Talk:Mark Zuckerberg

October 2005

There's currently not much noteworthy about him except for his creation of Facebook. Besides, the main facebook article mentions everything currently on this page about him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.99.156 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

July 2006

He is absolutely noteworthy enough to have his own stub. Someone needs to track down the New Yorker's piece on Zuckerberg that was printed in its May 15, 2006 edition. I remember the article saying that he was offered something in the hundreds of millions for the site. Anyone who has been offered hundreds of millions of dollars for anything is worth a "stub" on Wikipedia. [[1]]

New Yorker's 2010 article about Zuckerberg

Plenty of interesting and relevant details there: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/09/20/100920fa_fact_vargas?currentPage=all

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 [2] that I should use language that conform to the source about Zuckerberg being an atheist. [3] 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)

Scientist? Majored in computer science?

This man is not a scientist nor he ever majored in computer science.