Talk:Mark Zuckerberg/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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]]

STEALING WIKIPEDIA CONTENT!!!

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)

So? Nothing on Wikipedia is copyrighted. People can copy and paste from this site as much as they want.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. The other site must comply with the license that Wikipedia uses. To put it simply, they must also allow anybody to copy the content on their site. The above site does not appear to be doing that - so they are indeed violating Wikipedia's copyright. DegenFarang (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

March 2006

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)

August 2006

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)

May 2007

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)

Jewish American

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)

I didn't see any reason why it should have been removed, unless it was used in an offensive way which it wasn't. Infact it's positive for the Jewish community, showing Jewish success in Internet ventures, considering Bittorrent and many other contributions the Jewish community has made. I think it should be put back, but in a subtle way on the article somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.67.167 (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

...because Jews are relatively unheard of in the business world or something? I'm not trying to stereotype, but please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 20.2.185.8 (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2007 (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)

"Early life" section

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.

No people are a race... There are no such thing as human races, only ethnic groups and religions. And when you attack or praise people just for their religion or ethnicity is it is commonly termed "racism".--158.36.137.7 06:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The word race has more than one definition, and can be used in regards to ethnicities.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

"Facebook" section

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?

I think this means university as opposed to high school and everyone else, and the date on that would be...2004 to 2006. The expansion happened gradually and I don't know if you can put a date on it. But I agree, the sentence is not great. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

WikiProject class rating

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)

Defacing

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)

Agreed, and we'll have the last laugh because he could have sold it in 2007 and been a literal billionaire by now. There's no way Facebook's value is going to increase much beyond this point, social networking is at tipping point (look at Facebook's visitor stats). 92.232.121.101 (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (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)

ConnectU Section

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)

American computer coordinator?

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)

Time

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)

Is that not in the article? Thought it would be. SamanthaG (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, regarding religion...

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)Not050Not050 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Often the term Jewish is used to describe someone's ethnicity; not their race. I have a friend who was raised Christain and considers herself Christain, but she also calls herself Jewish because she's of Jewish ancestry. SamanthaG (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yes that is aboslutely correct. Jewish is considered an ethnicity.

• Mark Zuckerberg (1984–): Founder and CEO of Facebook

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)

Except that this was settled in August last year, and the consensus has been to keep it listed, in the same way we list actors and politician's religions. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it was settled by a COMMITTEE OF TWITS from the GOD BLESS United States of AMERIKA. We don't serve your country, we don't serve your king, we're bigger and more than you.20:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.52.7 (talk)

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)

Zuckerberg with Kim Jong-iL's daughter

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)

Youngest billionaire

"[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)

Who said that he is a billionaire, is facebook rated so high? --213.168.120.67 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Zuckerberg's wealth/value

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:

• Emphasize his updated worth at 100-200m USD
• Mentions his 2008 Forbes wealth below.

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

• Based off a contract which included stock + contractual deals
• It did not amount to a buy out of the company
• It was Microsoft, a business with a great deal of money on hand
• Although it makes great controversy for him, it's non-sense and is misleading.
• The controversy is essentially over, no serious professional has backed it.

Furthermore, there are the things that mitigate his 200m + USD guess (based of stock + highest Yahoo! buy out offer)

• They were offers by companies which now could not possibly afford it
• The values were given before companies like Yahoo! had trouble with restructuring, failed MSFT buyout, more layoffs, recession
• It was an opportunity at a certain point, and he passed it.

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:

• The individual may not want to sell
• Conversely, No one may want to buy form the individual --Drinkadrink (talk) 07:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds about right the company is only worth about $2 billion and 20% to 30% of that, which Zuckerburg owns, comes out to $400-600 million. Daa89563 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Much more balanced

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)

Wikipedia is not Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook

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 he actually looks like Sebastian from Cruel Intentions in that picture. I dunno why they changed it Towel401 (talk) 13:50, 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)

Guesstimating Zuck's wealth: enough already

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)

HAHA Tufts and BU are Ivy League?

