This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
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)
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]]
http://english.pravda.ru/business/companies/13-03-2008/104494-mark_zuckerberg-0
They even left the [citation needed] in.
-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 ( talk) 07:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I recreated this article because I think Zuckerberg is now notable enough to merit his own stub. There are stubs for other Facebook employees and it seems the founder and CEO should get one too. - L1AM ( talk) 09:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is this article still considered a stub? Generally, when I find a stub it's a paragraph long, maybe 2, but that's about it. While this isn't a 5-page essay on the guy, I'd certainly consider it more than a stub... 82.139.89.208 11:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it true that Facebook started out as a game like Grand Theft Auto? That really sounds wild...and it's unsourced. -- 24.151.241.181 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I would remove this from the header per WP:MOSBIO, opening paragraph point #3, ethnicity. Any thoughts? Thanks -- Tom 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
well jew's have been persecuted and put down by the world and are continuously and when a jew makes a difference...or when a member of any minority makes a significant contribution of any type...it's only proper that somewhere...it be noted.
credit is given where credit is due. let the haters see elsewhere, don't discriminate or hate, single that you aren't zucky baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.115.182 ( talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Added it back as it needs verification for the Jewish businesspeople [2] list. I have read from numerous Jewish websites where he has been interviewed and that he still holds ground to his Jewish roots while not a practicing Jew (in terms of obeying all the rules). Hence the reason why i added Conservative Judaism. As a Jew and studying at a Jewish school this would be my best guess, so unless you know better dont change it. Respect peoples religious beliefs, keep it there for all to know so people may relate to him or do religious statistics etc etc. --- Moondy ( talk) 08:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I deleted "Jews are the best at everything and Jewish people have created mostly everything you use everyday. "
That is just not professional. Its a stereotype, positive, but still racist.
it is impossible for something to be racist against jews.... the jewish people are not a race.
please add that he is the middle child- one older sister, one younger. older sister randi works in publicity at facebook and is married to a venture capitalist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookindex ( talk • contribs) 15:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This sentence sounds incomplete: The network first expanded to allow other university students to join. Should there be a date at the end of this?
can you add to the family section that he is the middle child-one older sister, one younger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tookindex ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 23:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Somebody added on "The most over valued website in history." under the Partial Sale section. Clearly not Wikipedia material, so I'll remove it. Jon914 01:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"HE touched his little crotch." What the heck is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.27.218 ( talk) 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's just media hype. Everyone knows FB, with its $X _million_/year profits, isn't worth anything close to $15B. No one in his right mind would pay $15B for a 100% stake. Exponential user growth can't last forever -- I think growth will slow down in the next year or two and the Web 2.0 bubble will finally burst. Wikipedian06 12:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
After losing Myspace to Google, Microsoft paid a ludicrous $240m to secure worldwide advertising rights on the property, the 1.6% cardboard bubblegum stake was merely thrown in. To value the company based on that deal is ludicrous. Considering Facebook's cash burn rate and the fact that they just took $100m in debt financing through TriplePoint, I'm wondering if it's worth even what RM paid for Myspace.-- 122.106.251.190 ( talk) 11:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the final paragraph due to the heavily pro-Zuckerberg biased language used. It should now read more neutrally. I also added the results of the case at the end of the paragraph. Wolfraem 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Um... what is a computer coordinator? It used to say computer programmer and entrepreneur. - FeralDruid ( talk) 20:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC) the possibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.239.202 ( talk) 06:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
One of time magizines 100 people of 2008 is... Mark zuckerberg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.67.189 ( talk) 20:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
He has now been placed under the catagory of "Jewish atheists". We've got the link that says he had a Jewish upbringing, but where does it indicate that he lost his faith, or that he stopped believing in God? Not050 ( talk)Not050 Not050 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
yes that is aboslutely correct. Jewish is considered an ethnicity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_(miscellaneous)#Business
There we go. EchetusXe ( talk) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I say: Regardless of whether it's considered positive or negative to mention prominently in the article that he or his parents are Jewish, the normal practice is not to highlight someone's religion or ethnicity unless the person's fame rests on that religion or ethnicity. Making a point of the person's Jewishness (or Mormonism, or Catholicism, or atheism) so prominently in the article is not encyclopedic practice; it's gratuitous and betrays an agenda of one sort or another. Agendas don't belong here. Wbkelley ( talk) 23:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know a lot about what consensus is on Wikipedia about listing poeple's religions, but I fail to see why it's at all relevant to list the religion of actors, politicians, and business figures as one of the quick facts about them in the sidebar. It seems especially wrong for atheists, considering that the term typically indicates the lack of any beliefs at all. The most appropriate thing to do would be not to list "religious beliefs" at all. Maybe there's a better place to discuss this policy, but I'm just this guy... 72.175.45.175 ( talk) 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this not actually true then? it seems suspicious that IP addresses keep removing any mention of it. Towel401 ( talk) 16:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
"[the] youngest billionaire on earth and possibly the youngest self-made billionaire ever"
If he is the youngest billionaire then wouldn't that make him the youngest self made billionaire by default? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.51.29.129 ( talk) 07:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to inquire a bit more about how Zuckerberg's worth should be calculated. I find Forbes to be an OK magazine for the unsophisticated reader, however while this value has caused controversy, it has continually been determined to be non-ense. I think people will agree with me that he is quite obviously not a billionaire.
