Jump to content

Talk:Zac Efron/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

wrong info

'Can somebody, who has the rights, change Zac's picture to a more attractive picture? It will do both us and him good. Thank you.'

The picture on this page of Zac Efron, is NOT Zac Efron. It is a random old guy.

It's been addressed, thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 05:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


In the part where it says what films he is in, nottingham should be in 2005, not in 2006. Iwould change it myself, but the page is semi protected, and it won't allow me to Salennox (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources seem to indicate that 2005 is the correct year. Where is this otherwise indicated? --Ebyabe (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Take that back. It is already in 2005, at the bottom of that section. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't say that he were nominated for the razzie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.221.8.197 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC) yeah watever

I can't find any nomination for ZE in any year of the Razzies. If you find a verifiable reference for the nomination it should and will be added. BOVINEBOY2008 22:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Zac efron was nominated in the first stages of nominations for a Razzie.[1]

This only shows that he was considered for a Razzie nomination, plus the source is not notable (its a blog). BOVINEBOY2008 20:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
From the article: "Vanessa Hudgens confirmed, in an October 2007 interview with Teen Magazine, that she and Efron had been dating since the filming of High School Musical.[32][33] They were still dating as of September 3, 2008." You'll note that it's referenced; you can follow the links in the article yourself to judge whether they're reliable or not. I'm going to assume good faith and conclude that your post here was made in an effort to improve the accuracy of the article - if that is the case it would help if you read the article first... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Posing with nude model

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1162707/High-School-Musical-star-Zac-Efron-sheds-squeaky-clean-image-posing-naked-model-mud.html

Should it be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.8.55 (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC) there getting marryed in september 10:12 so dont lisen to other people 

sighned  Xx09xx (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

When i saw the link i was kind of shocked i must say,but i think it should be added,he is taking an important milestone in his image,so i think its important info--Aldamira (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish is not an ancestry

How could he be of Jewish ancestry and an Agnostic? Can I be of Christian ancestry and be an Atheist? It makes no sense. He's an Agnostic, so I removed all categories calling him Jewish, including the paradox category of "Jewish Agnostics." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4destruction (talk • contribs) 03:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(Jewish is consider both a religion and a race (so to speak). it's pasted down by the mother. I don't know how to reply properly. help! jaxomprice17)

Jews consider anyone with a Jewish ancestor through the maternal line to be Jewish, end of story, no matter what the individual's religious beliefs are. It is an ancestry, not just a religion.—Kww(talk) 04:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
It is more complex than that and this issue has been discussed before. See Talk:Zac Efron/Archive 2#Rephrased following sentence. Basically Jewish is an ethnicity with various inclusion criteria, maternal lineage is not the only one, and is no more of a personal choice than any other ethnicity. Judaism is the religion and adherence IS a personal choice. Jewish agnostic just means is of Jewish ethnicity but does not adhere to Judaism. See Who is a Jew? and inclusion description of Category:American Jews for more background. --NrDg 14:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

An encyclopedia needs to write facts and not opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.154.237 (talk) 12:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course - where are the factual inaccuracies in this article that you imply are there? --NrDg 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheist or orthodox,the fact that he is a jewish is a fact.This is not an inaccuracies.This is a fact the encyclopedia didn't mention at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.57.143 (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does mention it - it says "Efron is of Jewish ancestry and is an agnostic, having never been religious" and provides four references in support. I'm assuming you're referring to Effron's ancestry, and not his religion since I'm sure you realise that someone who is an atheist or is agnostic can't - by definition - also have a religion? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's metioned, but you need to read the entire article to know that.If someone wants to know only who Efron is, he probably going to read how the encyclopedia defines him in the beginning.And in the definition it's says nothing about him being jewish.

