text:
Talk:List of double albums

As discussed on Talk:Double album, I have moved the list of double albums to its own article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting suggestion
Most of the "List of albums" articles (say, List of albums (O), for a random example) do "Band - album - year of release". Changing this article to that formatting would make it a little more compact, and also would make it consistent with the other album-list articles. I'll volunteer to take care of the edits, if nobody's got any objections. Yay, nay, comments? — Wwagner 17:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody said anything, so I was bold and did this edit. I added release dates to every album I could find (there are one or two which I wasn't able to find, either here or at AMG), and I also did a TON of disambig.  If the album was listed as "double album, single cd", I only put "2×LP" - no need to mention if it's a single anything, since that's not what this article is about.  I also removed all the extra little comments; they were generally already in the album article in question (where they belong in the first place), and they just cluttered up this article.
 * Note to self: don't volunteer for huge edits like this ever again. :) — Wwagner 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More formatting changes
I was not altogether happy with the way "Band – Album (1900) (19×CD)" looked - too many parens in a row. The "standard" album listing methods here on Wikipedia seem to be "use ndashes to separate stuff", so I changed them all to use an ndash before, and removed the parens around, the platter count, ala "Band – Album (1900) – 19×CD". A little easier to read, to my eye. — Wwagner 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've begun adding a tag at the end of every album that indicates whether it is a studio album, a live album, or a compilation, hopefully in a way that helps the reader and isn't too obtrusive. As I'm having to check every album, I'm probably going to have to limit myself to a letter or two of the alphabet per day. I'd like to hear comments from anyone who supports or disagrees with this addition. 97.116.30.46 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Separately-purchased "double" albums
I'm having a problem with the few releases on this list which were actually separately-purchasable albums, such as Guns N' Roses' Use Your Illusion I/Use Your Illusion II. They aren't in the same package, they must be purchased separately, and they have different Wikipedia articles about them - as far as I'm concerned, those aren't double albums, and they should be removed from this list. There are a few others that deserve the same treatment: Anthrax's Persistence of Time/Among the Living, Ayreon's Universal Migrator Part 1: The Dream Sequencer/Universal Migrator Part 2: Flight of the Migrator, Datblygu's Wyau/Pyst (album) (both of which are redlinks anyway), Nelly's Sweat (album)/Suit (album) and System of a Down's Mezmerize/Hypnotize (album). Anybody else have any comments about this? — Wwagner 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good thing to have them separated from the 'real' double albums. I think there are enough of these albums to fill a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geert Rinkel (talk • contribs)
 * That's a really good idea. I like it.  So what should this new article be called?  I'm not coming up with any good titles, or at least ones that aren't derogatory.  I don't think an article called "List of self-indulgent double releases by bands only interested in a fast money-grab" would live too long. :) — Wwagner 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While it's true about the money grubbing, I still think they should be on the listDanomagnum (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just removed them all from this article, so for reference purposes, here's the full list: — Wwagner 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anthrax – Persistence of Time / Among the Living (2000)
 * Ayreon – Universal Migrator Part 1: The Dream Sequencer / Universal Migrator Part 2: Flight of the Migrator (2000)
 * Datblygu – Wyau / Pyst (1995)
 * Guns N' Roses – Use Your Illusion I/Use Your Illusion II (1991)
 * Nelly – Sweat/Suit (2004)
 * Opeth – Deliverance/Damnation (2002/2003)
 * System of a Down – Mezmerize/Hypnotize (2005)

A couple other pairs just showed up, which I have also removed: — Wwagner 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Insane Clown Posse – Bizzar/Bizaar (1999)
 * Insane Clown Posse – The Wraith: Shangri-La/The Wraith: Hell's Pit (2002/2004)

Double-redlink entries
If they're not even notable enough to have a band article, I'll remove them until they are:
 * De Novo Dahl – Cats & Kittens (2005)
 * Grobschnitt – Ballermann (1974)
 * My Dad is Dead – The Taller You Are, The Shorter You Get (1989) – 2×LP

— Wwagner 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rules Needed For Inclusion
I think we need to make clear the rules for inclusion on this list. For instance, the Cure's 2004 self titled album is listed here, even though it is not a double album, and some expanded editions are listed.

Potential rules: 1. Only list albums that are double albums in their intended format. For instance, many albums released after 1990 need to be put onto 2 vinyl disks for the LP release but are not artistically double album releases since most fit onto 1 CD. For many albums in released after 1983 that were on two LPs, some research may be required to discover if the double LP version is the format of choice. For instance, the Cure's Kiss Me Kiss Me would not count since it was artistically designed for the CD, and the LP release was simply on two disks. 2. Bonus editions of usually single disk sets do not count as double albums. The only exception would be if tracks the artist had intended to be on the album but were cut were restored into the playing order and the album had to be put onto two disks to fit it. If it is only bonus tracks or an alternate mix, it should not be listed. A good consideration is the main body of work. If it is one singular body of work that has to be on two disks, then you can add it. However, if it is merely only bonus tracks or other tracks not included in the main body of work, then it isn't a double album.

--THollan 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds pretty reasonable to me. There are quite a number of albums on this list which have been re-released with a bunch of extras added, and they've never really seemed like legitimate "double albums" to me.  I will take great joy in removing those entries from the list. :)  Also, I have added some entries to this list, take Soundgarden's Superunknown and Down on the Upside for a couple examples, that were given a limited release on double-LP, but the main release was on a single CD, and I've recently been rethinking those additions.

 * The only potential problem that we'll run into is as you suggest, after CDs took over, what is the favored format? For the industry, it was, of course, the compact disc.  But for the artist, or the particular album, it might be difficult to say for certain. — Wwagner 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh, and before I forget, let me add another potential rule:
 * 3. All parts of the album must be sold as one unit. Related albums which must be purchased separately do not count as double albums.

 * — Wwagner 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * This is nitpicking, I know, but The Cure's Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me is maybe not the best example to use, as a song from the vinyl double LP had to be cut to in order not to require 2 CD's (I believe this was when 74-minute CD's were the standard). That track has since been restored on new pressings of the album. Anyway... just a bit of trivia for you. 97.116.30.71 (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A metal shard 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Ok, but why? System of a Down's Mezmerize and Hypnotize (album) albums are both copyrighted 2005. The first track of Mezmerize, Soldier Side - Intro, cuts right into the last track of the second album, Hypnotize(album), Soldier Side. Also, the two albums slide into eachother, forging images in the albums' art previously hidden. Just because a set of twins is separated at birth doesn't make the double birth null. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.116.250 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 March 2007 UTC

 * If it were so important that the two separate albums were together, they would have been released as one unit. As it is, they weren't.  I could go down to the record store and pick up one, without getting the other, and I would still have a complete album.  They are simply two separate albums which are related. — Wwagner 06:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thing is, the double albums article includes separately-sold albums in its definition. Don't we want consistency? 66.24.104.37 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Compilations
I see many compilations in the article (frex already both Abba entries, and the whole V/A section). Is there any specific reason for their inclusion? Anyone, artists or not, can put together a 11873 CD compilation with relativ ease so I don't see much point in including them. But should they be outright banned or might collections of otherwise (mostly) unreleased music still count?

The typical live album from concert Y or tour X has a better case for being considered a whole, but musically they're also offen not much different from compilations... any thoughts on this, folks? --Tropylium 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't see why they shouldn't be included. A good bulk of the listings here are comps, live or otherwise.  As far as the V/A listings, though anybody can create a comp, most don't, so the inclusion of the ones which are there seems pretty legit to me.  The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, for one example, is the best selling soundtrack album in history, which definitely warrants inclusion. — Wwagner 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of Greatest Hits type albums were recently added to the list for artists like AC/DC, Black Sabbath, and Def Leppard. I feel like maybe there should be a rule against such inclusions for this page as there is a lot of redundancy amongst the collections and anthologies and, additionally, it's making it a lot more difficult to tell at first glance which albums are original studio or live double albums. One has to wade through a good many compilations. Any thoughts? 64.122.56.143 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It all depends. Some compilations are typically listed in an arists discography, or the artists co-operates with the creation of the compilation, sometimes additional material is added, etc. Often these compilations are published by the same company, etc... See for instance the Red Album and Blue Album by the Beatles. But indeed, it also happens that decades later other labels get licenses and publish some compilation album(s) with music from some artists... It seems rather "trivial" there are often double albums there, and they're no so closely related to the artist's origal discography. It may sometimes be hard to draw a line somewhere though... --LimoWreck (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote for removing a majority of the compilations in this list, particularly non-notable greatest hits compilations. 97.116.30.46 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Studio albums
Shall we remove studio and live albums etc. and just leave it with studio albums - it would be a lot of a better list and the list goes more incomplete with compilations (UK NOW albums etc.) which aren't included than with studio albums. Signed and timed: --92.237.84.183 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in here. I don't think compilation albums should be included, because that would be attaching significance to "how much material the record label decided to include in the package", rather than the music/content itself. It would be like counting The Matrix trilogy as a single 6-hour film based on the fact that the three films were eventually sold together in a single package.