In terms of delivering the best article possible I think we should:
Claims in Forbes are not reliable because they are (which possibly remain private).
Here are the things that mitigate his 1.5 Billion USD guess
Furthermore, there are the things that mitigate his 200m + USD guess (based of stock + highest Yahoo! buy out offer)
So you can't even say he's worth that, if you have a deal, pass it, never get it again, that doesn't make you rich.
You have a 1000ft villa. Movie makers offer to buy a room for a 200ft movie shooting for $1Million, does that make your entire worth of your 1000ft house 5Million? If someone offers you $500,000 for a house in puffed stock pre-recession, and no other offers come, does it make sense to say you're worth that much?
Furthermore, about calculating wealth in general:
I think that mentioning of controversy in this article gives readers the suggestion that the most notable aspects of him are controversial. Having a popular website is great, however if the article proceeds to speak about his travels, it's important to define it in the summary.
"Mark Zuckerberg, (born May 14, 1984) is an American computer programmer and entrepreneur. As a Harvard student, he created the online social website Facebook, a site popular among American college students, with fellow computer science major students and his roommates Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. He serves as Facebook's CEO. He has been the subject of controversy for the origins of his business[2] and his wealth[3].-- Drinkadrink ( talk) 07:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Zuckerberg_CEO_Facebook.jpg
This is a cute, dreamy picture. Why not tone it down a bit? This is a staged photograph, like for modelling a dreamer. The vanity of the picture is almost self-promoting. Why not use a picture form his at a developer conference, like Bill Gates?
Editors need to make sure to keep it balanced, I know many people have a positive view on him, however he has had a fair share of criticism and self-promotion in the spot-light -- Drinkadrink ( talk) 07:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that picture looks like something from an early eighties movie (e.g. Wargames or E.T.) because of the lighting and because he looks some of the characters a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.33.74.204 ( talk) 16:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
WP: Is not a place where we suppose the wealth of private citizens are. Even if there is controversy between the lines, it's supposition. Interesting, but not objective. The truth is, his wealth is unknown, and it is inappropriate and misleading to give guesses. -- Drinkadrink ( talk) 13:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I fixed his wealth. It has been officially published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.168.231 ( talk) 11:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Isn't he a billionaire? On Oprah she said he is a billionaire and he agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.13.110 ( talk) 19:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when did Tufts and BU enter the Ivy League? Yet another example of how unreliable wikipedia is. Pathetic. 65.247.226.99 ( talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You could always change it yourself. You obviously know how since you edited the discussion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
According to Forbes (as quoted by the BBC) Zuckerberg no longer has a billion dollars. I updated his net worth accordingly (after which I wept for the fact that he is not able to buy the new full sized platinum city he wanted).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Recently we had the post http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7937449.stm citing he is worth a billion. This is incorrect. In fact, this reference states he is below a billion. In a conversation in the topic above, everyone here (except CEO's who edit their own article) are worth less than a billion. If you are worth more than a billion USD and edit here, please make a user template. :-)
I believe we should not speculate on the wealth of this private individual. Most sources of his wealth are from unreliable sources. You may think that business magazines are OK, however they kind of cater to the unsophisticated/embrace temporary fads. Sorry Zuckerberg fans, it doesn't look like he'll have a certain worth unless he goes public, which probably won't happen [3]. -- Drinkadrink ( talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This article is missing the option of navigating to similar articles. can anybody create the tab [see also] for this article? 203.128.4.254 ( talk) 11:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
i have gotten a warning for commenting on the walk for the cure for cancer. and i don't feel that this is right, many of other people are posting and commnting more then some of us and we are the ones that are getting warnings, this is not right nor far. you calll it spamming or abusing the site, well we are not doing that. what is spamming is that you guys sending everything that people say and do to our apps and what the say in our emails so our emails are fulled beyond belief. this is waht is called a double standard, it is not right or fair of you to do this to some of us that are trying to help with a cause, and an important one at that. we have done nothing wrong and again it is a double standard at what you are saying what we are"doing". in no way have anyone don't anything offending, or anything wrong, we have not abused the site. please think this over and get back to apap please. thank you,. terry hinkley-rossignol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.74.98 ( talk) 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
i am having an issue with fb.
