Jump to content

Talk:Mark Zuckerberg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.38.1.1 (talk) at 16:31, 12 September 2012 (→‎Antisememtism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Antisememtism

Is it really necessary to list Mark's ethnicity as 'Jewish'? Does Bill Gates have an ethnicity listed? George W. Bush? No, this is here strictly to draw attention to the fact he was raised in a Jewish background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickiwi (talk • contribs) 08:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to say that when Jews are called "Jews" it is antisemitism?91.77.44.208 (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, yes, that's what e wants to say. Jews are not "ethnic", in the same way Bill Gates and G. W. Bush aren't. The apparent ground of all such complaints. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't we just list his nationality? We need to list other people's ethnicity too, we just can't leave them out, isn't that mean?140.198.45.62 (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying he is ethnically Jewish is Antisemitism, as in, the statement alone discriminates against him because of his ethnic background? Give me a break.

It seems very out of place for an American atheist. Consider the following three individuals whom being Jewish is part of their "public identity":

  • "Lawrence Gene "Larry" David (born July 2, 1947) is an American actor..."
  • "Woody Allen (born Allan Stewart Konigsberg; December 1, 1935) is an American screenwriter..."
  • "Jerome Allen "Jerry" Seinfeld[1] (born April 29, 1954) is an American stand-up comedian..."

And then:

  • "Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is a Jewish-American computer programmer..."

It's not "antisemitic." It's just unusual.

He's not currently the youngest billionaire -- Edit request from , 19 October 2011

He's not the youngest ever billionaire Dustin Moskovitz is the youngest by about 8 days.

58.179.12.145 (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have some reliable source to go with it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heres the one on Moskovitz's page. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Wikiwatcher1 made the requested change. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well then, if the source is reliable it should be changed to second youngest billionair.Millertime246 (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the change because Zuckerberg became the second youngest billionaire in 2010, whereas in 2008 he was the youngest. I could have chnaged the 2008 to 2010 rather than revert, but I chose to revert because this field isn't what is true now, it's what he's known for, and he's not known for becoming the second youngest billionaire in 2010, he's known for having become the youngest in 2008. If we kept updating it, just his advancing age would eventually make the whole thing go away.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "as of" is misleading/confusing, as it implies that he not only became the youngest billionaire in 2008 but that he also continues to be. It should be changed to "in" to correct this so that it reads, "becoming world's youngest billionaire in 2008". 37.130.224.20 (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: This would mess up the flow of the article. The current wording is fine Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what about nationality?

Ok, so I guess we can't agree on putting other poeple's ethnicity into their own pages, but what about nationality? That needs to be put under his picture, so people will know where he is from. We can't just put his ethnicity in there, what's the point of pointing out he is Jewish? He is just a young white American like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, and they do not have an ethnicity listed on their page.140.198.42.45 (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the available infobox details that can optionally be added, you'll see that there are many. It's optional what's included. In this article, because it does discuss his religious and/or ethnic details, along with his college, more than other bios, adding those to the infobox is reasonable. If the article discussed his politics, the infobox allows for that also, and just restates bio facts already in the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity: Jewish. Proposal for removal of this