Live albums should only be considered noteworthy if the recording captures a single performance, because otherwise it's just a compilation of live tracks, and the above logic applies. Hence, The Allmann Brothers At Fillmore East counts, but Led Zeppelin's How the West Was Won does not.

Soundtracks like Saturday Night Fever often consist of mostly new material, and therefore are should not be considered compilation albums.

Another issue is the release date of an album. Soundgarden's 1994 album Superunknown is included on the list as a 2xLP, despite the album being only 70 minutes in length, fitting comfortably on a compact disc, which was the dominant format at the time. Just because it was released on vinyl and didn't fit on a single platter shouldn't be noteworthy. If Radiohead released their next 40-minute album on a pair of Mini-CDs, would that be considered a double album? Of course not. The decision to release material in a lower-capacity format is just as irrelevant as the size of a greatest hits collection. Therefore, I propose the following criteria for double albums of the CD era: if on the first day of release an album was available for purchase as a single disc, it is not a double album.

Anyway, I'm not going to delete all of the compilations unilaterally, but I think the list would be more meaningful if we separated the live, studio, and compilation albums into three sections, so we can improve and evaluate each section.Bermy88 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Can fit on one CD"
Hi, I don't understand the value of the "Can fit on one CD" parentheticals as submitted by IP 67.83.61.170 here, for example. It seems a trivial inclusion and a magnet for other cruft. Further, the additions are unsourced, so we're essentially relying on original research for the content and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For these reasons I'm cutting the content until a consensus for its inclusion can be established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Basics
Christina Aguilera’s Back to Basics double album should be added. AndrewA1988 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of double albums


text:
Mark Zuckerberg

Mark Elliot Zuckerberg (born May 14, 1984) is an American businessman. He co-founded the social media service Facebook and its parent company Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook, Inc.), of which he is chairman, chief executive officer and controlling shareholder.

Zuckerberg briefly attended Harvard University, where he launched Facebook in February 2004 with his roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes. Zuckerberg took the company public in May 2012 with majority shares. In 2008, at age 23, he became the world's youngest self-made billionaire. He has since used his funds to organize multiple donations, including the establishment of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. His net worth as of June 13, 2024 is USD $176 billion, making him the fourth richest person in the world, behind Elon Musk, Bernard Arnault, and Jeff Bezos.

A film depicting Zuckerberg's early career, legal troubles and initial success with Facebook, The Social Network, was released in 2010 and won multiple Academy Awards. His prominence and fast rise in the technology industry has prompted political and legal attention. The founding of Facebook involved Zuckerberg in multiple lawsuits regarding the creation and ownership of the website as well as issues of user privacy.

Early life and education
Mark Elliot Zuckerberg was born on May 14, 1984, in White Plains, New York to psychiatrist Karen (Kempner) and dentist Edward Zuckerberg. He and his three sisters (Arielle, Randi, and Donna) were raised in a Reform Jewish household in Dobbs Ferry, New York. His great-grandparents were emigrants from Austria, Germany, and Poland. Zuckerberg initially attended Ardsley High School before transferring to Phillips Exeter Academy. He was captain of the fencing team.

Early years
Zuckerberg began using computers and writing software in middle school. In high school, he built a program that allowed all the computers between his house and his father's dental office to communicate with each other. During Zuckerberg's high-school years, he worked to build a music player called the Synapse Media Player. The device used machine learning to learn the user's listening habits, which was posted to Slashdot and received a rating of 3 out of 5 from PC Magazine. The New Yorker once said of Zuckerberg: "some kids played computer games. Mark created them". While still in high school, he attended Mercy College taking a graduate computer course on Thursday evenings.

College years
The New Yorker noted that by the time Zuckerberg began classes at Harvard in 2002, he had already achieved a "reputation as a programming prodigy". He studied psychology and computer science, resided in Kirkland House, and belonged to Alpha Epsilon Pi. In his second year, he wrote a program that he called CourseMatch, which allowed users to make class selection decisions based on the choices of other students and help them form study groups. Later, he created a different program he initially called Facemash that let students select the best-looking person from a choice of photos. Arie Hasit, Zuckerberg's roommate at the time, explained:

"We had books called Face Books, which included the names and pictures of everyone who lived in the student dorms. At first, he built a site and placed two pictures or pictures of two males and two females. Visitors to the site had to choose who was 'hotter' and according to the votes there would be a ranking."

The site went up over a weekend, but by Monday morning, the college shut it down, because its popularity had overwhelmed one of Harvard's network switches preventing students from accessing the Internet. In addition, many students complained that their photos were being used without permission. Zuckerberg apologized publicly, and the student paper ran articles stating that his site was "completely improper".

Facebook
In January 2004, Zuckerberg began writing code for a new website. On February 4, 2004, Zuckerberg launched "Thefacebook", originally located at thefacebook.com, in partnership with his roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes. An earlier inspiration for Facebook may have come from Phillips Exeter Academy, the prep school from which Zuckerberg graduated in 2002. It published its own student directory, "The Photo Address Book", which students referred to as "The Facebook". Such photo directories were an important part of the student social experience at many private schools. With them, students were able to list attributes such as their class years, their friends, and their telephone numbers.

Six days after the site launched, three Harvard seniors, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra, accused Zuckerberg of intentionally misleading them into believing that he would help them build a social network called HarvardConnection.com, when he was using their ideas to build a competing product. The three complained to The Harvard Crimson, and the newspaper began an investigation in response. While Zuckerberg tried to convince the editors not to run the story, he also broke into two of the editors' email accounts—for which he made use of their private login data logs from TheFacebook.

Following the official launch of the Facebook social media platform, the three filed a lawsuit against Zuckerberg that resulted in a settlement. The agreed settlement was for 1.2 million Facebook shares and $20 million in cash.

Zuckerberg's Facebook started off as just a "Harvard thing" until he decided to spread it to other schools, enlisting the help of roommate and co-founder Dustin Moskovitz. They began with Columbia University, New York University, Stanford University, Dartmouth College, Cornell University, University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, and Yale University.

Zuckerberg dropped out of Harvard in his sophomore year in order to complete the project. Zuckerberg, Moskovitz and the other co-founders moved to Palo Alto, California, where they leased a small house that served as an office. Over the summer, Zuckerberg met Peter Thiel, who invested in his company. They got their first office in mid-2004. According to Zuckerberg, the group planned to return to Harvard, but eventually decided to remain in California, where Zuckerberg appreciated the "mythical place" of Silicon Valley, the center of computer technology in California. They had already turned down offers by major corporations to buy the company. In an interview in 2007, Zuckerberg explained his reasoning: "It's not because of the amount of money. For me and my colleagues, the most important thing is that we create an open information flow for people. Having media corporations owned by conglomerates is just not an attractive idea to me". The same year, speaking at Y Combinator's Startup School course at Stanford University, Zuckerberg made a controversial assertion that "young people are just smarter" and that other entrepreneurs should bias towards hiring young people.

He restated these goals to Wired magazine in 2010: "The thing I really care about is the mission, making the world open". Earlier, in April 2009, Zuckerberg had sought the advice of former Netscape CFO Peter Currie regarding financing strategies for Facebook. On July 21, 2010, Zuckerberg reported that Facebook had reached the 500-million-user mark. When asked whether Facebook could earn more income from advertising as a result of its phenomenal growth, he explained:

"I guess we could ... If you look at how much of our page is taken up with ads compared to the average search query. The average for us is a little less than 10 percent of the pages and the average for search is about 20 percent taken up with ads ... That's the simplest thing we could do. But we aren't like that. We make enough money. Right, I mean, we are keeping things running; we are growing at the rate we want to."

In 2010, Steven Levy, who wrote the 1984 book Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, wrote that Zuckerberg "clearly thinks of himself as a hacker". Zuckerberg said that "it's OK to break things" "to make them better". Facebook instituted "hackathons" held every six to eight weeks where participants would have one night to conceive of and complete a project. The company provided music, food, and beer at the hackathons, and many Facebook staff members, including Zuckerberg, regularly attended. "The idea is that you can build something really good in a night", Zuckerberg told Levy. "And that's part of the personality of Facebook now ... It's definitely very core to my personality".

In 2007, Zuckerberg was added to MIT Technology Review's TR35 list as one of the top 35 innovators in the world under the age of 35. Vanity Fair magazine named Zuckerberg number 1 on its 2010 list of the Top 100 "most influential people of the Information Age". Zuckerberg ranked number 23 on the Vanity Fair 100 list in 2009. In 2010, Zuckerberg was chosen as number 16 in New Statesman's annual survey of the world's 50 most influential figures.

In a 2011 interview with PBS shortly after the death of Steve Jobs, Zuckerberg said that Jobs had advised him on how to create a management team at Facebook that was "focused on building as high quality and good things as you are".