i have gotten a warning for commenting on the walk for the cure for cancer. and i don't feel that this is right, many of other people are posting and commnting more then some of us and we are the ones that are getting warnings, this is not right nor far. you calll it spamming or abusing the site, well we are not doing that. what is spamming is that you guys sending everything that people say and do to our apps and what the say in our emails so our emails are fulled beyond belief. this is waht is called a double standard, it is not right or fair of you to do this to some of us that are trying to help with a cause, and an important one at that. we have done nothing wrong and again it is a double standard at what you are saying what we are"doing". in no way have anyone don't anything offending, or anything wrong, we have not abused the site. please think this over and get back to apap please. thank you,. terry hinkley-rossignol. i am sending this to you again cause i am not sure where i am suppose to go. sorry if you did get this message already. the email is peeko09@yahoo.com. please get back to me. thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.74.98 ( talk) 05:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought Mark Zuckerberg was Jewish, but I can't find anything in the article that says he is. 174.18.22.186 ( talk) 05:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
He's not. The best source we have states he stopped practising a long time ago and considers himself to be an atheist. Darrenhusted ( talk) 10:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
-the reference link for his net worth (#1) links to an attack site, somehow 216.110.245.50 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
Why has it got a section saying RETARD on wikipidia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.194.13 ( talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Here is the original source for the Time magazine list: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1733748_1733754_1735207,00.html I can't add it cause it's semi-protected and I'm new! What are you talking about, ass-wipe?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.222.33 ( talk) 01:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I added the movie info but have no idea how to cite my reference. Check this link out: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1285016/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcut ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} They don't match in the infobox.. like the networth and the religious views.. one has an extra space. minor edit 98.219.102.24 ( talk) 02:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
These are all based upon the version http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mark_Zuckerberg&oldid=333762510 (current as of today).
I found that footnote [8] is a broken link. In fact, I could not even find the intended page, -- neither using the Wayback machine ( http://www.archive.org/ ), nor using the "archives" feature of http://dukechronicle.com/ (the clickable hyper link there called "Archives" points to http://dukechronicle.com/archives , but that seems to be (temporarily?) on the fritz. ("The requested page could not be found." -- just for clicking on "Archives"?)
OK, so maybe footnote [8] is a place where Webcite would have helped.
I also checked footnote [6], and it is a broken link, too. (So I was really surprised when footnote [7] actually worked!) At least footnote [6], was able to be found, by going to http://www.stanforddaily.com/ an clicking on "Archives", (which points to http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?page_id=17 ), and finding the entries for 2004-March-10.
When I got there (to the entries for 2004-March-10) (see http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?m=2004&paged=201 ), there seemed to be two articles relating to facebook:
and
but while both were humorous, I figured that "Thefacebook.com's darker side". was the one "more likely" to correspond to the cryptic mess that is the "broken link" (current) version of footnote [6]. Hence, that is the one that I (tentatively) made a snapshot copy of (just to be safe), at http://www.webcitation.org/5mO7OKyfP . This is in preparation for (eventually) fixing the "broken link" in footnote [6]; but first, I would like to check, and maybe get a consensus on whether that article, "Thefacebook.com's darker side". which has now been "cached" on webcitation.org, (see WebCite) is the right one for footnote [6].
PS: Maybe we should 'also" made a snapshot copy of footnote [7], on WebCite, even though it works now. Partly in case there is a recurrence of what happened with footnote [6], but mainly, in case there is a recurrence of what happened with footnote [8]!
Thanks for any advice on this. -- Mike Schwartz ( talk) 18:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
2.3 News Feed: Please change "Zuckerberg was criticized as some[weasel words] saw News Feed as unnecessary and a tool for cyberstalking." _ TO _ "Zuckerberg was criticized as some users saw News Feed as unnecessary and a tool for cyberstalking.
[3]"
3. ^ Arrington, Michael (September 6, 2006). "Facebook Users Revolt - News Feed & Mini Feed". TechCrunch.com. pp. 1. Retrieved February 3, 2010.
Not done: Welcome and thanks for the reference, but that reference doesn't mention unnecessary or cyberstalking. The reference isn't explicit about why some were going to boycott Facebook over the new features, but some form of privacy issue is implied. Celestra ( talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the entire section "News Feed" should go. Unless someone can cite a direct relationship this information has to Zuckerberg it is not relevant on his entry. Jasonfb ( talk) 18:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I deleted reference to his 'religion' which is atheism (atheism is a religion?), because I thought his religion would be completely irrelevant to his standing as a businessman (indeed, it should be irrelevant to anyone except politicians).
And some guy added it back in.
What's the Wiki-user consensus on displaying someone's religion for a businessman? To me it should really not be emphasized - is someone wearing their 'atheist pride' on their sleeve and parading it through Zuckerberg? Or is it some really religious person who is trying to discredit him by displaying his personal beliefs? ( 1tephania ( talk) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC))
Given his Jewish heritage and that he has said his is not religious its clarifies an assumption made by many readers. If you want go through the category "American atheists" and remove 'atheism' from every infobox, you will be reverted quickly. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
While the full article is behind a paywall the opening paragraph, with the word "he considers himself an atheist" is viewable, and so I've reverted you because the WSJ is an RS. If you have a problem with a person's religion, or lack thereof, being part of the biographies the take your concenrs to a noticeboard. He has "outed" himself as of no religion and this article simply restates that fact. Darrenhusted ( talk) 00:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that the head of the article stated his 'religious' preferences, so my apologies. Should be more careful from now on! But why is his religion still relevant? I have yet to hear from you on that. Wikipedia does not list individual religious beliefs in the infobox unless they are politicians or their beliefs form a significant part of their works. Mark Zuckerberg does not fall into any of these categories.