I have a few concerns about this ethnicity issue. First of all, why is the ethnicity mentioned at all? You don't see Barack Obama's infox listing him as African. Ethnicity is a very controversial slippery slope and it should not be advocated in this article without consensus to do it for all articles. This issue will become very problematic as there are no good reference sources to a person's ethnicity other than their physical appearances. Second, the article mentions that Zuckerberg was raised Jewish. This is a very valid statement and there are good references to show it. However, "Jewish" in this context refers to a religion. He was raised under the traditions of the Jewish religion which he later left and became an atheist. This fact, and all the supporting references, do not establish Judaism as his ethnicity. The claim of "Jewish" ethnicity is only creating confusion about his religion and adding absolutely nothing to the rest of the article. With this argument, I want to propose that we remove the references to Zuckerberg's ethnicity from this article. They are un-referenced and are creating more ambiguity than they dispel. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable concerns. However, according to everyone's favorite encyclopedia, ethnicity does not define a geographical area, such as Africa, physical appearance, or race. Nor would a person's ethnicity be changed by their changing religious belief. So without a valid premise, it's hard to see why the term should be confusing, controversial, or problematic. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps adding the line "Religion: Atheist" would help to clarify any ethnicity/religion confusion. 68.81.237.245 (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama's article mentions that he is African in the first paragraph. Auchansa (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His ethnicity is mentioned because it is one of the reasons for his notoriety. He is the first African American president. Should we change every article of all the previous USA presidents to say that they are Caucasian American? No (if you think otherwise, then our dispute is much more fundamental). Because it doesn't add anything to the article. They are not notorious for being white. Mark Zuckerberg is not notorious for being an ethnic Jew. We don't need to mention his ethnicity, just like the other 98% of wiki articles about people. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. However, your question and similar ones on just this fairly small Talk page, kind of gives the answer. The word "computer" is mentioned 4 times; "programmer" 0 times; "wealth" 0 times; "net worth" 2 times; "internet" 7 times; "entrepreneur" 2 times; and his ethnicity as a "Jew," 170 times! So talk page editors care zip that he is a wealthy computer programmer, but seem obsessed at his ethnicity. Hence, maybe we should leave it in just to keep them happy ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net Worth

He has 28% odd of facebook shares in a company listed as valued at about 100 billion dollars on the stock market s surely his networth should be updated to about 28 billion dollars odd not the 17.5 billion from before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.112.54 (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

I am not completely sure that this is not in the article yet, but can someone put in information about his marriage to Priscilla Chan? Alexroller (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a hoax. Norum 06:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past didn't Mark say that he is gay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.206.77 (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2147376/Mark-Zuckerberg-wedding-How-Priscilla-Chan-married-billionaire-Facebook-founder.html He is definitely married. Alexroller (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fact or Fiction

Color blindness.. In the article it says, "Zuckerberg sees blue best because of red–green colorblindness; blue is also Facebook's dominant color.[98]"

The link to 98 references http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-20/tech/zuckerberg.facebook.list_1_mark-zuckerberg-facebook-jose-antonio-vargas?_s=PM:TECH and nowhere does it mention about him having color blindness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmsbrke (talk • contribs) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source of where the idea that Zuckerberg has some for of color-blindness seems to point to this source

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2010/09/jose-antonio-vargas-facebook.html " JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS: It’s not a clinical diagnosis, if that’s what you’re asking. He told me he took one of those online color-blind blot tests, when he was at Harvard. It’s not particularly extreme, he said, just red-and-green colorblindness. But blue, he said, is the clearest color he can see.

Here’s a quote from an interview: “I can see a little bit of red or a little bit of green. Blues are just the richest for me—I can see all of blue.”

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/ask/2010/09/jose-antonio-vargas-facebook.html#ixzz1vR3xdgup "

The person who interviewed Mark was Jose, and Jose even mentions that it's not a "clinical diagnosis". Mark took an "online" color-blind blot tests, perhaps individually on his own that anybody can take on for themselves-- or he may have been joking about this-- which may explain as to why his "color blindness" wasn't a real clinical diagnosis.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmsbrke (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLPcat does not apply, Zuckerberg is Jewish.