On October 1, 2012, Zuckerberg met with then Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in Moscow to stimulate social media innovation in Russia and to boost Facebook's position in the Russian market. Russia's communications minister tweeted that Medvedev persuaded Zuckerberg to open a research center in Moscow instead of trying to lure away Russian programmers. In 2012, Facebook had roughly 9 million users in Russia, while domestic clone VK had around 34 million. Rebecca Van Dyck, Facebook's head of consumer marketing, said that 85 million American Facebook users were exposed to the first day of the Home promotional campaign on April 6, 2013.

On August 19, 2013, The Washington Post reported that Zuckerberg's Facebook profile was hacked by an unemployed web developer.

At the 2013 TechCrunch Disrupt conference, held in September, Zuckerberg stated that he was working towards registering the 5 billion people who were not connected to the Internet as of the conference on Facebook. Zuckerberg then explained that this is intertwined with the aim of the Internet.org project, whereby Facebook, with the support of other technology companies, seeks to increase the number of people connected to the internet.

Zuckerberg was the keynote speaker at the 2014 Mobile World Congress (MWC), held in Barcelona, Spain, in March 2014, which was attended by 75,000 delegates. Various media sources highlighted the connection between Facebook's focus on mobile technology and Zuckerberg's speech, stating that mobile represents the future of the company. Zuckerberg's speech expands upon the goal that he raised at the TechCrunch conference in September 2013, whereby he is working towards expanding Internet coverage into developing countries.

Alongside other American technology figures like Jeff Bezos and Tim Cook, Zuckerberg hosted visiting Chinese politician Lu Wei, known as the "Internet czar" for his influence in the enforcement of China's online policy, at Facebook's headquarters on December 8, 2014. The meeting occurred after Zuckerberg participated in a Q&A session at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China, on October 23, 2014, where he conversed in Mandarin Chinese; although Facebook is banned in China, Zuckerberg is highly regarded among the people and was at the university to help fuel the nation's burgeoning entrepreneur sector.

Zuckerberg fielded questions during a live Q&A session at the company's headquarters in Menlo Park on December 11, 2014. The founder and CEO explained that he does not believe Facebook is a waste of time, because it facilitates social engagement, and participating in a public session was so that he could "learn how to better serve the community".

Zuckerberg receives a one-dollar salary as CEO of Facebook. In June 2016, Business Insider named Zuckerberg one of the "Top 10 Business Visionaries Creating Value for the World" along with Elon Musk and Sal Khan, due to the fact that he and his wife "pledged to give away 99% of their wealth-then estimated at $55.0 billion".

On May 25, 2017, at Harvard's 366th commencement day, Zuckerberg, after giving a commencement speech, received an honorary degree from Harvard.

In January 2019, Zuckerberg laid plans to integrate an end-to-end encrypted system for three major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. On August 14, 2020, Facebook integrated the chat systems for Instagram and Messenger on both iOS and Android devices. The update encouraged cross-communication between Instagram and Facebook users.

Other projects

A month after Zuckerberg launched Facebook in February 2004, i2hub, another campus-only service, created by Wayne Chang and focusing on peer-to-peer file sharing, was launched. At the time, both i2hub and Facebook were gaining the attention of the press and growing rapidly in users and publicity. In August 2004, Zuckerberg, Andrew McCollum, Adam D'Angelo, and Sean Parker launched a competing peer-to-peer file sharing service called Wirehog, a precursor to Facebook Platform applications, which was launched in 2007.

In 2013, Zuckerberg launched Internet.org, which he described as an initiative to provide Internet access to the five billion people without it as of the launch date. The project faced significant opposition in India, where activists said its limited internet ran counter to the principle of net neutrality; Zuckerberg responded by saying that a limited internet was better than no internet. Internet.org was shut down in India in February 2016, although Zuckerberg later met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to discuss further possibilities.

Zuckerberg is a board member of the solar sail spacecraft development project Breakthrough Starshot, which he co-founded with Yuri Milner and Stephen Hawking in 2016.

ConnectU lawsuits
Harvard students Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, and Divya Narendra accused Zuckerberg of intentionally making them believe he would help them build a social network called HarvardConnection.com (later called ConnectU). They filed a lawsuit in 2004; it was dismissed on a technicality on March 28, 2007. It was refiled soon thereafter in a federal court in Boston. Facebook countersued in regards to Social Butterfly, a project put out by The Winklevoss Chang Group, an alleged partnership between ConnectU and i2hub. On June 25, 2008, the case settled and Facebook agreed to transfer over 1.2 million common shares and pay $20 million in cash.

In November 2007, confidential court documents were posted on the website of 02138, a magazine that catered to Harvard alumni. They included Zuckerberg's Social Security number, his parents' home address, and his girlfriend's address. Though Facebook filed to have the documents removed, the judge ruled in favor of 02138.

Eduardo Saverin
In 2005, Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin filed a lawsuit against Zuckerberg and Facebook, alleging that Zuckerberg had illegally spent Saverin's money on personal expenses. The lawsuit was settled out of court and though terms of the settlement were sealed, the company affirmed Saverin's title as co-founder of Facebook, and Saverin agreed to stop talking to the press.

Pakistan criminal investigation
In June 2010, then Pakistani Deputy Attorney General Muhammad Azhar Sidiqque launched a criminal investigation into Zuckerberg and Facebook co-founders Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes after a "Draw Muhammad" contest was hosted on Facebook. The investigation also named the anonymous German woman who created the contest. Sidiqque asked the country's police to contact Interpol to have Zuckerberg and the three others arrested for blasphemy. On May 19, 2010, Facebook's website was temporarily blocked in Pakistan until Facebook removed the contest from its website at the end of May. Sidiqque also asked its UN representative to raise the issue with the United Nations General Assembly.

Paul Ceglia
In June 2010, Paul Ceglia, the owner of a wood pellet fuel company in Allegany County, upstate New York, filed suit against Zuckerberg, claiming 84 percent ownership of Facebook and seeking monetary damages. According to Ceglia, he and Zuckerberg signed a contract on April 28, 2003, that an initial fee of $1,000 entitled Ceglia to 50% of the website's revenue, as well as an additional 1% interest in the business per day after January 1, 2004, until website completion. Zuckerberg was developing other projects at the time, among which was Facemash, the predecessor to Facebook, but did not register the domain name thefacebook.com until January 1, 2004. The Facebook management dismissed the lawsuit as "completely frivolous". Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt told a reporter that Ceglia's counsel had unsuccessfully sought an out-of-court settlement.

On October 26, 2012, federal authorities arrested Ceglia, charging him with mail and wire fraud and of "tampering with, destroying and fabricating evidence in a scheme to defraud the Facebook founder of billions of dollars". Ceglia is accused of fabricating emails to make it appear that he and Zuckerberg discussed details about an early version of Facebook, although after examining their emails, investigators found there was no mention of Facebook in them. Some law firms withdrew from the case before it was initiated and others after Ceglia's arrest.

Hawaiian land ownership
In 2014 Zuckerberg purchased 700 acres of land on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. In January 2017, Zuckerberg filed eight "quiet title and partition" lawsuits against hundreds of native Hawaiians to claim small tracts of land that they owned within his acreage. Zuckerberg responded to criticisms in a Facebook post, stating that the lawsuits were a good faith effort to pay the partial owners of the land their "fair share". When he learned that Hawaiian land ownership law differs from that of the other 49 states, he dropped the lawsuits. Zuckerberg stated that he regretted not taking the time to understand the process and its history before moving ahead.

Testimony before U.S. Congress
On April 10 and 11, 2018, Zuckerberg testified before the United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the usage of personal data by Facebook in relation to the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. He called the whole affair a breach of trust between Aleksandr Kogan, Cambridge Analytica, and Facebook. Zuckerberg refused requests to appear to give evidence on the matter to a Parliamentary committee in the United Kingdom.

On October 1, 2020, the US Senate Commerce Committee unanimously voted to issue subpoenas to the CEOs of three top tech firms, including Zuckerberg, Google's Sundar Pichai and Twitter's Jack Dorsey. The subpoenas aimed to force the CEOs to testify about the legal immunity the law affords tech platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934. US Republicans argued that the law unduly protected social media companies against allegations of anti-conservative censorship.

On March 25, 2021, Zuckerberg testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee regarding Facebook's role in the spread of misinformation and hate speech on the platform. During the hearing, he was questioned about Facebook's handling of user data, its role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol Building, and its efforts to combat misinformation and hate speech. Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook had a responsibility to address these issues and outlined the steps that the company is taking to improve its policies and practices. The hearing was part of a broader effort by Congress to hold tech companies accountable for their role in shaping public discourse and protecting user privacy.

In a January 2024 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on child safety and social media platforms, Zuckerberg, along with other tech CEOs, were questioned about their companies' practices. During the hearing, he apologized to the families of children who were victims of online abuse and harm.