If you are so intent on listing him as an atheist, I suggest an alternative; how about we list in the personal life section, and remove it from the infobox? This would add to the info provided in the article while keeping consistent with other wiki entries on prominent individuals. ( 1tephania ( talk) 04:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC))
Atheism is, by definition, the absence of all the things that constitute religion. If you people insist on mentioning it his religion should be "None" -- 69.145.166.30 ( talk) 03:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
News Feed, Facebook Beacon, Microsoft investment in Facebook, Facebook in 2009
Unless someone can come forward with information that involved Zuckerberg directly, the above 4 sections belong on the Facebook entry, not Zuckerberg's page.
The sections "News Feed" and "Facebook Beacon" do mention him by name, but at that point in the history Zuckerberg and Facebook (the company) are intertwined to the point where this information is not relevant in HIS entry. If the story in some way distinguishes Zuckerberg from the company, then it should be noted on his page, but this entry is a story about Zuckerberg. Facebook is part of his story, but the story has to remain about him.
I might suggest replacing both those sections ("News Feed" and "Facebook Beacon") with a section titled "Privacy Implications" that discusses what know publicly about Zuckerberg himself -- it could reference the information in these two sections -- like character witnesses in a trial. Jasonfb ( talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree [that the sections should not be here]: those sections appear to be about Facebook, not specifically about Zuckerberg. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 09:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Three exposé pieces in Silicon Alley Insider went public today. I added a small reference to the ConnectU Controversy section and included a citation to one of them. All three suggest actions which allege Zuckerberg hacked into other people's private accounts. Clearly this is a serious allegation and his entry should reflect, carefully, that Silicon Alley Insider felt they had enough evidence to go public with these allegations. Since Silicon Alley Insider is a reputable news service I propose the adding of this information 5 days from today's date -- to give time for other journalists to vet the claims SAI is making. If they stand up to peer review, they belong on his entry. Jasonfb ( talk) 21:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
He is Jewish: http://www.nndb.com/people/367/000069160/ -- 67.224.189.206 ( talk) 02:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the section "Facebook in 2009->2010" could be updated/fixed with this link [4]. -- 82.171.70.54 ( talk) 01:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Could a registered user change the Esiason attribution to Robert Scoble? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.12.137 ( talk) 05:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Family-- can someone add that he is the middle child in the family- one older sister and one younger sister. His sisters are in the public domain now. Sister Randi, married to a venture capitalist, works in publicity for facebook so she shouldn't object to having her name here. thanks. Tookindex ( talk) 14:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and he must have a mother and father. Nearly everyone else on wikipedia has mention of their roots or their parents and where they are in the family. This is a person we're writing about here and all people have families. Veryscarymary ( talk) 11:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of avowedly atheist Jews. From what I understand a sizeable portion of the population of Israel is. And famous exemplars such as Marx, Chomsky, Freud, Richard Feynman, Trotsky, etc. far too numerous to have to mention. 72.228.177.92 ( talk) 06:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What is "Happionaire's Csh The Crash" on that page looks like spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.219.19 ( talk) 18:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
okay so on facebook ive seen that "Become A Fan" is no longer on there and i was wondering why did you take it off that was a fun thing to do now ill never get 1,000 ppls to be a fan on my page :( so could you put that back on it will make me sooooo happy :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.115.172 ( talk) 17:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but discussion page on Wikipedia is not a forum. Ps: Write whoever is concerned an email. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillaumethekkadath ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
i am ur biggest fan :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.126.12 ( talk) 12:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The last sentence of the opening paragraph reads:
"...with personal wealth of..."
when it should actually read:
"...with a personal wealth of..."
Uq ( talk) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
This was the last sentence in the lead paragraph: "His success at Facebook has been mired in controversy regarding the start of the project, resulting in a huge out of court settlement being paid to former business associates."
I have removed it because (1) It is blatantly non-neutral in its wording ["mired in controversy"] ["huge"]. (2) I'd like to see more convincing evidence that it is important enough to be in the lead. Not disagreeing with having a section for it below, just with its emphasis. And if someone believes it belongs in the lead, I question whether it has "mired" either Zuckerberg or Facebook, so I suggest finding a different way to describe this biographical fact. This is challenging with a contemporary biography, as there is not yet time for tech historians to have demonstrated consensus on what is most relevant. I do see the point of discussing a situation that raises questions about his originality [did the basic idea behind Facebook come from ConnectU?] and personal character [did he unethically stall his work for them, while hatching his own competing approach?], so some sentence on this topic might well belong here -- but it needs better research.
UPDATE: Here is one page that touches on the questions raised: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/judge-ends-facebooks-feud-with-connectu/ Now that I have read more on the topic, I see that I may have gone too far in removing the sentence completely. But I'll leave it to someone else to put back in a more compelling sentence. And remember, we are dealing with a living person, so be especially cautious with controversial allegations.