I don't understand why this continues to be edited out - link. Zuckerberg is an ethnic Jew, the article's body verifies this. One does not need to self-identify as an ethnic Jew, just as one does not need to self-identify as a Native American, African-American, etc. If editors want to redefine what the wikipedia community has accepted as the litmus test for Jew, they should take their proposal to the appropriate noticeboard/forum. WikifanBe nice 19:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate these discussions, and we've had them before, so I'll try to be brief and then let others weigh in (yet again). The problem with the Jewish category is it doesn't indicate whether it means ethnic or theological. We should probably have two new categories to replace it so it's clearer. But let's assume that we can use the category for someone who identifies as an ethnic Jew even if he is an atheist. The problem is that the article doesn't support any self-identification as an ethnic Jew. Now I know that WP:BLPCAT doesn't mention ethnicity, just religion and sexual orientation, but if we have an ambiguous category, like this one, it's reasonable to say we shouldn't categorize him as an ethnic Jew unless he says he is. Anyway, I'll bow out now and let editors hopefully reach a consensus on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb, the problem with your views is that it is not consistent with historic wikipedia policy. Both Zuckerberg's parents are Jewish, he was raised in a Jewish family, and participates in Jewish-related events. American Jew does not = American Judaism. BLPCAT does not apply because it only relates to religion, not ethnicity. Are you claiming Zuckerberg is not an ethnic Jew? Because that's a losing argument. WikifanBe nice 20:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently M. Z. is genetically jewish, but not culturally-religiously jewish, because inter-racial marriage is strictly prohibited in judaism. Not discrimination but practical necessity! That is how that small tribe of just a few million people survived 5+ millenia, simply by not mixing away in the billions of goyim of the world. That is why halachial law bans jews from "sitting at the table of goyim and accepting their wine" because that dilutes morals. He was excepted to marry a pureblood jewish girl, just like his father and grandfather, etc. did ever since the Mount Tabor. 91.82.243.3 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? Natalie Portman married a non-Jew, yet she is still Jewish. Focus on the facts. WikifanBe nice 20:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on this, Wikifan, the fact that Zuckerberg married someone of a different race (don't know if she's Jewish) is irrelevant to whether he is ethnically, or even religiously, Jewish. Lots of Jews marry outside their religion (or ethnicity).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know for sure that Natalie Portman's husband is not Jewish? I could never really find the answer. It appears based on some comments she made that he is not. Maybe he converted? These are very important questions to answer on the Mark Zuckerberg talk page, I would say. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually provided source, I just don't understand, why you guys are still discussing about a small issue. I can prove that he is a Jewish by providing with more sources if you want some. Secondly, "nationality" must be mentioned, it defines from which nation does this person belong.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 11:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least you've stopped edit-warring.
  1. Nationality. "Should only be used if nationality cannot be inferred from the birthplace." {{infobox person}}.
  2. Religion. The source you provided is unreliable for the material. He was raised Jewish. There's no source indicating that he self-identifies as Jewish now. If you can find such a source, run it by here before changing the article.
--Bbb23 (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen "infobox person", but I can tell you that there are numerous biography article where "Nationality" is mentioned. I'm still wondering why you are so upset about mentioning its nationality status.
2ndly, You're right he was raised as Jewish and he self-identifies as atheist. I can provide source for that.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nationality - it's unnecessary (I'm not upset). As for other articles, feel free to remove nationality in any article it doesn't belong in. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Jewish. I'm glad you agree. We don't need sources for his being raised Jewish or him being an atheist. They are already in the article. But that explains why you can't say he is Jewish.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can mention atheist in the religion section what you think so. As far as nationality is concern I would rather urge you to keep it. I mean, its not degrading the quality of the article.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 04:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this still an issue? I figured it would be resolved by now. Zuckerberg is Jewish, both his parents are Jewish. He does not practice Judaism, but he is a Jewish person - therefore we can include him in the American Jews category. I don't see what is controversial about this. BLPcat does not apply to ethnicity, if it did at least half of the Jewish BLPs would be subject to this new interpretation and be stripped of the American Jews category (many Jews are not religious). WikifanBe nice 06:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that Zuckerberg is not Jewish by religion. Just because his parents are Jewish doesn't make him Jewish by ethnicity. That is why the Jewish descent category makes sense because it refers to what he inherited from his parents. We have no source saying that he believes he's ethnically Jewish; therefore, we can't say he is, whether it be in the infobox or in a cat.