Meta's proposal
Court documents allege that Zuckerberg personally rejected Meta's proposals to improve teenagers' mental health. He consistently opposed efforts to enhance well-being on Facebook and Instagram, overriding senior executives like Instagram head Adam Mosseri and Global Affairs President Nick Clegg, as revealed in an ongoing lawsuit. Internal communications disclosed in the Massachusetts-initiated legal action depict Zuckerberg's resistance to better protect over 30 million teens on Instagram in the U.S., highlighting his substantial influence on Meta's decisions impacting billions of users. These documents also shed light on occasional tensions between Zuckerberg and other Meta officials advocating for improved user well-being.

The Social Network
A movie based on Zuckerberg and the founding years of Facebook, The Social Network, was released on October 1, 2010, starring Jesse Eisenberg as Zuckerberg. After Zuckerberg was told about the film, he responded, "I just wished that nobody made a movie of me while I was still alive". Also, after the film's script was leaked on the Internet and it was apparent that the film would not portray Zuckerberg in a wholly positive light, he stated that he wanted to establish himself as a "good guy". The film is based on the book The Accidental Billionaires by Ben Mezrich, which the book's publicist once described as "big juicy fun" rather than "reportage". The film's screenwriter Aaron Sorkin told New York magazine, "I don't want my fidelity to be the truth; I want it to be storytelling", adding, "What is the big deal about accuracy purely for accuracy's sake, and can we not have the true be the enemy of the good?"

Upon winning the Golden Globe Award for Best Picture on January 16, 2011, producer Scott Rudin thanked Facebook and Zuckerberg "for his willingness to allow us to use his life and work as a metaphor through which to tell a story about communication and the way we relate to each other". Sorkin, who won for Best Screenplay, retracted some of the impressions given in his script:
 * I wanted to say to Mark Zuckerberg tonight, if you're watching, Rooney Mara's character makes a prediction at the beginning of the movie. She was wrong. You turned out to be a great entrepreneur, a visionary, and an incredible altruist.

In January 2011, Zuckerberg made a surprise guest appearance on Saturday Night Live, which was hosted by Jesse Eisenberg. They both said it was the first time they had met. Eisenberg asked Zuckerberg, who had been critical of his portrayal by the film, what he thought of the movie. Zuckerberg replied, "It was interesting". In a subsequent interview about their meeting, Eisenberg explained that he was "nervous to meet him, because I had spent now, a year and a half thinking about him "... He added, "Mark has been so gracious about something that's really so uncomfortable ... The fact that he would do SNL and make fun of the situation is so sweet and so generous. It's the best possible way to handle something that, I think, could otherwise be very uncomfortable".

Disputed accuracy
According to David Kirkpatrick, former technology editor at Fortune magazine and author of The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company that is Connecting the World (2011), "the film is only 40% true ... he is not snide and sarcastic in a cruel way, the way Zuckerberg is played in the movie". He says that "a lot of the factual incidents are accurate, but many are distorted and the overall impression is false", and concludes that primarily "his motivations were to try and come up with a new way to share information on the Internet".

Although the film portrayed Zuckerberg's creation of Facebook in order to elevate his stature after not getting into any of the elite final clubs at Harvard, Zuckerberg stated that he had no interest in joining the clubs. Kirkpatrick agreed that the impression implied by the film is "false". Karel Baloun, a former senior engineer at Facebook, noted that the "image of Zuckerberg as a socially inept nerd is overstated ... It is fiction "... He likewise dismissed the film's assertion that he "would deliberately betray a friend".

Other depictions
Zuckerberg voiced himself on an episode of The Simpsons titled "Loan-a Lisa", which first aired on October 3, 2010. In the episode, Lisa Simpson and her friend Nelson encounter Zuckerberg at an entrepreneurs' convention. Zuckerberg tells Lisa that she does not need to graduate from college to be wildly successful, referencing Bill Gates and Richard Branson as examples. On October 9, 2010, Saturday Night Live lampooned Zuckerberg and Facebook. Andy Samberg portrayed the role of Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg himself was reported to have been amused: "I thought this was funny".

Stephen Colbert awarded a "Medal of Fear" to Zuckerberg at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear on October 30, 2010, "because he values his privacy much more than he values yours". Zuckerberg appeared in the climax of 2013 documentary film Terms and Conditions May Apply. The South Park episode "Franchise Prequel" mocked him. According to CNET, he was portrayed as "a rosy-cheeked bully nerd who utters strange noises, makes peculiar kung fu gestures and turns up wherever he likes in people's houses".

Donations and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative

Zuckerberg founded the Startup:Education foundation. It was reported in September 2010 that he had donated $100 million to Newark Public Schools, the public school system of Newark, New Jersey. Critics noted the timing of the donation as being close to the release of The Social Network, which painted a somewhat negative portrait of Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg responded to the criticism, saying, "The thing that I was most sensitive about with the movie timing was, I didn't want the press about The Social Network movie to get conflated with the Newark project. I was thinking about doing this anonymously just so that the two things could be kept separate". Newark Mayor Cory Booker stated that he and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had to convince Zuckerberg's team not to make the donation anonymously. The money was largely wasted, according to journalist Dale Russakoff.

In 2010, Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, and investor Warren Buffett signed The Giving Pledge, in which they said they would donate to charity at least half of their wealth over the course of time, and invited others among the wealthy to donate 50 percent or more of their wealth to charity. In December 2012, Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan said that over the course of their lives they would give the majority of their wealth to "advancing human potential and promoting equality" in the spirit of The Giving Pledge.

In December 2013, Zuckerberg announced a donation of 18 million Facebook shares to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, to be executed by the end of the month—based on Facebook's valuation as of then, the shares totaled $990 million in value. Later that month, the donation was recognized as the largest charitable gift on public record for that year. The Chronicle of Philanthropy placed Zuckerberg and his wife at the top of the magazine's annual list of 50 most generous Americans for 2013, having donated roughly $1 billion to charity.

In October 2014, Zuckerberg and his wife donated $25 million to combat the Ebola virus disease, specifically the West African Ebola virus epidemic. The couple endowed the foundation of the San Francisco General Hospital in February 2015 with $75 million, which was the biggest individual donation to a U.S. public hospital. The hospital honored them by renaming itself as The Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center. Later in 2020, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a near-unanimous, non-binding measure condemning the renaming, citing concerns that a public hospital should not be named after an individual whose social media platform is accused of "endangering public health, spreading misinformation, and violating privacy". On December 1, 2015, the couple pledged to transfer 99% of their Facebook shares, then valued at $45 billion, to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). The funds would not be transferred immediately, but over the course of their lives. Instead of forming a charitable corporation to donate the value of the stock to, as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Larry Page, Sergey Brin and other billionaires have done, Zuckerberg and Chan chose to use the structure of a limited liability company (LLC). Some journalists and academics have said the CZI conducts philanthrocapitalism.

In 2016, CZI gave $600 million to create the tax-exempt charity Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a collaborative research space in San Francisco's Mission Bay district near the University of California, San Francisco, with the intent to foster interaction and collaboration between scientists at UCSF, University of California, Berkeley, and Stanford University. Intellectual property generated would be jointly owned by Biohub and the discoverer's home institution. Unlike foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which open up all research funded to unrestricted access and reuse by the public, Biohub retained the right to commercialize any research it funds. Inventors will have the option of making their discoveries open-source, with permission from Biohub. To increase access to scientific research and promote open science, CZ Biohub requires its investigators and staff scientists to publish submitted manuscripts and related data on preprints servers like bioRxiv.

Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, Zuckerberg donated $25 million to a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-backed accelerator that is searching for treatments for the disease. He also announced $25 million in grants to support local journalism that was impacted by the pandemic and $75 million in advertisement purchases in local newspapers by Facebook, Inc., where Facebook would market itself.

Politics

In 2002, Zuckerberg registered to vote in Westchester County, New York, where he grew up, but did not cast a ballot until November 2008. Then Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Spokeswoman, Elma Rosas, told Bloomberg that Zuckerberg is listed as "no preference" on voter rolls, and he voted in at least two of the past three general elections, in 2008 and 2012.

Zuckerberg has never revealed his own political affiliation or voting history: some news outlets consider him to be a conservative, while others consider him liberal.

In February 2013, Zuckerberg hosted his first ever fundraising event for then New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. His particular interest on this occasion was education reform, and Christie's education reform work focused on teachers unions and the expansion of charter schools. Later that year, Zuckerberg hosted a campaign fundraiser for then Newark mayor Cory Booker, who was running in the 2013 New Jersey special Senate election. In September 2010, with the support of Governor Chris Christie, Booker obtained a US$100 million pledge from Zuckerberg to Newark Public Schools. In December 2012, Zuckerberg donated 18 million shares to the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, a community organization that includes education in its list of grant-making areas.