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)

Loss of funds

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)

Hmm, "less than 1 billion dollars" also describes my net worth. Can't we find a slightly less vague figure?--Pretty Green (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The source I found doesn't give any more details. We can probably assume that he probably still has more money than you or especially me.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 17:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't place Zuckerberg wealth in his Info box

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)

Missing See Also

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)

You may want to scroll down to the bottom of the page, there you will find a navbox with all the connected articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:07, 18 June 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.74.98 (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhmm, the wiki page is entirely unconnected to the administrators of facebook itself, (you should e-mail directly from the facebook site). Besides, you can turn off e-mail notifications for everything in facebook.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

terry hinkley-rossignol and many others,

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)

Again, the wiki page is not connected to the administrators of facebook itself. You need to log into facebook and find a contact e-mail there and contact them directly. Besides, you can turn off e-mail notifications for everything in facebook.24.190.34.219 (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk)

Isn't he Jewish

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)

• Sorry, but who cares? Drmies (talk) 05:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Ouch, that hurt.

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)

• True but his ancestry is, maybe that should be reflected in his info box? Nekng (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how it works. Most of those in the category American atheists do not indicate their religion in the infobox, instead it is discussed in their bio, the WSJ cite for his atheism says "[he] considers himself an atheist", if you can find a source which says he was raised Jewish then add it to his bio, not the infobox, per the MOS. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Zuckerberg clearly has Jewish background as indicated here: Israel visit, "Zuckerberg is Jewish", and berg is jewish. the article should place Zuckerberg as Jewish somewhere. Either ethnicity in the infobox, in the categories, or in the bio lead. It's pretty obvious. For those who say Zuckerberg being atheist somehow nullifies his "jewishness" needs to read Jew. Natalie Portman is also an atheist....Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That first citation, Ha'aretz, doesn't state that he is Jewish. The other two are blogs - Jewcy and the particularly loathsome Gawker site - neither one of the two would count as reliable sources. All Hallow's (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the context of special-interest sources, I think it is pretty clear Zuckerberg is Jewish. Jewcy is a popular Jewish online magazine. I don't think it would qualify as unreliable in this sense. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please restore his ethnic background? He is obviously Jewish and sources confirm. This should be a no-brainer here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can get a credible source, then no problem. Until then, no. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Haaretz and Jewcry are perfectly acceptable under the circumstances. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not. And two editors disagree with you. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Being a major newspaper, Ha'aretz is a reliable source. It just didn't say that he was Jewish, that was the problem. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All right I'll try to find a more reliable source. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

attack site

-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).

RETARD?

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)

Citation_Needed

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)

Help Me Cite

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)

spacing

{{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)

Question: I removed a space in [[Atheist( )|Atheist]], but I don't think that's it.. And the text all looks aligned fine to me. Can you take a Screenshot and highlight what you mean? — Deon^talk 07:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

These are all based upon the version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Zuckerberg&oldid=333762510 (current as of today).

footnote [8]

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.

footnote [6]

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:

• Chris Holt. "Thefacebook.com's darker side".

and

• Jennifer Graham. "Thefacebook.com for dummies".

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)

News Feed - Found Citation (currently flagged for weasel word)

{{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. ^ 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)

Mark Zuckerberg's 'religion', relevant?

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))

It has a reference and he has stated his atheism in interviews. It's not "emphasized" simply stated. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The question isn't the factual accuracy, but the relevance of such an information? (1tephania (talk) 00:16, 19 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)

Darrenhusted, I haven't even touched the infobox, and I haven't even thought about going to American atheists category or whatever, so no fears on your part. I just wanted to ask a simple question; Why would a businessman being an atheist (or not having a religion, whichever the case it is) be even a relevant information, and what's Wikipedia's standard on issues like this? No one is going to assume that he follows Judaism just because he is Jewish. (1tephania (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC))

Darrenhusted, I am back and you still haven't answered my question. I tried following the link that purportedly said he is an atheist or have no religion, but I could not access the article because I had to subscribe for Wall Street Journal online edition. How are the readers supposed to verify this information if they can't access it publicly? I am going to take it off, with your understanding. (1tephania (talk) 21:57, 11 March 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)

These sections should go

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)

Silicon Alley Insider stories March 2010

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, not an atheist (says NNDB)

He is Jewish: http://www.nndb.com/people/367/000069160/ --67.224.189.206 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

350 million users.[clarification needed]

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)

"Boomer Esiason" pic

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

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)

Stop being stupid

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)

hello i had a question..

