Talk:Zac Efron/Archive 2

Efron's Official Website
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)
 * 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)

www.myspace.com/zacefron —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.214.219.222 (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Picture
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)

is being used in the article Nikki Blonsky to show what she looks like. Could it be used in this article to depict Zac Efon as well? I know it might not be the best image to use to show what he looks like, but an okay picture is better than no picture at all. —Mears man (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

zac/vanessa split rumors
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)
 * 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)

Vanessa Hudgens and Zac have NOT split up. On his birthday Thursday 18th October 2007 Zanessa were at a restaurant in Los Angeles, California holding hands !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.61.157 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship Status (again)
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)

Rephrased following sentence
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Moved from our personal talk pages - I didn't recognize your user name in the signature.--NrDg 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * "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)


 * 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)
 * 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&#39;s Wraith 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section?
Efron has recently been the subject of varying criticism in magazines and articles around the Internet (such as his reported use of excessive make-up etc.) and while much of this remains speculation, there are numerous concurrent sources and since this is a page recording the details of Efron's life, it certainly seems there should be a mention of what people are writing and saying about him. Just throwing out an idea here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.132.127 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, it's speculation...and it's not necessary to really say anything like 'He wears excessive make up' this isn't a gossip page. Also, new comments go on the bottom of the page, not the top.

OC Weekly newspaper has outed him: gay
Current issue of OC Weekly reports on him making out with a dude. He's gay. Gay gay gay. Or maybe he just likes to kiss boys. 68.0.119.139 (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We require a reliable source. See WP:RS.  --Yamla (talk) 02:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well here's the source, but it's definitely not reliable. I don't understand it - is it a joke? --Dan Leveille (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only is that not reliable but it doesn't even come close to asserting Efron is homosexual. --Yamla (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a pretty derogatory story in total. I feel uncomfortably that this talk section is a WP:BLP violation in of itself and would be happy to see it deleted. --NrDg 03:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's now been confirmed that the article published by OC Weekly was purely for entertainment purposes, and the photographic 'evidence' was photoshopped. (http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7009491672)
 * This is why we insist on reliable sources. --Yamla (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't even see photographic evidence in the article. hmm... Isn't that like libel? I mean, it wasn't clear that it was a joke. -- Dan Leveille TALK 17:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)