On April 11, 2013, Zuckerberg led the launch of a 501(c)(4) lobbying group called FWD.us. The founders and contributors to the group were primarily Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and investors, and its president was Joe Green, a close friend of Zuckerberg. The goals of the group include immigration reform, improving the state of education in the United States, and enabling more technological breakthroughs that benefit the public, yet it has also been criticized for financing ads advocating a variety of oil and gas development initiatives, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Keystone XL pipeline. In 2013, numerous liberal and progressive groups, such as The League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn.org, the Sierra Club, Democracy for America, CREDO, Daily Kos, 350.org, and Presente and Progressives United agreed to either pull their Facebook ad buys or not buy Facebook ads for at least two weeks, in protest of Zuckerberg ads funded by FWD.us that were in support of oil drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, and in opposition to Obamacare among Republican United States senators who back immigration reform.

A media report on June 20, 2013, revealed that Zuckerberg actively engaged with Facebook users on his own profile page after the online publication of a FWD.us video. In response to a claim that the FWD.us organization is "just about tech wanting to hire more people", the Internet entrepreneur replied: "The bigger problem we're trying to address is ensuring the 11 million undocumented folks living in this country now and similar folks in the future are treated fairly".

In June 2013, Zuckerberg joined Facebook employees in a company float as part of the annual San Francisco Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Celebration. The company first participated in the event in 2011, with 70 employees, and this number increased to 700 for the 2013 march. The 2013 pride celebration was especially significant, as it followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that deemed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.

When questioned about the mid-2013 PRISM scandal at the TechCrunch Disrupt conference in September 2013, Zuckerberg stated that the U.S. government "blew it". He further explained that the government performed poorly in regard to the protection of the freedoms of its citizens, the economy, and companies.

Zuckerberg placed a statement on his Facebook wall on December 9, 2015, which said that he wants "to add my voice in support of Muslims in our community and around the world" in response to the aftermath of the November 2015 Paris attacks and the 2015 San Bernardino attack. The statement also said that Muslims are "always welcome" on Facebook, and that his position was a result of the fact that "as a Jew, my parents taught me that we must stand up against attacks on all communities".

On February 24, 2016, Zuckerberg sent out a company-wide internal memo to employees formally rebuking employees who had crossed out handwritten "Black Lives Matter" phrases on the company walls and had written "All Lives Matter" in their place. Facebook allows employees to free-write thoughts and phrases on company walls. The memo was then leaked by several employees. As Zuckerberg had previously condemned this practice at previous company meetings, and other similar requests had been issued by other leaders at Facebook, Zuckerberg wrote in the memo that he would now consider this overwriting practice not only disrespectful, but "malicious as well". According to Zuckerberg's memo, "Black Lives Matter doesn't mean other lives don't – it's simply asking that the black community also achieves the justice they deserve". The memo also noted that the act of crossing something out in itself, "means silencing speech, or that one person's speech is more important than another's". Zuckerberg also said in the memo that he would be launching investigations into the incidents. The New York Daily News interviewed Facebook employees who commented anonymously that, "Zuckerberg was genuinely angry about the incident and it really encouraged staff that Zuckerberg showed a clear understanding of why the phrase 'Black Lives Matter' must exist, as well as why writing through it is a form of harassment and erasure".

In January 2017, Zuckerberg criticized Donald Trump's executive order to severely limit immigrants and refugees from some countries. He also funded a state-level ballot initiative for the 2020 general election that would raise taxes by altering California's Proposition 13 to require the tax assessment of commercial and industrial properties in the state at market rate.

Marriage and children

Zuckerberg met fellow Harvard student Priscilla Chan at a frat party during his sophomore year with whom he began dating in 2003. In September 2010, Chan, who was a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco at the time, moved into his rented house in Palo Alto, California. They married on May 19, 2012, in the grounds of his mansion in an event that also celebrated her graduation from medical school. Zuckerberg revealed on July 31, 2015, that they were expecting a baby girl and that Chan had previously experienced three miscarriages. Their daughter, Maxima Chan Zuckerberg, was born on December 1, 2015. They announced in a Chinese New Year video that their daughter's Chinese name is Chen Mingyu. Their second daughter, August, was born in August 2017. Zuckerberg and his wife welcomed their third daughter Aurelia on March 24, 2023, and announced the news across his social media pages. The couple also have a Puli dog named Beast, who has over two million followers on Facebook.

Recognition
Time named Zuckerberg one of the most influential people in the world in 2008, 2011, 2016 and 2019, and nominated him as a finalist several other times. He was named the Time Person of the Year in 2010, the same year when Facebook eclipsed more than half a billion users. In December 2016, Zuckerberg was ranked tenth on the Forbes list of the World's Most Powerful People. In the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans in 2023, he was ranked eighth with a personal wealth of $106 billion. , Zuckerberg's net worth was estimated at $166 billion by Forbes, making him the fourth richest person in the world.

Religious beliefs and other interests
Raised as a Reform Jew, Zuckerberg later identified as an atheist. However, he said in 2016 that "I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important". In 2017, he and his wife began a nationwide tour "to visit every state in the union and learn more about a sliver of the nearly two billion people who regularly use the social network". He met with farmers and business owners, and spoke at Mother Emanuel, where a shooting took place in 2015.

In an August 2022 appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, Zuckerberg said one of his biggest regrets was competing on the fencing team in high school instead of wrestling.

In 2022, Zuckerberg took up training in both mixed martial arts (MMA) and Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ), and has been open about his love for the two sports. He competed in a BJJ tournament on May 6, 2023, and won both a silver and gold medal in gi and no gi, competing at white belt. In July 2023, he was promoted to blue belt in Brazilian jiu-jitsu by Dave Camarillo. Four months later, Zuckerberg announced that he was preparing to make his MMA debut but had suffered an anterior cruciate ligament injury in training that required surgery and had delayed this.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Mark Zuckerberg


text: Category:Airports in the Philippines

title: Category:Airports in the Philippines


text:
Talk:Operation Badr (1973)

Untitled
Israel was not exactly "marching on Cairo." I removed that aggrandizing statement and placed important references to the US support, the Soviet reaction and the OPEC crisis. --Karlosian 06:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Decisive victory
So, there's been a very small bit of recent editing regarding the term 'decisive victory' in the infobox. I removed the word 'decisive' yesterday, because I see it as an unneeded adjective. I mean, is there such a thing as an 'indecisive victory'? A victory is a victory. The scale of that victory--or what it meant to the various sides--that seems like information best suited to the text of the article. Anyway, the word 'decisive' is back, and I'm not personally going to change it, but I'm leaving this note here for future interested editors who may have the same reasoning that I do. Cheers, Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
The figures are wrong, for etc. Israel had 1 tank brigade (brigade 14) close to the canal and 436 soldiers in the nearest 16 fortifications. The entire article is based on Shazly's imagination, major changes need to be done here. Nirvi (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I will try to answer to some issues brought up here. First of all the victory is decisive. Removing that word on the basis that it is an unneeded adjective is wrong. There are tens of articles here on Wikipedia using that word (see the Battle of Gazala for example). As for the matter of neutrality, The figures about the number of Israeli troops are based on Abraham Rabinovich, an Israeli historian. The fact that the Bar Lev line was manned by an infantry brigade (and a brigade is usually around 4,000 men), and that this brigade was overwhelmed and annihilated is asserted in the Yom Kippur War. I don't understand on what basis someone concluded that these figures came from Shazly's imagination. At any rate, I still have not finished my work on the article. I will be making significant additions soon and I will bring along more sources as well. I will be doing this very soon, within two days at most. Until I add this information and bring to the article these sources, I think we should remove the neutrality tag. If, after I've done my work,. the article still appears to be non neutral, feel free to add the tag once more. Thanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Well if 4,000 men were "annihilated" in the first battle how come the number of israeli casualties during the entire war (including battles against the syrian army and others) stands on 2,656? As I wrote before inside the fortifications that the egyptians took in this battle were exactly 436 soldiers and a handful of tanks. Some were killed, some fell in captive and some managed to retreat to the israeli line. the 14th brigade was stationed behind the Bar-Lev line and only a single tank managed to join and help the soldiers that were fighting inside the fortifications. The article you wrote has no connection with reality, please fix it and try to stick to the facts. Nirvi (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is you're mixing the egyptian crossing wich lasted several hours with some of the israeli counter attacks in the following days, and still the numbers are exaggerated. Nirvi (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