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)

veronca

i am ur biggest fan :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.126.12 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Grammar Correction

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)

mired in controversy

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)

That is why you should probably do some research before removing sections from Wikipedia. Next time research the topic before removing it and then posting false information in its place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.219.51 (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Facebook Direction?

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)

No. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ethnicity in the infobox

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)

Are we talking ethnicity or religion? It seems from reading the article that Zuckerberg is ethnically Jewish but considers his current religious beliefs as being an atheist? Both are ok for the info box as long as they are covered in the bio by reliable sources. We do not include ethnicity in the lead sentence per WP:MOSBIO unless it is the reason for the person's notability. Not sure if this helps, but hopefully a start. What do others think and why is this a big deal, ie alot of editing back and forth? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading all the past threads, this seems contensious. How do we handle folks who consider themselves atheists? I read above that being an atheist means "no religion", so the editor argued that religion should be listed as "none"? Isn't there a category for like converts from Judism, or Jewish atheists. This is very gray/confusing and I can see why is has come up repeatidly. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Natalie Portman is an atheist but is obviously Jewish. Zuckerberg was invite along with other Jewish internet-"giants" to Israel and accepted the invitation. Now, the source does not explicitly state he is Jewish. This article implies he is Jewish:

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)

Spelling correction

"council for Ceglia" should be "counsel for Ceglia"
klode (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Harvard Student Status

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

According to wiktionary, an alumnus is a student or graduate. If he is neither a student or graduate (and drop-outs aren't either), then he's not an alumnus. 20.2.185.8 13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Your statement about what is "generally pretty well understood" doesn't seem to be sufficient justification for contradicting the dictionary (again just because you say that the definitionn is "overly inclusive"). I also don't care what schools do in terms of conferring benefits, which has nothing to do with whether the label alma mater is correct. Even the Wikipedia article on alma mater includes the dictionary definitions, including attendance rather than graduation. I'm going to give some more thought to the issue, but it seems to me that Zuckerberg's attendance at Harvard permits him to call Harvard his alma mater and the information should be put back. I'm not even sure that the parenthetical qualifier "dropped out" is necessary, but wasn't a bad compromise.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just to add my 2 cents, there was a similar issue at Sean Hannity, ie dropout. I think the final "compromise" was to say "attended" or something like that in the info box and go into detail in the body of the article. Of course these things change :) Good luck. --Threeafterthree (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)ps, went and took a peek, it is still "holding" :)....--Threeafterthree (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

An excellent compromise, and worth more than 2 cents. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Mark Zuckerberg is no longer the youngest billionaire in the world

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)

Worked just fine. I tweeked the lead. Don't think we need an update of his net worth. The guy is a billionare, more detail can go in the body if needed/appropriate. --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

$6.9 Billion = 24% of $11 Billion (Facebook's valuation)?

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?

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)

Criticism Section

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)

copyright violation?

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've noticed a lot of websites that copy Wikipedia's text. I don't know for sure who copied who in this particular instance, but my guess is they copied Wikipedia - and not very well, either (word, syntax, and grammar errors).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

fiancee?

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)

Done. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1 in 14 people in the World have a Facebook Account is inaccurate

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)

In any case, it treats the world as a unit, where Facebook is still mostly used in the U.S. and Europe. Will trim until the rest of the world catches up ;)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 12amrambler, 28 September 2010

{{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)