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be adding some personal opinions with the definitions. We can't just state that he is no longer Jewish simply because he referred to himself as atheist. Atheism does not necessarily replace or eliminate one's family religious heritage by statement, nor is atheism (not even a proper noun) a religion that one can convert to. Your second sentence may be the opposite definition, since ethnicity is inherited, not chosen. As for first needing a source quoting him saying he is "ethnically" Jewish, that's not a requirement, and can be inferred. In any case, there are Jews who don't practice and who may never discuss their own or family beliefs, which doesn't eject them from the faith, any more than Jews celebrating Christmas would make them a Christian. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assuming their won't be a problem, if I put American Jew in ethnicity category and hopeful nationality would remain in the infobox.--(talk→ Kkm010 ←track) 15:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Just because his parents are Jewish doesn't make him Jewish by ethnicity." Yes Bbb23, it does. Not only his is mother Jewish, but so is his father. He is an ethnic Jew. He could be an atheist, buddhist, christian, etc...he would still be an ethnic Jew. One cannot convert out of being a Native American right? Can Obama stop being an African American? How about Michael Jordan? This needs to end. WikifanBe nice 00:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point except for the gratuitous "this needs to end". However, we're talking about a cat. The body of the article discusses his background, his parents, everything. The cat is ambiguous as to what it means. If I were born a Jew but didn't believe I was Jewish in any way, I would not like being labeled a Jew just because of my parents.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I've said several times blpcat does not apply to ethnicity, only religion. Zuckerberg is Jewish by virtue of being born a Jew, whether he adheres to Judaism is totally irrelevant. If you are uncertain what it means to be a Jew I will direct you to Who is a Jew? WikifanBe nice 01:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'm not the least bit uncertain. Perhaps you should take this dispute to WP:BLPN. I'm sure there are lots of editors who would simply love to discuss yet another time the issue of Judaism, religion vs. ethnicity, cats, infoboxes, etc. It's a bottomless pit. As for us, we're going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The onus rests on editors challenging consensus. Zuckerberg is a Jew, saying he isn't a Jew even though both his parents are Jewish is factually inaccurate. If editors are still confused then they can go to BLPN, but we cannot change the rules whenever editor disagrees. If Zuckerberg isn't Jewish under your personal interpretation, neither is Scarlett Johansson or Karl Marx. WikifanBe nice 08:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per my usual position - Two Jewish parents but limited association, unless he self declares he is a Jew - as per Ed Milliband - we don't need to label him when he doesn't himself - American person of Jewish descent is the correct/plenty of weight - Youreallycan 19:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As your usual position? He has two Jewish parents, he is listed as one of the most influential Jews - reliable source, marriage - reliable source. "Limited association?" What? Is Karl Marx a Jew? Because under this new, incorrect application of blpcat - which doesn't apply to ethnicity - he is less of a Jew than Zuckerberg. He is a Jew unless editors can provide evidence to the contrary and that blpcat applies to ethnicity as well as religion. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. WikifanBe nice 20:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't verified it, but last time I looked Karl Marx was dead. If he wasn't before, certainly this discussion would have killed him.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geez. Scarlett Johansson isn't dead. You's argument is weak, his example to Miliband only strengthens the fact that Zuckerberg is a Jew. WikifanBe nice 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Johansson self-identifies as Jewish (it's in the article). As far as I can tell, everything anyone says strengthens your argument, and on the sabbath, too. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit, btw - your example to Ed Milliband is quite dubious. Not only are both his parents Jewish, but he has self-identified as a Jew (it's in the article). His brother is listed as an atheist Jew and he too has self-identified as a Jew. I don't want know why Ed isn't listed as a Jew in the categories, an editor should add the category. WikifanBe nice 20:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's not labeled as a Jew on his birth certificate is he? - Youreallycan 20:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke. Zuckerberg is a Jewish, two reliable sources confirm, your link to Milliband only proves my point. If editors want to redefine what the wikipedia community has long considered the litmus test for Jew please, by all means, go to the appropriate noticeboard, but trying to make changes on individual articles isn't productive. WikifanBe nice 20:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand its important to you and you feel strongly about it but its a matter of weight mate, in Ed Miliband and this case and the Beasty boy, Adam Yauch - and all similar biographical articles, the category person of Jewish ethnicity is enough weight. You have all the detail in the article/articles without labeling him/them. Youreallycan 21:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you just wanted to use the phrase "weight mate" in a discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about me, it's about Zuckerberg and is blatant status as a Jew. Two reliable sources confirm. Yauch only has one Jewish parent, why you are importing that dispute here is silly. Do you recuse your example as Miliband as a non-Jew??? Editors don't get to decide who is a Jew and who is not a Jew, reliable sources do. Unless editors can find concrete evidence that Zuckerberg is not a Jew, or he has forfeited is status as a Jew, or the sources listed above are inaccurate, the category should be reinstated. WikifanBe nice 21:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just put "Ethnicity: Jewish" in the infobox or something, maybe that wasn't such a bad idea. The Miliband example is quite funny because there's a guy (Miliband) who said something along the lines of "Obviously I'm Jewish", and yet there was still a massive argument and dispute about him. Too much time on some people's hands. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic/race categories are inherently problematic - Cats are of worthless benefit in such notable people - Users find them directly - they then read the article content - its the content that is important here not adding them to disputed and vague categorys - Youreallycan 22:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've generally voted to delete these categories when presented with the chance. However, while they exist, they should be accurate and not bound to incomprehensible whims. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and its accurate and with sufficient weight in this case to categorize him as a American person of Jewish descent - Youreallycan 22:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
