Talk:Zac Efron/Archive 2

message: Pardon me, but what exactly is Efron's official website?  zefron.com seems like the most likely one; they claim to be in contact with Efron...however, that makes it seem that the website is a fan site rather than Efron's own.
BBCOFFEECAT 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asking for your own personal interests, or because you feel it is relevant to the 'discussion' of Zac's Wikipedia page? If it's the latter, Zefron.com is a fansite. Zac and the webmaster seem to talk sometimes. But as of now, I don't think Zac has an 'official' website. Dh993 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, because some people seem to be referring to Zac Efron's official site', I wondered if he actually had one. BBCOFFEECAT 22:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: okayy. zefron.com IS the official website. it looks like a fan site, but that is where all personal and other information is given out to the public.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovehsm4life (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Efron's Official Website

message: Can we get a picture back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest912 (talk • contribs) 
:We want an image that is freely usable, which every image so far uploaded of Efron is not. We cannot simply use a random image off a website as they will have restrictions on their usage. Evil Monkey - Hello 03:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, absolutely not.  And it shouldn't have been used in the article on Nikki Blonsky either.  Once again, please see WP:IUP.  We may not use a fair-use image solely to depict a living person.  --Yamla (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for clearing that up.  To be honest I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be able to be used in that article either, but I thought I'd check here just to make sure. —Mears man (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: there are rampant rumors recently that theyve split
UPDATE: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2007-09/20/content_6122017.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.74.254 (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By rampant you mean that all the news organizations are picking up on the one story from OK! Magazine. I've reworded what was added so as to read that they are still dating. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. The fact that they were dating was not added until it was confirmed by Hudgens so we shouldn't change it until it is confirmed that they are not dating. Evil Monkey - Hello 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  zac/vanessa split rumors  

message: I know ages ago there were all of these rumour about Efron and Blonsky, but they were all cos of the kiss on whatever show it on. But now there's a new rumour that post nude photos of Vanessa they've actually broken up and he's actually dating Blonsky. I know since they're rumours and I have no reliable source that this can't be taken seruiously but if anyone knows where to look to find the honest info on his relationship status that'd help.--JG ROX 124.179.49.71 06:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship Status (again)

message: The sentence was "although he is of Jewish ancestry, he was raised in an agnostic household." or something like that. I was wondering if this was the reason why Category:American Jews wasn't added to his article. It is certainly possible to be atheist/agnostic and Jewish. You are still Jewish even if you don't know you are (Madeleine Albright; Christian and Jewish) and there has been prominent Jewish atheists. (Ayn Rand, Karl Marx). I think Category:American Jews should be added to his page. Any thoughts? mirageinred 00:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He doesn't consider himself Jewish, He wasn't raised as a Jew. He has nothing in common with cultural Jews. I think the category should be reserved for people who self identify as Jewish, not those, who through incident of birth had a Jewish maternal line ancestor. I think the phrasing is fine stating ancestry, as it is cited, but should respect how he self identifies as a non-religious agnostic. --NrDg 01:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just read the description at :Category:American Jews and it says: American adherents of Judaism, or Americans of Jewish heritage, including atheists born to Jewish parents. He is born to Jewish parents, and I think the category should be included. mirageinred 02:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go by their rules. However I suggest you read Who is a Jew? and see if that applies. I object personally to including people in categories they don't want to belong to and so do some modern Jews. This is probably a discussion better carried out on the category discussion page. I personally don't think that most Jewish people would want to include people who don't consider themselves Jewish, but that is just my opinion. --NrDg 02:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the article in the past and there is certainly a lot of rules and definitions. Religious, cultural, ethnic etc. The section "ethnic Jew" says ""Ethnic Jews" include atheists, agnostics, non-denominational deists, Jews with only casual connections to Jewish denominations or converts to other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism." mirageinred 02:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then go by whatever rules the people who define the category want. I guess ethnic Jews is like ethnic Italian. It is definitional, not a personal choice. --NrDg 03:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved from our personal talk pages - I didn't recognize your user name in the signature.--NrDg 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the phrasing "does not practice Judaism" as a replacement for my "never practiced a religion." The way I stated it conforms to what he stated in the article and includes what you stated and much more. Your rephrasing leaves open the possibility that he is religious, just not Jewish. That is not the totality of meaning to what the cite stated. --NrDg 02:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I must disagree. "Agnostic" already means that Efron is not religious. However, him being Jewish may imply that he may practice Judaism he may adhere of some of Jewish traditions. "Does not practice Judaism" was intended to clear the confusion. However, if you don't like my wordings, "has never practiced Judaism" seems like a nice compromise. mirageinred 02:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem. We are looking at two aspects of being Jewish, culture and religion. It is very possible that he was immersed in a lot of the non-religious parts of having a Jewish heritage. Probably can't avoid it if his parents were raised that way. However, the cite being used says nothing about it. Most people see the word Judaism and think religion, not culture. I was trying to stay true to what was actually said in the reference. I don't think it is a good idea to go beyond what we can back up with references.--NrDg 02:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most people see the word Judaism and think religion, not culture." I disagree although Jews and Judaism are closely related. (The article Jew says the two are "strongly interrelated," not one and the same) For example, (this is kind of random) jokes about the Jewish nose doesn't originate from stereotypes about the Jewish faith, but ethnic stereotypes. The source used for this article says that Efron is of Jewish descent, but he and his family are agnostic. The definitions used in Cat:American Jews include religious Jews and/or those born Jewish but not adhering to Judaism or religious. mirageinred 03:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are more attuned than I so I defer to your knowledge and insights. Your change in phrasing was fine with me. I have no problems adding the category as well. Others will probably object, but I won't. --NrDg 03:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if there is any evidence that he does not consider himself Jewish. He did evidently give an interview to a Jewish newspaper. All Hallow's Wraith 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrased following sentence