Talk:Peter Thiel/Archive 2

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

Categories

This article is chronically WP:OVERCATegorized. I've cut down some of them but there are probably more that can be cut out. Sure, he's multi-faceted, but that's all the more reason to tighten it up. Chess player for example; he was just a pretty good player, it should be treated as a hobby not a defining characteristic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Start an RfC about the New Zealand categories. It's now nearly a full year you've been trying to remove them without consensus. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
And you've been undoing sound policy-based edits regarding WP:OVERCAT, WP:NONDEFINING, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV and claiming "consensus" based entirely on your own opinion. You do not WP:OWN this article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Your change was challenged, now try to convince us. Why do you think all categories regarding New Zealand should be removed? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
OK I guess it needs a RFC. To summarize briefly, he has never lived in New Zealand and has no intention of ever living in New Zealand. He was granted New Zealand citizenship in a highly irregular fashion as a workaround to enable him to buy a property in New Zealand. He bought his citizenship, basically, then kept it secret for six years until an expose by a New Zealand newspaper. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
So all I can see at the Category:New Zealand people is this: "people who were born in New Zealand or who had significant connections with New Zealand". That isn't exactly specific, so perhaps we should ask the New Zealand project group for help figuring out the criteria. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
It is absolutely clear cut to me, and it is annoying that I need to raise an RFC over what should be an uncontroversial edit. "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." I also have concerns about including the NZ citizenship stuff under "personal life", which seems to me an attempt to downplay the controversy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Peter Thiel philanthropy section