And if you want controversy that matters: Talk about the privacy controversies -- those have been substantial, and continuing. To be here rather than on Facebook's page, would require a source that includes quotes from Zuckerberg, showing how his beliefs are the source of these controversial actions by Facebook. Just suggesting a more fruitful avenue for rounding out this biography. ToolmakerSteve ( talk) 09:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As the creator of Facebook surely the sites decisions, direction and controversial privacy settings and changes to their terms and conditions contract should feature under Zuckerberg's page? 41.56.199.206 ( talk) 15:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Does pointing it out in the infobox really needed? In Bill Gates's (a very prominent person also) it's not put in the infobox. Plus he's an atheist (in common sense jewish means a religious judaist), and it's America here so pointing out that he 100% jewish and all of his efforts to jewish nation.. I don't know, I bet he's not 100% jewish and is of multiple ethnicities, well I think there's no doubt should be in that. So I think nationality = american should be enough in the infobox, he's american. Also, in the article it's indicated that he's from jewish background and a category which list him as "jewish americans". And there were already objections in discussion, so I think it's not necessary should be in the infobox, well if he was a female model or pornstand they I'd understand as it pretty much important in porn industry, but here.. and under given circumstances.. I don't know, of course editors who consider themselves jewish mostly would disagree with me, but all I'm saying that pointing out that he's jewish in the infobox is kinda lame and may be promoting. 174.123.156.216 ( talk) 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Following in the footsteps of other Jewish celebrities including Ben Stiller, Sacha Baron Cohen and Natalie Portman, Mr Zuckerberg will play himself in the iconic cartoon series about a yellow-skinned suburban family.
Wikifan12345 ( talk) 14:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
"council for Ceglia" should be "counsel for Ceglia"
klode (
talk)
18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I removed him from the Harvard Alumni category. Drop-outs are not alumni.
--Check the definition of alumnus again, yes they are, alumnus = graduate OR FORMER STUDENT (emphasis mine) of a school. - Josh Sims
Not to be anti-wiktionary or anything, but that did not sound quite right to me, so I checked with my most used dictionary, the American Heritage online, and it says
A male graduate or former student of a school, college, or university.
For good measure, I checked Merriam-Webster's and it says
1 : a person who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
2 : a person who is a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate.
To be fair to others, my own older edition (print) of American Heritage only defined alumnus as male graduates. Nam1123 07:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it is generally pretty well understood that alumnus means graduate. Dictionaries tend to be overly inclusive in their definitions. If you call most schools and ask them if their drop outs are considered alumnus, they'll tell you, "No." In order to take advantage of a school's alumni network and benefits, it is mandatory to have graduated. Unsuspected ( talk) 04:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
a) according to Forbes 400 of August 2010 he is worth 6.9 billion. b) his former classmate Dustin Moskovitz is 8 days younger and worth 1.4 billion. see http://www.forbes.com/profile/dustin-moskovitz
hope this message works, never posted to semi protected before Finny388 ( talk) 16:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Mark Zuckerberg's personal wealth was announced last week at being about $6.9 billion. If Facebook is currently valuated at $11 Billion then how does Mark's 24% stake equal his personal wealth (which I'm sure comes directly from Facebook). Does he take 24% of the estimated $800 million annual every year since Facebook started generating income? 96.229.146.58 ( talk) 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Zuckerberg is color-blind? And it is because of that Facebook is blue in color? Although the news comes from a CNN post, I don't know whether it is appropriate for the article. If anyone feels so, please do add it. See this for further details. — Finemann ( talk) 20:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't their a criticism section? He has drawn a decent amount of attention, such as banning user accounts when they post negatively about him. I am sure their is also publicity of him and not facebook. 108.7.234.223 ( talk) 05:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, they ban and delete without telling you the reason. I did nothing wrong and went to log in one day and my account was GONE! My hubby and I and friends have all left FB because of this crap. And it IS crap. Hope your stupid movie tanks---Zuckerberg. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.157.223.50 (
talk)
15:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Stuff about his facebook activities are in the facebook section, and Wikipedia is not a forum about your opinions about Mark Zuckerberg. Jasonxu98 ( talk) 01:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The text from much of this article bears a striking similarity to the content here: hubpages.com/hub/The-Film-about-Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg although it is unclear to me who copied from who. Apparently, that domain is also on the Wikipedia blacklist, though I'm not sure if that's relevant to the topic of plagiarism or not. Johnny Mnemonic ( talk) 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Zuck and Priscilla are not engaged yet. Any reason not to change "future fiancee" to "girlfriend" or similar? Ccheever ( talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Where it states in the Article that 1 in 14 people in the World have a Facebook Account is inaccurate since that assumes that there are 500 Million unique people on Facebook (since the World's Population is just under 7 Billion currently) when in reality it is 500 Million Accounts and many people have Multiple Accounts also some clubs and organizations have Facebook Accounts (and not just pages) so I recommend it be removed since it is a misleading statistic- in reality I think it is probably around 1 in 25 people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.40.217 ( talk) 18:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
The religion of Mark Zuckerberg's parents is not pertinent and should be omitted. In Wikipedia I have found that biographies of other persons in regard to the religion of their parents or the subject of biography is only mentioned if the subject of biography or the subjects parents are Jewish. Please correct this inconsistency by changing "Zuckerberg was born in White Plains, New York and raised in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Zuckerberg's parents are Jewish,[3] but he considers himself an atheist" to: "Zuckerberg was born in White Plains, New York and raised in Dobbs Ferry, New York."