It is in the section "Early life and backgroung" and is explicit "Efron is of Jewish ancestry and is an agnostic". That is a factually true statement, is backed up by references and is how Efron considers himself. The wikilink on Jewish ancestry gives significant background as to what this means. Jewish people generally consider people with Jewish ancestry a Jew. Other people may or may not. You can draw your own conclusions based on the facts provided. We don't make conclusions, we present the referenced information. How Jewish people base their inclusion criteria for group membership is not legally defining in the US where Efron resides and others don't have to agree or honor it - including Efron himself. --NrDg 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If it can be established that it is his mother who is Jewish, the line can be correctly edited to "Although Jewish by Jewish law, Efron is an Agnostic." If it is just his father who is Jewish, the entire reference to Judaism can then be just as properly discarded. FlaviaR (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article Who is a Jew?. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. Jewish law is not American law and Jewish group inclusion criteria is not that simple. The fact that most Jewish people consider Efron Jewish has no real significance to people who are not Jewish. The current text in the article is sufficient and correct. --NrDg 14:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have read it; it bolsters my point. To discuss "American Law" WRT to this article is taking this to ridiculous heights.

I can also assure you that "most Jewish people" probably have no idea who Zac Efron even is. The current text in the article is vague and could be a great deal more correct rather than misleading. FlaviaR (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This should really be a non-issue. If someone is agnostic it means that they do not adhere to a religion. It is incorrect to label an agnostic person Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. Furthermore, the references provided are not valid sources, they are gossip columns. There is also a strong possibility that there is religious trolling (Jewish) going on here. This is not tolerated on wikipedia. This reference will, therefore, soon be removed and if there is an edit war, the page will be fully protected. aNubiSIII (T / C) 03:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read this whole section. Jewish is a valid ethnicity just like Italian or German or Hispanic. Jewish is NOT solely a religion. Judaism is the religion. Jewish ethnicity and religious agnostic are not in conflict. This has been discussed before - see archive links as pointed out above. Current version is correct and does not need to be changed. --NrDg 04:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
To add - the main reference is an article in "Rolling Stone" generally considered a reliable source. The article has basically been stable about this information from at least October 2007 when this was last extensively discussed. The current wording is from a compromise consensus formed at that time and is factually correct and well referenced. --NrDg 04:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmm...are you Jewish? ...and consensus? Really, where? Anyway, if I actually had the time or cared that much I would do the proper thing and start an RfC. I mean, if there is one thing I can't tolerate on Wikipedia, it is trolling (and I'm definitely not implying that you are but merely indicating that it is rampant on Wikipedia especially in relation to "ethnicity" in bios - I'm sure you are aware). For example, about a month ago, several users including myself had a heck of a time with a person claiming that Franz Liszt what an ethnic Slovak (needless to say, it was determined that he was most definitely not). As to the Rolling Stone citation, I definitely does not support the position you support. In the article, he simply says "I was raised agnostic, so we never practiced any religion". After skimming it, I couldn't not find a reference to Judaism at all in this article! (so be careful with your references). Also, while I completely agree with you that Judaism is sometimes considered a macroethicity or ethnoreligion, I think that you are missing the point. By definition, ethnicity is a social construct and self-identification is the dispositive factor. That is clearly lacking here since Efron is agnostic. Furthermore, Efron lacks any cultural, linguistic, lineal, behavioral or religious commonalities with this group. There is simply no way you can stretch the term to include him in the group. I hope you can see that. But, that being said, I am certainly not going argue with anyone over this. But, as an honest gesture, I would obliged if, at least, there would be an RfC created on this issue (that way the issue could be settled). Thanks for understanding my point. aNubiSIII (T / C) 07:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I find comments like "There is also a strong possibility that there is religious trolling (Jewish) going on here" and "Hmm...are you Jewish?" to be incredibly offensive and inappropriate here. If NrDg answered in the affirmative, would he/she be disqualified from participating in this conversation? Does aNubiSIII's background on the other hand specifically qualify them to edit here? I also don't understand what this means: "Efron lacks any cultural, linguistic, lineal, behavioral or religious commonalities with this group". All of that (save for possibly the "religious" part) sounds like very odd original research to me that has a lot to do with aNubiSIII's personal opinions, and I frankly don't want to know what the term "behavioral" was referring to in this context. As for Agnosticism meaning that someone can't be Jewish, that would contradict the existence of the category Category:Jewish agnostics and the articles Jewish atheism or Secular Jewish culture. While NrDg wasn't (factually) correct in saying that the Rolling Stone article mentioned Efron being of Jewish ancestry, it looks to me like there are several references in this article that back up the first part of the sentence "Efron is of Jewish ancestry and is an agnostic, having never been religious". One is the Elle Magazine profile that refers to him as "Jewish"; the other is an interview Efron gave to a Jewish newspaper, which also refers to him as "Jewish". And lastly there is the "Rumors" section of the website "Zefron.com", which gleans its information from Efron and his family and states "Zac is of Jewish decent but no, Zac does not practice the Jewish Religion". Lastly, the edit aNubiSIII actually made to this article was to delete the phrase "Efron is of Jewish ancestry"; however, nothing in aNubiSIII's writing above indicates that aNubiSIII even disputes that Efron is "of Jewish ancestry", so I'm not sure what this conversation is about or how this writing differs, from, say, Robert De Niro's article stating "De Niro's father was of Italian and Irish descent, and his mother was of German, French, and Dutch descent". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