2,656 is the number of Israeli soldiers KIA, although this source puts the number of Israeli dead at over 2,800. There were another 7,250 WIA, and I know another source which puts them at 9,000 men wounded. Anyways, Syrian performance throughout the war was extremely poor, which means that the greater majority of Israeli losses were in the Sinai against the Egyptians. The number of Israeli forts in the Bar Lev Line were actually 22, giving a total of 35 strong points. I don't know on what basis you say provide your figures for Israeli troop numbers; I provided sources while you have not. Hence the article is based on facts. Like I said before and again now, please have patience. I have some responsibilities to see to at the present time, but within a day or two at the most, I will be making significant contributions to the article with the sources I have at hand which will, hopefully, clear out any problems with it. Thanks Sherif9282 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a source. Rabinovich, who was cited before, does not really say there were 4,000 men. Most of the Jerusalem Brigade was in the eastern Sinai, and an infantry brigade never consists of so many men. I'll look for more sources and try to expand it when I have more time. Say, haven't we agreed that Shazly is a primary source? -- Nudve (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Raul654 told me that Rabinovich said the Bar Lev Line was manned by the Jerusalem Infantry Brigade. According to Wikipedia, and infantry brigade is 4,000-5,000 men. Yes, Shazly is a primary source, but no one else provides such details about the crossing operation. As I said, I will be adding sources soon. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added some stuff, but I'm not done yet. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Made another large addition, but I'm still not yet finished. I have added inline citations extensively. I relied on Shazly so heavily due to the fact that there is no other source at hand which gives such details. I also included Gawrych, a secondary source, whenever I could. Once again I am still not finished yet. Sherif9282 (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if you all could wait until I have finished what I need to do (I hope to finish within a day), and then we can solve any remaining issues, just to avoid confusion and to take things one at a time. Thanks alot. Sherif9282 (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Say, what is that article in Hebrew that keeps getting added here? Sherif9282 (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It's the israeli crossing into Egypt, in Israel "the crossing" refers to the israeli one. Sherif you've got good intentions but I'm afraid your work is in vain cause it's very inaccurate. I've found the official website of the 14th brigade, http://www.hativa14.org.il (the armor brigade that was in charge of the Bar Lev line) it includes a lot of information including the names of the fallen soldiers, your numbers are incredibly wrong. Also and most important I don't understand the time line here, how many battles, attacks and counter attcks do you include in this article? you need to make it clear in the intro. Nirvi (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Nirvi, I really don't understand you anymore. All the work I wrote was based on two reliable secondary sources; the first and most important is Gawrych, and the second one is the analytical article, which I used mainly for the numbers. Both of these sources extensively use Israeli, Egyptian and Western sources. I also used a primary source, Shazly, mainly because he is the only one I know of (and probably the only one around) to give a considerable number of details. If what he says doesn't conflict significantly with other reliable sources, why shouldn't we use him as a source? Gawrych and Hamid Hussein (the writer of the analytical article) give Israeli tank numbers as 300. Shazly adds another 60 to that number. Both authors also give Israeli troop numbers at 8,000. Now you come over and declare that everything I've written is nonsense and straight out of the imagination of the Egyptian Chief of Staff. I don't know how you're so sure that the so-called 14th brigade was the only armored unit defending the Bar Lev Line. Then you provide me with their website which is probably biased and unreliable.

 * As for the time line. The whole thing is one prolonged battle. The Egyptians gradually advanced and pushed the Israeli reinforcements back, who tried to reach the canal line but then they became engaged with the advancing Egyptians. I think the fighting during the battle was more or less continuous. Is the time format alright or should I change it? (ie: instead of saying 1400 hours just say 2:00 pm) I haven't worked on the intro yet, it's still the same way it was long before I started working on this article.

By the way, if the crossing in Israel refers to the Israeli crossing, how do you refer to the Egyptian crossing? Sherif9282 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm almost done with the article. Sherif9282 (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I am Sorry, but your figures are worng. You can't assume a "brigade" is 4,000 men, since this is original research, specifically when we do have sources that state an exact number. In fact, the Bar-Lave line was assigend to a few companies PART OF the reservist Jerusalem Brigade. All together Israel had sbout 450 men on the Bar-Lev line, 44 artillery pieces, and 290 tanks THROUGHOUT Sinai. (Rabinovich, 2003, p. 3). As for the Shazly book, it has been regarded by the Journal of Military History as "a personally writen hagiography in which General Shazly is at pain to demonstrate he did nothing wrong..." So I am not sure his figures are the best to use.--Omrim (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) And as per your question, in Israel the Egyptian crossing is simply being referred to as "The Egyptian Crossing", there is no special name for it, while the Israeli crossing is regarded as "Operation Abirei-Lev" (Stouthearted Men).--Omrim (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. As for the figures, did you miss the two other sources I cited? Both of them mention 300 tanks, 6-800 men in the Bar Lev Line, and another 8,000 which could arrive as reinforcements with the armor. As for the Journal of Military History's assessment of Shazly's book: what has that got to do with anything? Shazly declared in the introduction to his book that one of his aims for writing the book was to clear his name out. His book is the only one written by an Egyptian commander not to be censored by the Egyptian armed forces or the Ministry of Defence. I don't see any problem with using his figures as long as they're supported by other sources, and frankly, I wouldn't take the Journal of Military History's opinion seriously. Sherif9282 (talk) 06:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't miss the other sources. I currently have access only to the two availabe on-line, and none of them cite the number 8,000 on the Bar-Lav line. Only one cites that number, but for ALL OF SINAI. The same source also specifically mentions that had Dovecot been deployed, 800 Israeli soldiers would occupy the Bar-Lev line, which means that since Dovecot was never deployed, there were LESS than 800 infantry there. I don't question your good faith here, but I will appreciate it if you prove me wrong by specifically citing the phrases used to show your numbers, since I am unable to verify them. I will take a look at the other two sources later today. But I have yet to see the figures you have mentioned. I don't want to get into editing battles with you, so please prove me wrong.--Omrim (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends on which units we count. The ~8,000 number refers to all of the Sinai, while the ~400 number refers to the forces actually "on the water" or very near it. Other troops arrived afterward, but I'm not sure exactly when, it may have been only on October 7. So again, it depends on the scope of this article. -- Nudve (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about putting both numbers in the infobox, something like: infantry: 8,000 (All of Sinai), 450 (The Bar-lev line).?--Omrim (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I did. Not really sure why it was removed. -- Nudve (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is something we should be able to reach consensus about fairly easily. Nothing is taken off, and the stuff added is well sourced. Let's wait and see what Sherif9282 has to say about this suggested solution.--Omrim (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I looked both sources over. Gawrych states that there were 18,000 men in Sinai, of which 800 were planned to man the Bar Lev Line. As for the other source: ''On October 6, 1973, the Bar Lev line was manned by about 600 men from a reserve Brigade from Jerusalem. Total of about 8,000 men, 300 tanks and 70 self propelled guns were in Sinai peninsula which could be rushed forward in 30 minutes to two hours.''

The Israelis countered the Egyptian attack in accordance with Dovecoat; that defensive plan was deployed by Gonen. There was one major problem though. The Israelis expected war to begin by 1800, or 6:00 pm. Since the war began four hours earlier than what the Israelis expected, not all the Bar Lev garrison was present (only 600 men according to the source I cited), and non of the armor was deployed before the Egyptian assault. By the time the main Israeli brigades were ordered forward, it was too late. Only a single tank platoon deployed in accordance to Dovecoat in the northernmost fortification (per Gawrych). The remaining Israeli units failed to deploy along the canal line.

I believe the infobox should say: 8,000 (600 in Bar Lev Line), 300 tanks. Sherif9282 (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can go with that. I'd only change the parenthesis to say(450-600 in the Bar Lev Line) and after the "300 tanks" would add (one platoon in the Bae Lev Line). What do you say?--Omrim (talk) 21:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think the one tank platoon should be mentioned in the article rather than the infobox. Sherif9282 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Omrim (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments
As per your request on my talk page, here are a few thoughts before going to FAC...

 * I would suggest going through MILHIST's peer review and A-class review processes, as they can provide very helpful feedback. See WikiProject Military history/Review for the details on the processes.
 * The regular Peer review process can also be helpful, as it brings in comments by non-military people, which can help with jargon.
 * All of the images will need alt text, see WP:ALT.
 * Reference #20 will probably have to be replaced before going through FAC. At the very least, I would suggest asking User:Ealdgyth about it, as she's one of the official FAC source gurus.
 * There are quite a few short paragraphs scattered throughout the article. Although these can be useful to make a point, lots of them make the article look choppy and are generally discouraged at FAC (in my experience).
 * Finally, I would suggest getting at least a couple of other people to copyedit the entire article. The more eyes on the article before the FAC goes live, the smoother the process will be. The peer review/A-class processes can help with getting extra eyes.

I hope these comments help. If you have questions about any of the above, please let me know! I don't have this page watchlisted, so you'll have to ping me on my talk page... Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Really my best suggestion for finding copyeditors is to go through the review processes - sometimes they don't help much, but other times you get great copyeditors from each one. I know this probably isn't much help, but I think it's the best I can give you. Dana boomer (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This article should be dealing with Operation Badr only
Sherif is passionate to present the Egyptian versions of Yom Kippur War for the preservation of Egyptian honor. Unfortunately, many details that he brings were not found acceptable by most of the article's editors. They are simply unreliable. Even the conclusions he made are based on information that he sorts as he wants. Consequently, other editors don't let him edit the Yom Kippur War article as he wish.

