder of $45 million when the company valued at $15 billion but later it was found that the company was valued at only $3 billion at that time, so they feel to get more stocks and ownership at that time.

Mark Zukerberg wins case against Winklevoss twins who proclaims him to steal the idea of the company. They proclaim have started a company named ConnectU while studying at the Harvard university along with Divya Narenda. And they hired Mark Zukerberg for their company when he stole the whole idea to create a new one.

But the argument of the twin brother was rejected by the court. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Alex Kozinski wrote the unanimous decision of the three-judge panel: “The Winklevoss are not the first parties bested by a competitor who then seek to gain through litigation what they were unable to achieve in the marketplace. The point has now been reached. At the very same point, litigation must come to an end.”

An attorney of the twin brother, Jerome Falk Jr., said his clients would seek a rehearing before a larger, “en banc” group of ninth circuit judge but the ultimate win for the day is Mark Zukerberg wins case against Winklevoss twins…lets see the twins now.

Will the ninth circuit judge panel will review the matter or they will go for the very last option the US Supreme court.

Who's a Jew

Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Following this edit, let's engage in another spirited "Who's a Jew" conversation. My opinion is, he hasn't "self-identified" as Jewish (to the best of my knowledge) nor is being of Jewish descent "relevant to his notability"; hence, per WP:BLPCAT, I say not Jewish. NickCT (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly covered by RSs. And clearly notable.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche - Just b/c you can back it up with RSs doesn't cut it for categorization. You've been part of the policy debates. "Self-identification" and/or "relevance to notability" are the bar. So unless you have a reference in which either 1) Zuckerberg says "I consider myself Jewish", or 2) the relevance of his Jewish heritage is linked to his being the founder of Facebook, he should not be categorized as such. NickCT (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

He clearly self-identified, and all manner of RSs covered it as notable when covering Zuckerberg the facebook founder. I gave you 10. If you're pressed for time, just focus on the articles that I gave you about the Jewish facebook founder allowing Holocaust deniers on facebook. If that's not enough, focus on the hundreds or thousands more refs to satisfy yourself.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Epee - I think it would be best if you point to specific passages. You tend to misrepresent article as supporting your position when they in fact do not. The Hareetz article your referring to rather vaguely states that Facebook Product Manager Ezra Callahan identifies Zuckerberg as Jewish. I think that's a long way from Zuckerberg himself actually saying "I consider myself to be Jewish". NickCT (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)