People of Jewish descent is vague - typically means an individual has a distant Jewish relatives or grandfather, but not immediate family (say one grandparent is Jewish, parents are Christian, etc). Josh Groban is one example. I'm fine with Hallow's suggestion, Zuckerberg is clearly Jewish and reliable sources support. If people are so bent on blpcat - when it shouldn't apply here because ethnicity is not the same as religion - I'll support the infobox addition. WikifanBe nice 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You say, " ethnicity is not the same as religion" but that is exactly is the problem and vagueness that is not clarified in Jew wiki cats - WP:BLP requests us to be sensitive and cautious in asserting claims about living people.Youreallycan 22:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing vague about Zuckerberg being listed in reliable source as one of the world's most influential Jews. If editors find that vague, well that's on them. So far there is no evidence to suggest Zuckerberg is not Jewish. So either add the infobox, or the category. Anything else and this is just tendentious editing. WikifanBe nice 23:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And someone, somewhere, will no doubt pull up this documentary evidence to disprove everything ;) --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats funny -lol - Youreallycan 23:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, something we can all agree on. I !vote we put the video in the infobox under religion and ethnicity as a reference for the label "Cannot agree".--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with this edit? There is no debate that BLPcat does not cover "ethnicity", so how can you cite BLPcat in removing something that is labeled "ethnicity"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, consider that part of my edit summary stricken, but there's still no consensus that Jewish ethnicity belongs in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far editors haven't approached the fact that reliable sources confirm Zuckerberg is Jewish. Just because editors remain opposed in defiance of the sources is tendentious editing. One does need a consensus to make edits supported by concrete proof. Do you have a source or third party evidence that supports your position? WikifanBe nice 23:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its in the content of the article, the most important part of wikipedia is the actual article content - that is the primary - 95 percent of readers don't ever click on as link or get past the lede, never mind get to the bottom of an article to investigate the cats the person is in - his Bar and Bat Mitzvah etc - :If you want to add Ethnic/genetic Jew to the infobox then imo you have to add his religious/non religion status also - which is atheism - As per my interpretation of WP;BLP I don't personally support adding either - and I don't see adding them as to the infobox as any particular additional value to a reader either.Youreallycan 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if by all definitions he is Jewish, the sources show he has once leaned toward atheism. That would at least imply that he would not want to be "labeled" or categorized as Jewish if he had the choice. The text covers the subject OK it seems, for those really that interested. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not by "all definitions" but by reliable sources. Ok, he "leans towards atheism." as far as I know, he is a self-professed atheist. But he is also Jewish. That's why wikipedia has Jewish atheists. Youreallycan, do you disagree Zuckerberg is Jewish? Yes or no? If yes, then we are obligated to put that in the infobox or category listing. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. WikifanBe nice 23:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to understand why you have "Be nice" in your sig. Be careful, YRC, you must answer the question yes or no; otherwise, the judge may hold you in contempt.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Zuckerberg is American - we are not obliged to put anything in the infobox - especially when its disputed content - tell the story in the content in the body of the article - blind labeling in disputed situations is worse than nothing to the reader. - Youreallycan 00:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blind labeling? That would be a legitimate statement if Zuckerberg didn't have two Jewish parents and reliable sources confirming he is not only Jewish, but one of the world's most influential Jews. Hallow updated the infobox to include the fact that he is Jewish. The edit was reverted because lack of consensus? What? What is the consensus suggesting Zuckerberg is not Jewish? One editor says he is "leaning atheist" - okay, we have Jewish atheists. Stick with the facts, stick with the reliable sources. We as editors are obligated to edit according to what reliable sources tell us, not how we as editors interpret ethnic rules. WikifanBe nice 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AHW didn't update the infobox, Wikiwatcher1 did (in good faith). And you're repeating yourself.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant Wikiwatcher then. I am repeating myself, do you deny Zuckerberg is Jewish? Do you challenge the reliable sources? Yes or no, that would be really helpful. WikifanBe nice 00:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Youreallycan (talk · contribs)