When Serif saw this, he decided to create an alterative article on the same Yom Kippur War. In the new article ha can present anything the way he wants. He took the article on Operation Badr, originally intended to deal with the initial Egyptian assault in the beginning of the war and then, decided to include more issues, but from his point of view. Right now the Operation Badr article is also dealing with the political background of the war, the equipping of the Egyptian Army prior to the war, the training of the Egyptian troops, the Arab deception effort, the 08/10 failed counter offensive that occurred after Operation Badr was already complete, the American assistance and the long term political effects.

Sherif probably decided to find an intimate place like the Operation Badr article for presenting an entire alternative article, dealing with exactly the same issues as the Yom Kippur War article and its impact from his point of view, but there, he don't have to confront with a lot of editors. Who would start an argument over a less significant article like Operation Badr while most of the editors are dealing with the Yom Kippur War article? Actually, those two articles are dealing with the same issues but Operation Badr is Sherif's private one.

If Serif had little courage and self respect, he would remove from Operation Badr all the information that do not refer only to the initial crossing and tries to insert it on Yom Kippur War article. That’s a risk for him. Good luck. Megaidler (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Great conspiracy theory. Try not to violate WP:CIVIL while you're at it.--Sherif9282 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 * It's not conspiracy talk Sherif. It is obvious that you're trying to push some personal fantasy, not just here but on other articles which you've edited as well. It is apparent that you have no regard for the high encycolpedic standards set by Wikipedia. Instead, you've turned this and related articles into nothing more than a personal world of imaginary make-believe and fanatasy. You should rename this article "Alice in Wonderland." Just as an aside, I had the pleasure of meeting an Egyptian diplomat about a year and a half ago and he told me that he was 25 or 26 years old before he learned that Egypt and Syria lost the 73 war. He was spoon-fed government propaganda from birth. I suggest you wake up and read some books other than Hammad and Badri. But I'm sure that in your case, it won't make a difference because it's not the truth you're after. By the way, why is Shazly's book still bannned in Egypt? As for your claim of WP:CIVIL, you've demonstrated a distinct lack of stellar performance in this regard. So let's not be hypocritical--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

 * To Migo and Jiutsugo; 1- Considering being constructive, not perguing Wikipedia with undo wieght of worthless discussions, that are not intended to improve it 2- Try citation for what you can of your POVs, and leave the rest for your selves, or an internet forum 3- Find another way to spend your time in here than dedicating it to your little Zoinist brotherhood. Thanks for reading. ( ΡHARAOH The Muslim   20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pharoah, you're not being constructive either. This issue had ended long ago and this comment was entirely unwarranted. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

How constructive. Do keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Sherif9282 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Talking about other editors this way is not a collaborative and productive approach. While I of course might not agree with every one of Sherif's edits, I see no evidence of Sherif pushing any personal fantasy or unusual fringe views. Even if he were the above comments are quite inappropriate, verging on personal attacks.John Z (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some serious problems with the factual content and neutrality of this article with extensive use of one-sided sources that drift into fantasy. Mainstream sources are ignored or when used, are cherry-picked to suit a particular POV. Accordingly, I have tagged the article until these issues are resolved.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is GA classed. If you have particular issues with the article, point them out specifically. Until and unless these alleged issues are raised and resolved if needed, these tags will be removed. --Sherif9282 (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sherif, if you'd like, I can give this article a good overhaul from start to finish. Would you like that?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already told you what I'd like to see: why don't you start off by pointing to the problems you see with the article? Once again this is a GA article and these tags are entirely and completely unwarranted. Unless you're intention is merely an attempt at deriding the article and smearing it on the face, drop the tags unless they're necessary; this is not constructive. --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The entire article is one sided.Firstly, The operation was not such a big success as it is described here, and can even be considered in some parts as a pro egyptian propaganda. Secondly, there are no accounts of what happened after the october the eight, showing only the advance of the egyptian millitary in the first few days of the war with no regard to what happebed afterwards-although there is a paragraphe that suppused to have discussed it. Why is the israeli successful counterattacks not mentioned? whay is the battle of the chinese farm, the israeli crossing to the egyptian side of the canal, the advance to the 101 km from cairo? why does to successful Ofira air battle not mentioned? And another thing, there was no "successful naval blockade" against Israel in the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea, a quick look at the naval batteles of the war show that perfectly clear.--93.172.96.86 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

 * This article deals only with Operation Badr, which took place from October 6 to October 8. The naval blockades took place far away from the area of naval battles, this is well explained in the article, which is also well sourced. --Sherif9282 (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is one sided
This article is clearly one sided.

Firstly, the outcome of the operation was not a decisive victory. The operation's main objective was to capture a strip of land from the canal to the Gidi and Mitla Passes. As the attack was halted by the IDF after the egyptians captured a five km strip, the operation didn't reach it's objective. Furthermore, the egyptians lost 15,600 soldiers and 8,273 were captured. so the operation was only successful in the first few days, but later on became a clear egyptian defeat.

Secondly, there is no information about what happened from the eighth to the twenty-four of october -there is no information about the successful israeli attacks such as the Ofira Air Battle, the Battles of Fort Budapest, Battle of Marsa Talamat, Battle of Baltim, Battle of the Sinai and the Battle of the Chinese Farm. Therfore the article is clearly one sided. it can even be said that the article is an Egyptian propaganda. This is not wikipedia's purpose.

In addition, there was no "successful naval blockade" against Israel in the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea. Proving these claim is pretty east, due to the fact that israeli won all the naval batteles of the war.

--46.116.112.116 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Split This Article
This article is dealing with multiple issues of the 1973 war but all has a single common characteristic. All can be written in a way describing the 1973 war as an Egyptian victory and this is exactly what is happening here. This article should be split into multiple articles as follows:

 * Egyptian policy and strategy between the War of Attrition and the 1973 war

 * Egyptian military preparations between the War of Attrition and the 1973 war (including the deception effort)

 * Israeli built defensive structures in the Sinai Peninsula

 * Israeli defensive plans in the Sinai Peninsula

 * Plan Badr

 * Fighting on the Egyptian front during the 1973 war (between 06/10 to 26/10)

 * Nickel Grass (article already exist)

 * Long-term effects of the 1973 war (already a section within the main article)

Most of what is written here should be diverted into the articles and sections mentioned above. Right now this article is an alternative version of the YKW, but with clear agenda. Megaidler (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:POVFORK. He doesn't like the YKW article so he creates a "new" fantasy article disguised as "Operation Badr." The funny thing is that this article is longer than YKW.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 * This article is not about what User:Megaidler claims it is. It is an article about a military operation. As such, it is entirely encyclopedic. Also please read WP:NPA. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Oil Ignition System
Or Yekarot was the name of the system installed on the Suez Canal in order to put it on fire incase the Egyptians cross.

On 21/12/2007, an article about that system was published in [Bamahane], an official Israeli army magazine.

It is mentioned that only two stations were built on the eastern bank. One was near fort Matzmed (Deversoir) and the other one near fort Hizayon (Firdan). Each station could cover an area no longer than 100 meter, so only 200 meters were covered. Later, it was decided not to build additional stations because it was too costly. Instead, a lot of dummy stations were built along the eastern bank. On 06/10/1973, a technical team was sent to check the two stations. In one station, the oil injection system couldn't be operated electrically so the team operated it manually. Things went right and oil was flowing into the water, but ignition had to be done separately. The team went to fort Matzmed and eventually was captured by Egyptian troops. Later it was found that dozens of dummy pipes were sealed by Egyptian frogmen, but the Egyptians have sealed only the dummies. Amnon Reshef said the soldiers who were manning the strong points did not know how to operate that system, and using the system was not part of plan "dovecote".

Another article was published on 08/2000 in Maarachot, which is another official Israeli army magazine.

It was noted that a technical team was sent to check the two stations on 06/10/1973. They went to fort "Hizayon", where they found the system to be partially operational. The electric operation mechanism was in a near by strong point, but that strong point was already closed and sealed by the Israelis. Later the team went to fort "Matzmed".

According to Haber & Schiff p. 43, the Israelis discovered an Egyptian document in one of the captured camps on the western bank. In this document it was noted that the Egyptian knew the Israelis had no plans of using that system and the Egyptian knew that many stations were dummies. It is also mentioned that no one tried to operate the ignition systems.

Search in google for a file named 21.12.07-laskov-s-v5.pdf

Also look on http://www.hativa14.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/372.pdf

It's all in Hebrew, so I hope you will find a way of translating these documents. Megaidler (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Again WP:Puffery
What “Decisive Egyptian victory”? After more than 4 days the Egyptians did not advance more than 20 km. In 67 the Israelis captured the entire Sinai peninsula in 4 days (with the exception of Port Fouad). And not all the Israeli counterattacks were repulsed. The offensive started on 15/10 was not repulsed after all. Megaidler (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 * It is a decisive Egyptian victory. There's no WP:Puffery about that. The Egyptians planned to advance roughly 15 kilometers into the Sinai and they did just that. The result of the battle is based on how well they achieved their objectives, not on comparing it to Israeli performance in another war. Also, all counterattacks were repulsed. Of course, a counterattack is launched in response to one launched by the enemy. The counterattacks launched between October 6-9 were all in response to the crossing, and all were defeated. The counterattack on October 15 was in response to the Egyptian October 14 offensive, and that succeeded. Your mixing things up in interpretation. --Sherif9282 (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian POV article
Hi all, This article having been translated in french wikipedia, I come over here, and as others in above comments I find pretty amazing to feature Operation Badr as an Egyptian Victory and separate it completely from the rest of the Yom Kippour war.