Jewish can refer to religion or ethnicity. Thus, how one interprets someone saying that someone else is Jewish can vary. It's even more attenuated here because the article doesn't say Zuckerberg is Jewish, but he considers himself an atheist. It says his parents are Jewish, but he considers himself an atheist. I don't see any problem with it - other than these kinds of statements in Wikipedia articles always seem to generate a lot of controversy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that depends on interpretation, but I think that "ethnicity point of view" prevails on Wikipedia; please, take a look at articles on Zadie Smith, Raymond Aron, Barack Obama, Albert Camus, Fatih Akin etc.: they all specify parents' ethnicity, not religion, so one has the right to assume that's exactly the word "Jewish" from here is referring to; besides, maybe Zuckerberg's parents are atheists too, so in this case this "but conjunction" would make no sense. It's not a big deal, however.Florin zeitblom (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I could find articles on Wikipedia where Jewish refers to religion, so I don't think there's a "prevailing" view. However, I agree with you that Zuckerberg's parents may be non-believing Jews. But the "but" (smile) still doesn't bother me much.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Oct. 20, 2010, Jewish Journal says he "might be the most eligible Jewish bachelor in the world" who "met his real-life girlfriend...Priscilla Chan, on erev Shabbat at an AEPi party...." (If the person who contributed the "but" is around: Did you do so in part because of the subject's rumored interfaith marriage-to-be (someday)?) IAC, due to such sources, I'll remove the controversial "but."--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:45, 28 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)

Chinese tutoring

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)

Sometimes facts fill in a fuller image of a subject (eg the Star Wars theme of his bar mitzvah? [Edited, to add: his like for blue, the intensity of which he is able to see best?])

In any case, I'll add other wp:RS citations of this fact...of admittedly recent/current interest.

...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

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)

1. Silcon Valley San Jose Mercury News: "Zuckerberg, who has talked about setting up operations in China, is studying Mandarin"
2. ChiTrib: "takes Mandarin lessons"--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As you might imagine, I don't agree with your statements above, but I have no problem with the source, so you don't need to go to the trouble to find another.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

(Cont....)

3. TechCrunch: "...if Facebook can show that, as a Western company, it can succeed in a place where no other Western company has before (like Russia), that will help it get the momentum to figure out the right partnerships it needs to succeed in China. ¶ With respect to openness in China (or lack thereof), Zuckerberg says that different countries around the world have different values, which Facebook has historically respected. For example, in Germany it’s illegal to post content about Nazism, so Facebook blocks it in Germany (but not in other countries). It has a similar policy with regard to drawings of Muhammad in Pakistan, where it’s illegal to post that content. ¶ Zuckerberg says that he’s spent a lot of time personally examining Chinese culture (including daily Chinese language lessons) to help with this. ... 'How can you connect the whole world if you leave out 1.6 billion people?'”--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As Hodgson continues to find more and more sources (for slightly different things), I'll continue to fight against the inclusion of Zuckerberg learning Chinese, whether it's to go on a trip, or whether it's to be able to communicate with the Chinese in business (are we going to include every language Zuckerberg learns to expand the global reach of Facebook?). However, comments about foreign expansion of the company might be notable, but not in the personal life section.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for fun: from Gala, a computer celebrity profile (I attempted to Google-"translate" from the German):

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.

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a natural tendency to turn notables into celebrities, and focus on trivial, newsy, and private areas of their lives "just for fun." The plus side to that is it feeds our love of gossip and news. On the negative side it easily crosses the barrier of privacy and turns individuals into celebrities, often against their will. When Zuckerberg was on Oprah, he was described by her as very private and not a spotlight hound. So it seems fair that respecting Wikipedia's news guidelines and avoiding invasion of private matters should be a priority. Even real celebrities and major movie stars like Robert Redford, Paul Newman, Goldie Hawn, and many others intentionally moved out of Hollywood and even California to protect their private lives. So I feel that his learning Mandarin, unless he himself makes it a notable business-related subject should be left out. I would also trim girlfriend-related details to a bare minimum since it can easily turn the subject into tabloid fodder, like the Gala source above, with their key menu selections being "Stars, Beauty & Fashion, Lifestyle, Men, Starbase," etc. Everyone has a right to a "secret garden." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I like your way of reasoning, Wikiwatcher1. It turns out that Zuckerberg let his Chinese study out of the bag on one of the most watched TV shows in the world, Oprah. Per "FabulousBuzz.com" (yeah, whadda name; whatever):

...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.

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?"