First, my response was not directed at you and I have no clue why you responded. Secondly, maybe the reason you perceive this as "offensive" is that you neatly fit into this category (i.e. my comment was in no way meant to offend anyone and if you fail to realize that there is such a trolling problem (in relation to ethnicity in BLPs) on Wikipedia, then you have not been editing long enough). The fact that a Jewish source or a glossip column calls him Jewish, does not make him Jewish. But, I am not going to argue with you and I have seen this same thing before in relation to other dubious claims with obscure sources. I simply asked for an RfC but, apparently, no one is willing to create one (again I, personally don't have time). So this all seems to be futile. aNubiSIII (T / C) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
He responded because this is an open discussion and everyone is encouraged to respond. I took/take no offense at any comments directed at me but I don't consider them useful to the discussion. --NrDg 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This debate is ridiculous here. The real question is Are there reliable sources that state Efron is of Jewish heritage? If there are, cite those references next to the statement in the article and/or infobox, and then we are done with it. If there aren't, or if the sources are not truly reliable, then remove the information per BLP policies. It is not up to us to make the determination. We present the facts as reliable sources state them. There is nothing to debate here other than the reliability of the facts that have been reported by third parties on this matter. Our own personal feelings, opinions, and/or biases should never factor into this (see WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc.). --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 10:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As All Hallow's Wraith pointed out there are 4 references that combined support the inclusion of the information as phrased and these 4 references are immediately attached to the information. That is more than most ethnicity references in other articles usually have. The two that are sufficient are from Rolling Stone and Elle. The Jewish Exponent is added support. There is no indication that any of these are not reliable sources for this particular information. "The Jewish Exponent" at least confirms that some Jews consider him Jewish which means Jewish ancestry. "Rolling Stone" supports agnostic. We do not say he IS a Jew as he does not self-identify as such but we can state his ancestry which can be supported and does not require self identification. The previous discussion revolved around explicitly calling him a Jew which I opposed then and still do because he does not self-identify as such. The compromise was to not call him a Jew and just state ancestry so that readers can make their own conclusions. That compromise has been stable for more than a year until now. I do not see any original research or non-neutral point of view in this at all and the information is backed up with verifiable reliable sources. As a personal note, as my impartiality is being called into question, I have no interest in this issue other than as an editor trying to improve articles and, in this case, to support a compromise I was a part of forging. I generally do not want to see any claims of ethnicity or religious identification in articles unless important to why a person is notable. I would have no problem removing the whole sentence under contention per these reasons as I consider it trivia about Efron. However, consensus on wiki so far supports including this type of information. My only goal is make sure that when this info is included it is backed up and neutral. My conclusion is that those requirements have been met. --NrDg 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly expected more from a sysop. "'The Jewish Exponent' at least confirms that some Jews consider him Jewish which means Jewish ancestry" is a sentence that is void of all good logic. I made my point and "fighting" for the integrity of the Franz Liszt article was certainly more worth it than for this one. I just hope that someone realizes that I am making a valid point and, at least, does the semi-proper thing and creates an RfC. aNubiSIII (T / C) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Your only issue, as far as I perceive, is whether or not the sources used meet the standard for WP:RS. You assert they do not and base your conclusions on that. I consider them reliable and as such the information they support well referenced and meeting the requirements off WP:BLP. As to the logic I used, it is well founded based on the presumption that the article linked to is correct. If you wish to bring this issue to the attention of a wider review you are free to initiate a WP:RFC about the topic. I don't see the need. --NrDg 20:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That is very true,Kww has a very true point.My mother is jewish and that makes me jewish,whether i am practicing or not.--Aldamira (talk) 08:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You could always re-phrase it saying Efron is of Semitic ancestry and agnostic. Thereby giving the information, but also not confusing people who don't understand that Jewish can refer to two things.24.190.34.219 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jews NEVER saw themselves as a race, until last century. There was never a "Jewish ancestry". Jews were in all times cosmopolitans, citizens of the world. They racially intermixed with all people they lived with. The Zionists made the story about the "Jewish race" up, early in the 20th century, and focused on it during and after The Second World War. Of course, when Israel was founded by Zionists, this story went mainstream, and until today it is believed to be true. But it is nonsense. JEWS ARE WORLD PEOPLE, of WORLD PEOPLE's ancestry! Most Jews have German and Eastern European ancestry, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
See Woody Allen, Stephen Jay Gould, etc. "Jew" means either the religion, the ethnic group (NOT race, but ethnicity), or both. One can be Jewish and be a Christian or Muslim or even atheist/agnostic. Judaism is the religion, Jewish can refer to the religion but it does not always. Please read the article on Jewish/Jew/etc. To say "Semetic" ancestry is not valid, as not all who are Semetic are Jewish (Hebrews, many Arabs, and Ethiopian Semites are all Semites, though only the Hebrews would be considered Jewish in terms of being ethnically Jewish). This may confuse people because anti-Semitic usually only means anti-Jew. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Possibly OT, but a little note: "antisemitic" always has meant "anti-Jew", because that's why the word was coined in the first place.FlaviaR (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