Not done seems to be a relevant fact to his upbringing
The Resident Anthropologist (
talk)
15:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Zuckerberg willingly noted that he attended Temple Beth Abraham in Tarrytown, NY as a youth. Being Jewish is not only a religion, it is also an ethnicity that Zuckerberg obviously identifies as, considering his involvement in Alpha Epsilon Pi at Harvard, the Jewish fraternity, and his involvement with Hillel, a Jewish group on college campuses. http://www.facebook.com/q/What-synagogue-did-Mark-Zuckerberg-attend-while-growing-up-in-Dobbs-Ferry-New-York/446654356319?t=2&hid=68310606562 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.130.120 ( talk) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I find this paragraph to be weak because of the "but" conjuction: when one hears about a person that "he's Jewish", one doesn't think about that person's religion, but ethnicity. It's like saying "Zadie Smith's parents are Jamaican but she considers herself an atheist"; there is no logical connection. I would rephrase it by separating the two sentences. Florin zeitblom ( talk) 16:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I would, in general, second 12amrambler's request, for the reasons given. In addition: (a) contrary to the statement by Florin zeitblom, and as per what Bbb23 said, "Jewish" in these contexts can mean one of several different things, thereby putting into question the encyclopaedic value of the term as a label to be attached to individuals, as opposed to, say, traditions (for instance); (b) Zuckerberg's upbringing or past identification imply nothing about his current of future identification; (c) origins, in the case of living persons, are private matters, and the right to privacy would not be lost no matter what memberships or activities a subject may have engaged with. This is especially so if some of us insist on *defining* individuals by their ancestry, as opposed to simply *describing* it when and if clearly relevant for some reason. Feketekave ( talk) 18:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
In any other article I watch, if someone added the sentence about the subject learning a foreign language in preparation for a trip to the foreign country with his girlfriend, I would simply remove it without a moment's thought as trivial. BUT, given all the controversy about recent additions to the Zuckerberg article, I thought I'd take the more, uh, diplomatic approach and see if I can get consensus (sigh) on whether the recently added sentence about Zuckerberg being tutored in Chinese is sufficiently notable (can't say it with a straight face) to warrant inclusion in the article. We might as well talk about what he does each morning when he gets up and follow him around during the course of his day as in some two-bit reality show. There is nothing notable about anyone learning a foreign language before a planned trip. People do it all the time. The only difference with Zuckerberg is he has so much money he can hire a tutor. End of dripping sarcasm.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, the subject--who, according to reports, is especially adept in Latin, Classical Greek, and Hebrew--is now intensively studying Mandarin. Will this be considered but an inconsequential factoid in the long run? Maybe. (Stay tuned! lol.) But...I'd put my bucks on the subject's progress with concern this extremely difficult-to-learn-to-read language becoming a definitive point of interest about him; much as, say, the knowledge of merely conversational Mandarin is universally thought a point of interest about the current American ambassador to China. (Btw, friends think the subject will marry a woman who is Chinese American, whose parents speak Chinese at home.)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)...In many cases, [recentist] content is a valuable preliminary stage in presenting information. Any encyclopedia goes through rough drafts; new Wikipedia articles are immediately published in what might be considered draft form: They can be — and are — improved in real time; these rapidly developing drafts may appear to be a clutter of news links and half-developed thoughts, but later, as the big picture emerges, the least relevant content ought to be — and often is — eliminated.--- wp:RECENTISM#Recentism defended
Click on "show" at right --> to open |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
"He does not own a television, the head of the Internet giant has more old-fashioned pleasures in his personal life: He likes to go rowing, to walk with his girlfriend, and, every Sunday, home-cooked Asian meals. Zuckerberg drives an inconspicuous-size car (a black Acura TSX), which he doesn't use much--he usually ride in the morning to the office in the metro area where he sits 16 hours at a computer between skateboard-propelled early twenty-somethings. A private office he does not have. The only luxury Zuckerberg has treated himself to is a private voice coach. [Editor: "Voice," meaning singing? or meaning "conversational," per the following?] One was brought in for Mandarin because he wants to fly with Priscilla Chan to China in December. And one would want to impress one's family with one's language skills. Impress people--apparently a maxim that runs like a thread through the sweet boy's[Editor: huh?] life. At ten years old he got his first computer as a gift from his parents, a Quantex 486DX. However, he has never been particularly interested in computer games. 'I did not want to play, I wanted to impress some bigger people,' said Zuckerberg. He taught himself to program[...]and soon had his first program: a computer version of his favorite board game 'Risk'. 