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)

As you imply, it may be a POV issue. From the brief quotes above, it's reasonable to say that "first of all, Mark is not a public figure," despite the fact that "Oprah ... offered a rare peek into Zuckerberg's private life." Oprah is TV tabloid and pure entertainment. Even the focus on the movie about him is questionable as a source for anything, as he called it "fiction" and disliked it. Leave it to journalists to turn that into a question like "What kind of celebrity is he going to be?" and avoid privacy issues altogether. Any TV producer would drool at the chance to turn his private life into another blockbuster like The Truman Show. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Regarding study of Mandarin by Mark Zuckerberg

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)

Now it's not trivia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Wikiwatcher. And, Hodgson, you're a regular research steamroller. Now, if someone could just remove all the unnecessary stuff from Education in the infobox, that would be great!--Bbb23 (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Current issues (November 2010)

Philanthropist

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)

Geez! where a 100M gift wouldn't be termed wiktionary:philanthropy would be a work of criticsm or polemics, etc. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Whereas the subject is indeedwp:WELLKNOWN, the primary guidelines for wp:BLPs nonetheless remain wp:V, wp:UNDUE, etc. and, giving undue weight to the poor timing of the announcement of the subject's charitable largesse would be wp:OR/wp:synth and a vio of wp:NPOV. However, in my opinion, even though the blp already mentions, as sourced, this issue, if an editor wants to contribute additional, sourced commentary about this controversy, that would be acceptable--although I'd hope that that contributor would research the foundation in question eg by reading the sources cited rather than simply relying on quick tabloid-style hits on the subject from the media. (Btw fwiw my take is the subject is correct when he says that he has been working on the foundation for some time; but, the timing of its announcement on the same day as the critical--partly fictional--biopic's release maybe wasn't all that great of p/r. Perhaps the subject doesn't spend as much time as others do in carefully calibrating his actions so that people think well about him--or "doesn't seem to care enough what ppl think"(???) However, the fact remains that the 100M is just a down payment toward the foundation, Newark being the prototype of the effort; and I'd not be surprised if the next targets for the charitable endeavor will be kept much, much more low key.)--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's true that when the Hollywood Reporter ranked and honored Zuck's sis at its second annual gathering of 50 "Digital Power Players" (feteing "top executives distinguishing themselves at the intersection of media and technology"), they might have been trying to suck up to her younger sibling whose company she handles international marketing for (and who himself is on the current Forbes 400 list). Randi Zuckerberg has also appeared on Good Morning America, The Today Show, and on broadcast news programs abroad.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the google "news" hits for "Randi Zuckerberg": archive; current.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:12, 5 November 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)

RfC: Is Randi Zuckerberg's notability enough for mention in brother Mark's blp?

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)

I woke up this morning and figured this quandary out. It's a type of mass psychosis. Would the reason that there can be a raft of news coverage about the public relationship between Mark and his sister and yet Wikipedians editing the article still wouldn't think she's notable enough to mention be the same reason they would give shorter shrift to Mark's youth?..'cause the biopic-screenplay didn't include scenes using a child actor portraying Mark in middle school or an actor to portray his adult sister? I'm starting to wonder, lol.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your description applies to me, although I confess I don't completely understand what you're saying. First, I don't want to give "shorter shrift" to Zuckerberg's youth. Second, I didn't even see the movie. Finally, I guess I should go back and look at this "public relationship" you mention. In any event, the sister has to be notable in her own right to be placed in the infobox - some sort of derivative notability doesn't count. Otherwise, all relatives of notable people would be notable simply by virtue of their relationship with the well-known person.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I was being tongue in cheek about the screenplay. In any case, I believe it will be pretty easy to prove you wrong about the need for independent notablility for inclusion of relational names in infoboxes. (Well, I think.)

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

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).

--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)

Spouses and children don't have to be notable for inclusion in the infobox.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried clicking on your words to find the wlink to the mention of such a simple and straightforward rule, but nothing happened.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

You clearly didn't click hard enough. :-) Per the infobox person template (says notable for parents, but not for spouse, for example). However, on a closer reading, children should be only the number of children unless individual children are notable, again per template.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: Going to the top of the Forbes 400, Mr. Slim's infobox lists his parents, too. Is that not kosher?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just because another article does something wrong doesn't mean the wrong has to be propagated. If you like, I could edit the Slim article and remove the stuff (it might be an interesting experiment to see the reaction, if any, of other editors). I know there's a temptation to cite other articles in defense of a way of doing something (consistency). The problem is that here I doubt seriously you'll find consistency. My guess is that you might find a consensus for my point of view, but, of course, someone would have to compile the statistics; otherwise, it's only my admittedly self-serving say-so.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Siblings/Spouses/Children should be added for possible future family referencing and(or)linking. Will make our lives, and those of researchers, easier if they themselves become notable in the future. Also highlight importance of genealogy of subjects, but must warrant conservativeness when regarding large families. i.e use maximum of three names children, oldest or closest sibling, all spouses are relevant. Gelmoth.v6 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the people who feel that siblings should be added even if they don't have a BLP themselves. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