IF YOU CHECK THE SOURCES LISTED FOR EFRON'S SUPPOSED "JEWISH BACKGROUND", YOU WILL FIND THAT THEY ARE ALL UNRELIABLE. The first one is a picture of a magazine where you cannot even make out the text. The next is from some Jewish website referring to Zefron as a Jew, but it's not a direct source nor does it look very reliable. The other ones are similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.194.179 (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To enlarge that scan from Elle Magazine, just press the button that pops up on the bottom right hand side of the image when you scroll your mouse there. All Hallow's (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we edit?

Why can't I edit this article?--Tatiana kitty (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently semi-protected, so only "auto-confirmed" editors can edit it. You can either make a few more edits elsewhere (until you become "auto-confirmed"), or you can request an edit here on the talk page and an auto-confirmed editor can review and make the change. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will wait.--Tatiana kitty (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
'Editors'- these are the same people who are usually wrong in their edits and when you change them to accurate information complete with citations, they get reverted. These days I wouldn't trust anything on Wikipedia. I can't tell you how many times I've seen People magazine as a legitimate 'source' of information.24.195.233.118 (talk)

Strawpoll: Better known as an Actor or a Musical Artist?

I reverted changes to the infobox that emphasized Efron as a musician over being an actor. I don't really follow his career (we just attended the same high school several years apart), but it seems like he is best well known for being an actor rather than a musician. So, what do you think? Is he primarily an actor or a musician?