'Rival troops that fight to dominate the world - that was fun!' Less fun, apparently, for the Internet genius was Harvard. He gave up on the psychology degree after only two semesters." Einen Fernseher besitzt er nicht, der Chef des Internet-Giganten steht im Privatleben auf eher altmodische Vergnügungen: Er liebt es zu rudern, geht gern mit seiner Freundin spazieren, und jeden Sonntag wird zu Hause asiatisch gekocht. Zuckerberg fährt einen unauffälligen Mittelklassewagen (schwarzer Acura TSX), den er so gut wie gar nicht nutzt - meistens radelt er morgens ins Büro, wo er zwischen skateboardfahrenden Anfangzwanzigern im Großraum 16 Stunden am Computer hockt. Ein Einzelbüro will er nicht. Der einzige Luxus, den sich Zuckerberg gönnt, ist eine private Sprachlehrerin. Die bringt ihm Mandarin bei, weil er im Dezember mit Priscilla Chan nach China fliegen will. Und ihre Familie mit seinen Sprachkenntnissen beeindrucken möchte. Jemanden beeindrucken - offenbar eine Maxime, die sich wie ein roter Faden durch Zuckerbergs Leben zieht. Mit zehn Jahren bekam er den ersten Computer von seinen Eltern geschenkt, einen Quantex 486DX. Allerdings haben ihn Computerspiele nie sonderlich interessiert. "Ich wollte nicht spielen, ich wollte etwas Größeres, Leute beeindrucken", erklärt Zuckerberg. Er brachte sich das Programmieren selbst bei, und schon bald stand sein erstes Programm: eine Computerversion seines Lieblingsbrettspiels "Risiko". "Rivalisierende Truppen, die darum kämpfen, die Welt zu beherrschen - das hat Spaß gemacht!" Weniger Spaß hatte das Internet-Genie offenbar in Harvard. Das Psychologiestudium gab er bereits nach zwei Semestern auf. |
And, putting in context what Z himself chooses to reveal in such People Magazine type venues are the recent words of his authorized biographer, David Kirkpatrick, to PBS journalist Ray Suarez: "First of all, Mark is not a public figure. Nobody-- Most users of Facebook don't even know who he is. Most of them have never even heard his name. So, the movie's going to change that. For the first time, Mark Zuckerberg's going to be a genuine global celebrity. So that's what they're facing. What kind of celebrity is he going to be? Is the movie going to define his image? or are they going to define the image? or is he going to define it himself?"...Mark Zuckerberg...let Oprah’s cameras into his...humble rented house. Zuckerberg’s scarcely furnished office has a table, three chairs, and two wooden shelves. The businessman shares his rented house in Palo Alto, California with his girlfriend, Priscilla Chan. The couple met in Harvard (Zuckerberg later dropped out). ... Zuckerberg is currently studying Chinese with a tutor to get ready for his trip to China with Chan. Zuckerberg admitted he’s hardly home since he works up to 16 hours a day at Facebook’s head office in Palo Alto.
HuffPo: "The [Oprah] segment offered a rare peek into Zuckerberg's private life: his sparsely decorated home, which he rents, the Facebook offices, and the CEO's relationship with his girlfriend, Priscilla Chan. In a tour of his home--the first time cameras have been allowed inside--Zuckerberg is shown studying Chinese--'Priscilla and I are going to go to China for a vacation at the end of the year,' he explained--and even kissing Chan."-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 22:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Not pertinent to his blp? Obviously is, even at first blush? Debatable? (Question discussed in thread just above.)-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 21:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
His first sentence has described as a philanthropist. They mentioned two cases where he has donated money, one of them for another social networking setup, and one for Newark area schools. The first cannot be considered philanthropic - it is more of a business venture, and the second case coincides with the release of his movie, a move that has its own criticisms. Should cite either more sources for his philanthropy, or remove it from introduction paragraph - there is not enough to warrant him being called a philanthropist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssentinull ( talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Vargas, in the Sep24 NYer:
In 2008,...he was renting a one-bedroom apartment,...Randi Zuckerberg, told me. Randi works at Facebook and, at the time, lived across the street from him. “Not to speak for my brother or know what he would spend his money on, but I would guess that he would give most of his money to charity,” she said. And early this year, one friend of Zuckerberg’s told me, the C.E.O. of Facebook asked him if he should set up a foundation and start giving away money immediately or wait until later....
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 05:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Is Randi Zuckerberg (discussed in the subsection immediately above on the article's talkpage) notable enough for her to be briefly mentioned in her brother, Mark Zuckerberg's, blp?-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 13:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's see. wp:NNC does say that while notability isn't necessary for article content, per se, it "may be used as an inclusion criterion for lists" and I suppose an argument can be made that an infobox is a type of list. Of course, for sure, actual practice (not necessarily to invoke wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but-- ) would not tend to support such an interpretation. For example, John McCain's blp (the first article to occur to me to check, since I know it to be one based in large measure on biographies of the man and thus exemplary of a thoroughly researched article--and one that's also held up as a Feature Article), its infobox lists the former POW and U.S. Senator's kin as
--Yet most of the kin listed lack blps. Still, I'll try to find an actual guideline. BRB.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Spouse(s) - Carol Shepp (m. 1965, div. 1980)
- Cindy Lou Hensley (m. 1980)Children - Douglas (b. 1959, adopted 1966),
Andrew (b. 1962, adopted 1966),
Sidney (b. 1966),
Meghan (b. 1984),
John Sidney IV "Jack" (b. 1986),
James "Jimmy" (b. 1988),
Bridget (b. 1991, adopted 1993).