New Material to lead, body, and infobox

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)

I believe that editor is me. The basic wp:EDITing page--in its wp:PRESERVE section--tells us the basics of constructively contributing to the project. Eg, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, in my paraphrase. (If sourced material might be better somewhere else in an article, we move it there, we don't delete such sourced info.) Etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

If your only change was the philanthropic change, I would be happy to move it to the Philanthropy section, but you made a slew of other changes - which you haven't addressed. And just because material is sourced doesn't mean it should be included if it's not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the subject's being gifted at an early age in computer programming is an indispensible part of his biography. Sometimes people are extraordinary. An encyclopedia documents the same; to not do so is actually engaging in POV slant. That said, sure, the work "prodigy" need not be used. (A child who is doing graduate-level computer programming is a prodigy whether he is called that or not.)

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)

There's already information about his programming in the body. If you think more sourced information is needed (what you put in the infobox under computer programming is not sourced and not even comprehensible - to me), that's one thing, but it's complete clutter in the infobox. Randi's position in her brother's company hardly makes her notable, no matter how many hits you get on Google.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 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

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) 04:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

wp:EDIT does say to discuss stuff such as major additions over before contributing so, yeah, you've a point there. Sorry. (Of course, we are doing so now. )Still, it would be helpful if you were to click on Vargas's cite throughout the infobox rather than claim that the info wasn't cited. Still, I've added yet another footnote to Vargas's excellent long piece on Zuckerberg in The New Yorker after the info in question.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about the computer programming stuff in the infobox, not the stuff you just added cites to. In any event, cites generally shouldn't be needed in the infobox because if the information is notable enough, it belongs in the body and should be cited in the body (same generally for leads). And I don't see any of the computer stuff you put in the infobox in the New Yorker article anyway. And I still don't even understand what you mean - at least the rest of what you added I understood, even if I didn't agree that it belonged in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Vargas (link):

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. ...

--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

To restate my premise: whereas the word prodigy doesn't have to be in an article about someone to whom that term is often applied in the sources, it still would not be incorrect by any means to do so. (I.e., not all people are <using WP's search bubble> prodigies important in computer science such as Norbert Wiener or John von Neumann; some people are simply youths that, despite their age, are at an quite advanced level in computer science (such as Philip Gale or Markus Hess).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bbb23 on pretty much everything. It's way overkill. The only thing I would add is that visually, when compared with 99.99% of infoboxes, it looks ridiculously bloated. Sergey Brin's is a reasonable size. But this box needs a serious and immediate infosuction. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Way overkill and needs trimming. MarmadukePercy (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe it a "wiki argument fallacy" to pull out comparable-level folks's blp-infoboxes, such as Sergey Brin's, and say Zuckerberg's "shouldn't be any longer!" But I'm in the minority here, so--snip away! <smiles>

Wales   Born Jimmy Donal Wales (1966-08-07) August 7, 1966[note] Huntsville, Alabama, United States Nationality United States Other names Jimbo (online alias) Alma mater Auburn University, University of Alabama, Indiana University Bloomington Occupation(s) Investment banker, Internet entrepreneur Known for Co-founding Wikipedia Title President of Wikia, Inc. (2004–present) Chairman, Wikimedia Foundation (June 2003 – October 2006) Chairman Emeritus, Wikimedia Foundation (October 2006–present) Successor Florence Devouard Board member of Wikimedia Foundation, Creative Commons, Socialtext, MIT Center for Collective Intelligence (advisory board) Awards EFF Pioneer Award (2006) The Economist's Business Process Award (2008) The Global Brand Icon of the Year Award (2008) Gottlieb Duttweiler Prize (2010) Website blog.jimmywales.com