Label info that was added by FlawedDeception (talk · contribs) was unreferenced and the changes to the article should probably have been reverted as info lacking a reliable source. This is separate from the issue of what infobox template to use. Minus valid musical artist parameters, infobox actor is sufficient for the information that is currently needed. --NrDg 19:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

zac and vanessa not getting hitched.

Zac Efron and vanessa Hudgens are not engaged.both people deny this and I will not believe this till they confirm it themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.24 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

All the article says is that "they're dating". So no worries there, I guess? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"arguably the biggest teen star in America right now"

This opinion from one person should not appear in the lead, if at all. In addition, it's more than three years old, and if I remember correctly that surpasses the expiration time of "biggest teen star". __meco (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol, he's not even a teen anymore. --Darx9url (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"are" vs. "were" in "Personal life"

I'm not understanding the use of past tense in the line "They were still dating as of April 5, 2009". The point of the sentence is that they ARE currently dating, and at the end it happens to give the last date of reference for that fact. Now if it were phrased differently I would understand the use of past tense, e.g. "They were still dating in April of 2009," but that's not the case. I understand the sentence refers to a past date, but that should not change the tense of the statement. What am I missing? --Runnermonkey (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe it should be the present tense. Technically both are correct but using the past tense implies that they are no longer dating, which we don't have a reference for either. We are using April of 2009 as a reference point; the two are dating, at least as of April 2009. I changed it before but it was reverted as well. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is that "are" is grammatically wrong. " ... are dating as of date" hurts my eyes because the tense is incorrect for the grammatical construction. "Were dating as of date" means that that date is the last time that the information was confirmed. If you find a reliable source with a more recent date, feel free to update it, but the tense remains past tense.—Kww(talk) 15:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
It isn't grammatically incorrect. I can't find any sources, in fact, about the grammar behind "as of". As of right now (no pun intended) it is incorrect. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
So far as I know, "...as of right now ..." is the only time that present tense is used with the "...as of ..." construct. I think we are arguing over the wrong issue, though. The language was introduced in the article when the relation was poorly sourced, short-term, and not confirmed by either party. Now, the relationship appears to be as stable as you are going to find among 20-something Hollywood types, and is acknowledged by both parties. I'd be happy enough to drop the "... as of ..." language and simply change it to "is".—Kww(talk) 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems appropriate. It would follow policy to say that they are dating until there is a source saying otherwise. I am for dropping the "as of" construction; it isn't a great construction anyway. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Leave out the status in time report in the article is more appropriate than making a conclusion not supported by the reference. We can conclude nothing about the present based on a point in time status update. Reader can make their own conclusions based on what we reference. --NrDg 18:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 Done BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Please fix broken reference

Could someone replace the <ref name="msnbc" /> in the second paragraph of the "2007-present: Recent roles" section with <ref name="msnbc">{{cite web |title=MSNBC|work=Hollywood: Hello to Hairspray|url=http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13531836/site/newsweek|accessdate=June 25, 2006}}</ref> When this full reference was removed from the lead paragraph on 2 Aug 2009 it broke the reference section. 75.69.0.58 (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. All Hallow's (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)



Semi-protection review

23:51, 1 July 2008 Acalamari protected Zac Efron ‎ (Heavy vandalism [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

I protected this page over a year ago. What are the thoughts on testing unprotection? Acalamari 21:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The words "doomed to failure" come to mind.—Kww(talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I tend to agree. If ever there was a candidate for long-term protection, it's this one. --Ebyabe (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yikes! Thanks for the links to related logs. Looking at the first, for Miley Cyrus, told a horrifying tale. I think I'll quietly drop these articles as candidates for semiprotection review and concentrate on more promising areas. --TS 09:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses: keeping semi-protection in place, as it seems it is not a good idea to unprotect this page or any of those mentioned above. Acalamari 23:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.filmofilia.com/2009/01/09/razzie-awards-2009-nominations/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zac_Efron/Archive_4&oldid=1137342372"