especially when its disputed content - Where's the dispute about his Jewishness? He is ethnically a Jew. I agree with User:Wikifan12345. Why this discussion is even taking place is beyond me.  Brendon is here 00:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox person shows there are a multitude of optional details that can be added. None are absolutely required. And the purpose of an infobox implies that labeling him as Jewish, when the text goes further into his later decisions, would not accurately "summarize key facts in the article" and could be misleading for some. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of an infobox presently doesn't say that "labeling Mark Zuckerberg as Jewish, when the text goes further into his later decisions, would not accurately summarize key facts in the article and could be misleading for some". It only implies, purpose of an infobox is "to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears."  Brendon is here 00:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for a consensus here. Sources check out. Facts check out. Users opposed to these edits have either stopped participated in the content discussion or are not providing anything new. WikifanBe nice 21:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When a Jewish atheist celebrates Christmas, that's new. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have a category for Jewish atheists. Either use that or the infobox method. WikifanBe nice 21:29, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason people have stopped contributing may be because there's nothing new to say (although your suggestion of Category:Jewish atheists is new). That doesn't mean you "win". There is no consensus. You could take it to WP:BLPN or to WP:DRN if you wish. My reaction to your category suggestion is mixed, so I need to think about that a bit more.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCAT applies here. So does one-drop rule and yellow badge. We are not here to emulate the work of the last people to systematically decide other people's membership of Judaism; instead we recognise the complexity of ethnicity and religion. On an article about a living person we err on the side of not including anything contentious which cannot be referred to self-identification. Sorry, but there it is. --John (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John, you tried to bring this same philosophy to Jeremy Piven and Vidal Sassoon, and you lost. Numerous reliable sources confirm Zuckerberg is Jewish, a BLP does not need to explicitly self-identify their ethnicity any less than a Native American or African-American needs to self-identify. We would "err on the side of caution" if Zuckerberg great-grandfather was Jewish and he had no Jewish upbringing (which he freaking did, read the article!). If editors dispute Zuckerberg's status as one of the world's most influential Jews, please take it to BLP noticeboard Done. There is no precedent on wikipedia where BLP Jews have had to be quoted, verbatim stating their Jewishness to be labeled an American Jew. WikifanBe nice 21:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he is "one of the world's most influential Jews" should not be a factor in the discussion about the infobox or categories. However, you've mentioned that fact at least four times (1 strike, 3 balls) in your earlier comments. Such emphasis, true or not, should not be used to indirectly influence the topics we're discussing. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I sent this to the appropriate noticeboard since this discussion isn't going anywhere. WikifanBe nice 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikifan, regardless of what you think happened at the Piven and Sassoon articles (and I haven't checked), we are discussing this article, and John's opinion is valid and continues to provide a consensus against putting anything Jewish in the infobox or in the cats (other than the existing descent category).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you're on board with this bizarre yellow badge/one-drop rule philosophy that has no basis in wikipedia policy? I have no problem against consensus, but in my opinion editors aren't considering the sources at hand and Zuckerberg's ethnic history. So, filed at BLPN as requested. WikifanBe nice 22:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could live without the yellow badge stuff, too inflammatory for me, but, obviously, I agree otherwise (starting with recognizing the complexity).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think John lost the debate. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but it's mostly immaterial. I didn't participate in that debate. Each of these debates has different editors arguing (although there also may be overlap), and without a global change to the policy, there may be inconsistent results.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nomoskedasticity, I did think of that when making the point. Tell me, who were the last people to systematically oppress the Jews? The Nazis were the great ethno-religious categorisers of our times. If you want to invoke Godwin's Law, you do also need to acknowledge that we are not on UseNet right now but on Wikipedia. We are not having a flame war but rather trying to decide how (or whether) we apply a contentious category to a living person. So, if we were on UseNet you would have a point. As we are on Wikipedia, I think my point still stands. --John (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What point is that John? Reliable sources say Zuckerberg is Jewish. He has two Jewish parents. He grew up in a Jewish home. He had a bar mitzvah. He considers himself as an atheist, wow - look Atheist Jews. What's the problem John? Analogies to yellow badge, one drop rule was dismissed as red-herrings in the other articles you attempted to remove Jewish status, why use them again here? WikifanBe nice 20:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissed as red herrings by racial taggers like yourself, but not by the majority of policy-compliant Wikipedians. --John (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Racial taggers? WikifanBe nice 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entire argument is carried through by a single very vocal editor, Wikifan. There is absolutely no consensus on this mainly because of this editor. If Mark Zuckerberg doesn't call himself a Jew, then we should not try to push this view through this article. Why don't we just mention all the observations: parents are Jewish, he doesn't identify as such, he is an atheist? Labeling him a Jew (ethnic or otherwise) implies way too much and does not allow for the subtleties of this particular situation. Lets avoid the label simply because it creates more confusion than it clears. Simply put: if we label him a Jew, people will leave this article less informed than if we just state the facts one by one as the article already does. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