I think it would be better to:
 * give more informations about the following of the war in both introduction and aftermath parts (no information anywhere about the egyptian military disaster that followed, with the Egyptian third army completely surrounded and Israelis troop 100km from Cairo),
 * rename "Egyptian Victory" in "Egyptian initial success",
 * define "Operation Badr" as the entire name of the Yom kippur war, use later as only the initial ppart of the operation
 * use non Egyptian sources to neutralize a little,
 * show the use of Operation badr initial success has a propaganda tool by Egypt.

I have been to Egypt and I know how Yom Kippour war was officially presented, but present it as an Egyptian victory in a wikipedia good article is not neutral, sticking to official propaganda, an attempt to keep national pride.

And last point: Apollofox (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * you have to explain that Sadat was assassinated on October 6, the anniversary date of Operation Badr.
 * That anniversary date of Operation Badr is a national holiday in Egypt to commemorate "the victory"

Someone should do something to prevent unexplained edits by unknown IP addresses
Someone should do something to prevent unexplained edits by unknown IP addresses.--Ashashyou (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

regarding 'Prelude'
The article states Israel ignored UN resolution 242, and than proceeds to say this resolution "called for withdrawal from occupied territories in return for Arab recognition".

Since Egypt and all Arab countries refused to negotiate with, let alone recognize, Israel, I think it would be fair to either drop this statement, or add that also Egypt ignored the resolution.

Tinelva (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

regarding 'Aftermath'
An article about a battle of the Yom Kippur war should at least mention the final result of the war - things such as who won, what major events led to the final outcome, when the war ended, etc

Here there is a brief discussion of Israel's failed counterattack and the reasons Sadat decided to go on the offensive again, and that's it.

Tinelva (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Causalties number
The estimation of casualty number that is raised in the article refers to different periods in both of the sides. The casualty number in the israeli side refers to the initial stage of the war, in both of the fronts. Whereas the egyptian causualty number refers to the offensive itself. The highest number of israeli casualties within a single day was roughly 210 according to reliable estimations. Which makes the claim wrong beforhand. טוראי פייל (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Operation Badr (1973)


text:
Nonrecourse debt

Nonrecourse debt or a nonrecourse loan (sometimes hyphenated as non-recourse) is a secured loan (debt) that is secured by a pledge of collateral, typically real property, but for which the borrower is not personally liable. If the borrower defaults, the lender can seize and sell the collateral, but if the collateral sells for less than the debt, the lender cannot seek that deficiency balance from the borrower—its recovery is limited only to the value of the collateral. Thus, nonrecourse debt is typically limited to 50% or 60% loan-to-value ratios, so that the property itself provides "overcollateralization" of the loan.

The incentives for the parties are at an intermediate position between those of a full recourse secured loan and a totally unsecured loan. While the borrower is in first loss position, the lender also assumes significant risk, so the lender must underwrite the loan with much more care than in a full recourse loan. This typically requires that the lender have significant domain expertise and financial modeling expertise.

Consumer finance
In Europe, mortgage loans secured by personal residences are usually recourse loans. Most states in the United States also permit recourse for residential mortgages, but antideficiency statutes in a minority of states require nonrecourse mortgages. Around 13 states can be classified as nonrecourse states, depending on a researcher's classification standards.

Self-directed IRA investors who choose to purchase investment real estate are able to leverage their purchase with a nonrecourse loan. Due to Internal Revenue Service regulations, it would be deemed a violation of the qualified retirement account status to personally guarantee any loan on real estate owned by a self-directed IRA.

A property assessed clean energy (PACE) loan, used by some states to fund residential energy improvements, is an example of a loan that is nonrecourse to the borrower.

Commercial lending
Nonrecourse debt is typically used to finance commercial real estate, shipping, or other projects with high capital expenditures, long loan periods, and uncertain revenue streams. It is also commonly used for stock loans and other securities-collateralized lending structures. Since most commercial real estate is owned in a partnership structure (or similar tax pass-through), nonrecourse borrowing gives the real estate owner the tax benefits of a tax-pass-through partnership structure (that is, loss pass-through and no double taxation), and simultaneously limits personal liability to the value of the investment. A nonrecourse debt of $30 billion was issued to JPMorgan Chase by the Federal Reserve in order to purchase Bear Stearns on March 16, 2008. The nonrecourse loan was issued with Bear Stearns's less liquid assets as collateral, meaning that the Federal Reserve will absorb the loss should the value of those assets be below their collateralized value.

The legal financing industry provides nonrecourse financial products used to provide financial assistance to plaintiffs involved in a contingency-based lawsuit like a car accident. The funds are provided to the consumer on the potential settlement amount. This money is true nonrecourse funding, if the case is lost, one does not owe the company funding the lawsuit anything. This is a purchase of an asset and not a loan.

Characterization in corporate finance
Nonrecourse debt is usually carried on a debtor company's balance sheet as a liability, and the collateral is carried as an asset. For U.S. Federal income tax purposes, the interaction among the concepts of (1) the "amount realized" upon a disposition, (2) the amount of nonrecourse debt, and (3) the amount of adjusted basis in the property is fairly complex. The tax consequences of a disposition depend on whether the taxpayer acquired the property with the nonrecourse debt already attached, or whether the taxpayer took out the nonrecourse debt after acquisition of the property, and the relative relationships between fair market value and purchase price and disposition price. Upon a sale or other disposition of property under U.S. income tax law, a taxable gain generally results where the amount realized upon the sale or other disposition of property exceeds the amount of the taxpayer's adjusted basis in that property. Generally, the amount realized is the amount of cash and other consideration received by the taxpayer. The amount of any loan forgiven or discharged is generally part of that consideration.

The adjusted basis is the sum of the following:
 * The amount of the original cost incurred by the taxpayer when the property was acquired, including the amount of any nonrecourse debt assumed by the owner/taxpayer as part of the acquisition (also known as "original basis"),
 * Plus the costs of improvements (if any) made by the taxpayer to the property,
 * Less the amount of depreciation (or similar) deductions allowed (or allowable) to the taxpayer on that property.

If the amount realized exceeds the amount of adjusted basis, the taxpayer has realized a gain at the time of disposition. If the adjusted basis exceeds the amount realized, a loss has been incurred. The federal income tax effect of nonrecourse debt may be explained by first considering the tax effect of a disposition involving recourse debt (that is, a debt in which the property provides first security coverage, and the borrower/taxpayer is personally liable for any deficiency that may remain after the lender forecloses against the property), and then contrasting against similar facts involving nonrecourse debt, as follows:

As an example, suppose:
 * 1) The unpaid principal of the recourse debt is $100,000;
 * 2) The fair market value of the property is $80,000;
 * 3) The taxpayer's adjusted basis in the property is $45,000.

Assuming that the creditor forecloses on the property and that the $20,000 excess of the debt over the property's fair market value ($100,000 less $80,000) is contractually discharged (for didactic symmetry with the nonrecourse example, let's assume, contrary to the commercial point of a recourse loan, that the debt is outright forgiven by the creditor, with no actual payment), the taxpayer would realize the $20,000 amount as income from the discharge of indebtedness. That $20,000 of forgiveness would be taxable to the taxpayer as ordinary income even though the taxpayer received no cash at the time of the discharge. The $35,000 excess of the fair market value over the adjusted basis ($80,000 less $45,000) would be treated as a taxable capital gain on the "sale or other disposition" of the property—again, even though the taxpayer received no cash at the time of the foreclosure.

Assuming the same facts except that the debt is nonrecourse, the result would be quite different. The taxpayer would realize zero taxable ordinary income from the discharge of debt. Instead, the entire $55,000 difference between the unpaid principal of the debt and the taxpayer's adjusted basis ($100,000 less $45,000) would be treated as a taxable capital gain on the "sale or other disposition" of the property—again, even though no cash is received by the taxpayer at the time of foreclosure.

At the sale, foreclosure or other disposition, nonrecourse debt incurred as part of the financing of the acquisition, and money extracted from an investment by mortgaging out, are treated the same: both are taxable realization only at the time of the property's disposition, even if, at time of disposition, the property is worth less than the amount of the mortgage. Nonrecourse debt that is in place at the time of acquisition of the property is included in basis, Crane v. Commissioner, subsequent borrowing is not. Woodsam Associates, Inc. v. Commissioner. Subsequent borrowing proceeds reinvested in a depreciable property thereby avoid Woodsam and take advantage of Crane.

title: Nonrecourse debt