I just reverted changes made by another editor to include a great deal of new material in the lead and in the infobox. The editor reverted me, so I'm leaving it in and seeking some consensus. The editor can speak for him/herself, but I believe the changes fall into the following categories: information about a philanthropic foundation Zuckerberg recently started, information about his computer background, information about his education, and information about various of his relatives. The foundation information is very recent, and I don't think it's notable enough to belong in the lead. I have no objection to putting it in the Philanthropy section. The computer information is way overkill for the infobox, indicating all the computer languages Zuckerberg programmed in under education, plus meaningless educational background (high school, certificate in classics, etc.). It includes his hometown of Dobbs Ferry in the infobox. It includes his parents and siblings and their occupations, even though none of them is notable. It calls his girlfriend his partner, even though there's no basis for saying that, and includes how long they've been dating, and the fact she is a medical student - all this is in the infobox for pete's sake. The lead engages in hyperbole ("an American computer programming prodigy"). Even the template documentation for infobox person says for relatives: "Names of siblings or other relatives, if notable." (my emphasis) And template documentation is usually fairly minimal. The infobox is now so long it goes halfway down into the body of the article. That happens sometimes in some articles where the information is needed, but here it's trivial.
My recommendation is remove all the new material from the infobox, add the philanthropic material to the Philanthropy section (it can be put in the lead later if it becomes well-established as a foundation), and take the prodigy stuff out of the lead. Pretty much get rid of all of it except to move some of it to the Philanthropy section.
Comments are welcome.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
As for your uses of the term hyperbole: This characterization would fit in cases where a subject was termed something in multiple sources that nonetheless aren't backed up by the facts--or else in cases where an editor uses wp:OR to label the subject something that isn't in the sources. Neither of those cases would apply here, in my opinion. But, again, the word isn't needed. What is important is the facts of the individual's biography be given encyclopedic treatment.
The talkpage section immediately above discusses philanthropy and Randi Zuckerman.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The notability guidelines are only used to determine whether a topic can have its own separate article on Wikipedia and do not govern article content. The question of content coverage within a given page is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.--- wp:NNC
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 04:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.--- wp:GNG
-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 01:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)When he was about eleven, his parents hired a computer tutor, a software developer named David Newman, who came to the house once a week to work with Mark. “He was a prodigy,” Newman told me. “Sometimes it was tough to stay ahead of him.” (Newman lost track of Zuckerberg and was stunned when he learned during our interview that his former pupil had built Facebook.) Soon thereafter, Mark started taking a graduate computer course every Thursday night at nearby Mercy College. When his father dropped him off at the first class, the instructor looked at Edward and said, pointing to Mark, “You can’t bring him to the classroom with you.” Edward told the instructor that his son was the student.
Mark was not a stereotypical geek-klutz. At Exeter, he became captain of the fencing team. He earned a diploma in classics. But computers were always central. ...
|
|
|
(Oooh! Jimmy's is too long! It's gotta be shortened!.....) </good-natured sarcasm>-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Mark Zuckerberg/Archive 1 | |
---|---|
Born | Mark Elliot Zuckerberg May 14, 1984 |
Nationality | American |
Education |
Phillips Exeter Academy attended Harvard College |
Occupation(s) | Co-founder, CEO and President of Facebook |
Bbb23 doesn't want the subject's hometown put in? I'd argue to take such a
wp:DONTLIKEIT argument to its proper venue of the
template:Infobox person page itself but I realize that WP goes by
wp:OWNership by majority rule of the folks that hang out at whichever article, so, I'm cool. In any case, this is how I found the infobox (--->right margin).
It's OK. I just thought it could be better. But everyone's ideas differ, obviously! O well.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 03:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The last section has now visually become almost impossible to read or to follow. So, I'm starting fresh, although the comments in the previous section are, of course, still relevant.
The same parameters hold true for the subject's parents, too, especially since people are particularly curious about prodigies' parents and upbringing, therefore, in-depth profiles about these individuals will tend to mention them as do, in turn, WP articles about these individuals. Basically, wp:RS/ wp:N say to go by what the sources cover, keeping an eye out for wp:WEIGHT, of course.-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 13:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Per wp:CANVASSING#Appropriate notification, I've started to try to attract interested editors to the page. (1) I've started a rfc on a small point above and (2) I've put in my two cents on the blp noticeboard/village pump & (3) the talkpage at template:infobox person. Hopefully some folks show up!-- Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden ( talk) 14:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if editors would vote on the infobox issues, including Education, Occupation, Known for, Home town, Partner, Parents, and Relatives. At least say whether you want to keep something or eliminate it, but, obviously, you're free to say more. I think we all know my and Hodgson's positions already.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
qanda
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Smithsonian 1995
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Apple 2006
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)