very important picture

This picture is in the article. It is very important. I did not know until yesterday that Zuckerberg is extremely short. A little taller than a midget, though. Like the singer formerly known as Prince, they are both short in stature, tall in talent. Prince got mad when an interviewer said it but the interviewer did not fire back "ok, you are really short in stature, short in talent". Auchansa (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the picture, Obama looks about 3-4 inches taller. Obama is 6' 1". Since the average height of an American male is 5' 9 1/2", that would make Zuckerberg about average height, although his income is slightly above average.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zuck is up to Obama's nostrils so he's not 3-4 inches shorter. He looks like he is 5'7". His wife is almost as tall. Zuck is short. Auchansa (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you even open this topic? To express your opinion about Zuckerberg's height? Whatever for?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Internet entrepeneur

This link in the lede is to a really awful article, more of a list. I think we should separate the links into 2, one for internet, one for entrepeneur, at least until that target article is more than a lousy stub.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal

This is borderline disruptive editing. We have established a consensus that Zuckerberg is Jewish, the current article as of John's edit includes Zuckerberg's status as a Jewish atheist. So now is John arguing Zuckerberg is not an American?? Jewish atheist is okay, American Jew is not? BLP discussion. WikifanBe nice 20:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

As part of the SEO filings, he had to submit a signature to the SEC, the image of which is available here:

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512134663/g287954zuckerberg_sig.jpg

It was featured in this article (posted August 31, 2012):

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-stock-letter-shareholders — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klamuth (talk • contribs) 08:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Zuckerberg&oldid=512035445"