Talk:Mark Zuckerberg

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


Net worth conflicting information

The main article says he has a net worth of $111 billion. The box on the side (sorry, I know you all have a wonderful name for it, but I don't know what it is) says he has a net worth of $99.6 billion and both give "September 2020" as the date for the estimate. Which is it? 82.15.132.29 (talk)

Arie Hasit's incorrect claim

Arie Hasit claims Zuckerberg's "FaceMash" put pictures of two males OR two females next to each other, but Zuckerberg said UNDER OATH during questioning that it was in fact "girls" whose pictures were being used this way.

Undid Musk cage fight revision

Hi, User:ZimZalaBim

Could you tell me why the cage fight between Musk and Zuckerberg is only notable once it has taken place? Surely, the amount of journalism and attention dedicated to this event is enough to note it, even if it does not transpire.

There are examples, for instance, where boxing matches are arranged yet do not happen, which are detailed in the associated boxer's article. The only difference between professional fighters and Musk/Zuckerberg is that this information would be in the "Career" section for the former and the "Other Activities" for the latter. TDW 16:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to duplicate the section you posted at Talk:Elon Musk#Undid Zuckerberg cage fight revision. Consensus is clearly against including this content on either page. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This is bluster, and not encyclopedic. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"might be simpler but not as accurate"

Can the problem with this edit be explained, please? Thanks. Popcornfud (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Popcornfud I appreciate your most recent revision made to this page. Better to have this version than the long list of unreadable years in lead. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAN

Well I have significantly contributed to upgrading the article's quality. Furthermore, I am one of the article's top five authors and one of its all-time top editors. This fact coupled with my extensive knowledge about the article's subject has led me to nominate it for GAN today. I hope the others are not against my nomination. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Philanthropist" in the first sentence of the lead

Per the arguments I laid out in WP:PHILANTHROPIST, can we move this out of the first sentence of the lead? While I have no doubt he has made donations of various sorts and this has received coverage, it is not his primary claim to notability, nor is it WP:DEFINING, making it inappropriate and WP:UNDUE to weigh it equal to his status as a businessman. It is also a non-neutral term, meaning it can only be used when the majority of the sources use it - and most of the sources in the relevant section of the article do not; they merely state that he has made donations. Characterizing them as philanthropy in Wikipedia's voice ascribes intent in a way that most sources do not. --Aquillion (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that philanthropy isn't the main thing Zuck gets noted for. However, I wouldn't go so far to call that adjective "a non-neutral term". The term doesn't inherently suggest someone is a good/bad person. You also appear to be imposing your own criteria for when to use it by treating your essay as a policy or guideline. Regardless, removing it from the opening sentence is fine, but not because of neutrality issues. The more relevant factor is how it's less prominent than his business endeavors. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]