Jobs   Born Steven Paul Jobs (1955-02-24) February 24, 1955 San Francisco, California, USA Nationality American Alma mater Reed College (dropped out in 1972) Occupation(s) Chairman and CEO, Apple Inc. Board of Directors, Walt Disney Company Spouse Laurene Powell (1991–present) Children 4 Signature

Gates   Born (1955-10-28) October 28, 1955 Seattle, Washington, USA Nationality American Alma mater Harvard University (dropped out in 1975) Occupation(s) Chairman of Microsoft (non-executive) Chairman of board of Corbis Co-Chair of Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Director of Berkshire Hathaway CEO of Cascade Investment Spouse Melinda Gates ​ (m. 1994)​ Children 3 Parent(s) William H. Gates, Sr. Mary Maxwell Gates Website Bill Gates Signature

(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 (1984-05-14) May 14, 1984 White Plains, New York
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)

Looks much better IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Break

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.

• Infobox

Education. Eliminate his high school, his classical diploma, his fencing captainship, and the new Harvard description and years (previous Harvard description, which was agreed upon in a discussion a while ago, was fine) - no one cares about any of it.

Occupation. Remove the founder of the education foundation until it's better established as an "occupation".

Known for. Eliminate completely. Net worth is enough. However, the Forbes stuff could go in the body.

Home town. Eliminate as non-notable. However, I don't care that much about it - at least it only takes up one line.

Partner. Eliminate. She's not his partner. She's his girlfriend.

Parents. Eliminate. Not notable.

Relatives. Eliminate. Not notable.

• Lead Restore it to the way it was, although it might be okay to have a first paragraph about Facebook and an additional paragraph about philanthropy. The lead is fairly short for the length of the article. Definitely eliminate the "computer programming prodigy" stuff.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

People that are gifted in such a technically precise area as computer programming are sometimes sterotyped as lacking other types of interests and the subject's fencing and Classical studies are widely noted upon, which in turn is proof positive both that people are interested in this info and that it is of note, per reliable sources. Furthermore, someone who is a young man yet is considered one of the world's most influential folks...[whatever that means!; I suppose for innovations with regard to how many in the world will come to interact with each other? plus someone with the funds to guide enterprises and charties?]...has items of biography of interest that will differ from someone else. For example, the dates that Gates and Jobs dropped out from college is in their infoboxes and it is not unusual to include majors, graduation dates, too.

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)

Let's not overlook the body of the article, which already has a "Personal life" section where such details can be nicely incorporated and cited - for the benefit of those who want to know such things as his parent's professions, etc. I think the lead should be a summary of material already in the body, and without new descriptive material or adjectives. Calling someone a prodigy, for instance, should not be stated, but should be implied by the facts. The lead does seem too brief at this point. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

More eyes?

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)

Hodgson, thank you for doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the prodigy and philanthropist in the lede. Seems like meaningless hyperbole to me also.Off2riorob (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this diff any improvement?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead should not include commentary, such as "youthful" or "aficianado," unless such a description was already cited in the body. There are plenty of facts in the "personal life" section which can be stated in summary form. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Wikiwatcher1.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox votes

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)

These seem reasonable: Born, Nationality, Education, Occupation, Known for (professional aspects, not $), Net worth, Spouse (but not girlfriends), Website. I'd leave all the rest for the article, most of which would fit in the "Personal life" sections. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you'd leave in everything under Education, including high school, classical diploma, and fencing team captain? Also, you'd leave in Occuption the part about the Start-up? You'd take out Chan (he doesn't have a spouse)? Finally, what exactly would you put in Known for (right now it pretty much only has the $ - his association with Facebook is already covered elsewhere in the infobox)? Sorry to pepper you with questions, but the devil is in the details.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Education" should be college only, to be consistent with other cyber-notables. "Known for" creating Facebook, the world's largest online social network. "Residence" should also be OK to list. For "Occupation" we could have "Computer scientist, software developer, CEO and President of Facebook." The rest per the box above. All other personal life details would be in body, with cites. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

So, Wikiwatcher, why haven't you removed the education stuff ("per Talk") as you've done some of the other stuff? Apparently, when you do it, Hodgson doesn't mind as much. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)