Closing this discussion per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. There is no real consensus either way, with both 'sides' making reasonable arguments in favour of their respective stances. I am not supervoting but as an initial step, might adding 'and donations' to the relevant section header would obviate some of the concerns about which of the donations Thiel has made constitute 'philanthropy', as the reader can then make their own mind up? Anyway, there is no consensus in this RFC. Fish+Karate 13:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do the activities described in the section headed "philanthropy" such as donations to the Seasteading Institute fit within the conventional definition of the word "philanthropy"? MaxBrowne (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Yes - In regards to his donations to The Seasteading Institute since its is not a political organization. As for the others, we'd have to discuss each separately. Meatsgains(talk) 01:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No - My view is that the Seasteading Institute is a political organization in that it seeks to establish libertarian playgrounds outside of the provenance of existing government. Other activities also seem aimed more at promoting a Randite political agenda than aiding humanity. I know he calls the activities of the Thiel Foundation "philanthropy" but he's got a highly unconventional view of what that word means, and wikipedia should not endorse this view. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment - 501(c)(3) is specifically a term related to United States tax law and does not represent a WP:WORLDVIEW. Whether or not an organization is considered "philanthropic" should not be defined in such terms. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
In which countries, exactly, would the Seasteading Institute not be eligible to be considered a charity? Which RSs use your preferred definition of "philanthropy"? NPalgan2 (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
In which countries, exactly, would the Seasteading Institute not be eligible to be considered a charity? Probably all of them. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
The Seasteading Institute would be a registered charity in the UK or Australia. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes - 'philanthropy' is a term used for his donations to The Seasteading Institute, a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Saying "unorthodox" or "and sometimes controversial" might be added. Yes, setting up ones own foundation sniffs a bit and the intents or methods may be dodgy to you -- but a donation to a charity is still going to qualify. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong no. It's an advocacy organization intended to advance a specific political goal; as our description of says, its goal is to take advantage of the absence of laws and regulations outside the sovereignty of nations to experiment with new governance systems. The idea that every donation to a nonprofit organization is automatically philanthropy is absurd - we can call something philanthropy only if we have an unambiguous citation explicitly calling it such. Anything without such a citation needs to be removed from the philanthropy section immediately as WP:OR. We cannot simply dig up every nonprofit someone has supported, bundle them together, and label them "philanthropy" without a source that unambiguously calls them by that name. The other items in that section also need a hard eye put to them, but this one is clearly and unambiguously not philanthropy in any form. --Aquillion (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Although people have claimed below that they have sources generally arguing that these things could be philanthropy, I will point out again that (with a few exceptions), we lack independent sources specifically describing them as such in this case. We can't rely solely on primary sources from / by Thiel himself (it falls under the 'unduly self-serving' clause of WP:SELFSOURCE), and we can't rely on sources that don't talk about Thiel specifically, since this would be WP:SYNTH; I'm also not very convinced by passing mentions. For each item in that section that we want to call philanthropy, we need a secondary source, independent of Thiel, calling it such. I'm not seeing that at the moment. --Aquillion (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
There are sources below calling the Thiel foundation in general and its seasteading grant in particular philanthropic/charitable. "I'm also not very convinced by passing mentions." I dont see anything about "in passing mentions don't count" in WP:RS; please find sources that disagree with the current ones. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The issue with using passing mentions to structure the entire article (ie. defining section headers by it, as you're suggesting here) is one of WP:DUE weight, not one of WP:RS. You're taking one aside in one article and elevating it to the point where it would define a large part of the text of the article - that's obviously WP:UNDUE. --Aquillion (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That's, I suppose, the point at issue. I don't think the lead sentence "Peter Thiel is an entrepreneur [&] philanthropist" implies endorsement for his philanthropic donations any more than calling him an entrepreneur implies support for neoliberal capitalism. It's just a commonly used neutral designator. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • No. Advocating for a specific libertarian idea is not philanthropy. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:38, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes "My own reading of the literature on the independent sector leads me to conclude that contemporary philanthropic giving is simply that which the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accepts as a tax- deductible donation." https://books.google.com/books?id=luHvqF1CsO8C&pg=PA18 I also see NPOV concern - if advocating for seasteading is not philoanthropy, what about other causes - social justice broadly defined, feminism, anarchism, pro or anti euthanasia, etc? Or see this article that classes both controversial Koch and Soros donations as "philanthropy": "One big point is that philanthropy has changed greatly from the days when wealthy people donated to a museum or hospital and got their name on the wall (though that still happens). The big money now is going to a battle over ideas shaping political discourse, education policy, health care research and more. While Mr. Callahan sees nothing intentionally nefarious in these donations — even the ones from philanthropists on the other side of the political spectrum from him — he does want people to be more aware." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/your-money/wealth-matters-philanthropy-david-callahan.html Or a third source: the distinction between charity and philanthropy ... has largely fallen into disuse; charity and philanthropy are now used almost interchangeably in most Anglophone countries. Legally, what counts as charity varies between countries and over time... in most countries "charity" has a specific legal meaning https://books.google.com/books?id=b_pjDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA12 NPalgan2 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes As described by NPalgan2. When discussing donations to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, that generally fits the definition of philanthropy. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Stong no Many politcal organizations fall under the 501(c)(3) structure, but that doesnt automatically make them philanthropic organizations, it merely indicate that they are exempt from federal tax raising powers and are driven by donations, and which is a very very wide definition of what constitutes a supposed organization. Anybody who works in a real charity to promote the welfare of others, and deals with poverty, displaced humanity, war migration, earthquake victims, homelessness, crop failure and other states, where humans beings are bought low, wouldnt recognize a donation to a right wing advocacy group as philanthropy in any manner. scope_creep (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • No not a philanthropic org. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant we don't follow the "conventional definition" as that is WP:OR, we follow the WP:RSs. If the RSs call it philanthropic then we should follow, but we can mention that other sources say it is not philanthropic. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
There are RSs describing Thiel Foundation activities in general and the specific grant to the Seasteading Institute as philanthropic. "Thiel Foundation, a philanthropic outfit” https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538086/race-for-a-smart-contact-lens-gets-new-entry-from-a-thiel-dropout/ "Founded in 2008, with a philanthropic grant of $500,000 by PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, the Seasteading Institute (TSI)” https://panampost.com/david-unsworth/2017/04/11/joe-quirk-floating-nations-reshape-world/ "A second notorious Thiel charity is the Seasteading Institute” http://fortune.com/2014/09/04/peter-thiels-contrarian-strategy/ Even Larry Summers when calling the Thiel Fellowships "the single most misdirected bit of philanthropy in this decade” didn’t dispute that it was philanthropy. http://www.newsweek.com/2017/03/03/peter-thiel-fellowship-college-higher-education-559261.html NPalgan2 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Support as per sources provided by NPalgan2. No reason to abandon what the RSs say just because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Any controversy regarding them can be mentioned in the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk)
I did have the same thought (about where are the policy based rationales in this RfC) while scrolling through the RfC, thanks for bringing in a voice of policy Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I see most sources using "invest" or just "donate", at-least in relation to Seasteading Institute. Perhaps just title the section "donations"? (As a side note, IMO philanthrophy is overused in Wikipedia - anyone who donates anything is a "philanthropist" and has a big charity section or something. Could just be the sources and me not liking it, though.) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Ýes from my reading of the article on 501(c)(3) it looks like the US IRS treat the Seasteading Institute as if it were a charity. Whatever the IRS's threshold is, the Institute meets it. Whether we as readers agree or not seems irrelevant. If reliable sources oppose that position or consider the Institute's charitable status questionable then cite them in the philanthropy section article with appropriate commentary. Much of the discussion above seems to me to relate to original research or as stated by some [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT NealeFamily (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:OR relates only to article space, and as pointed out section 501 whatever of US tax law is not a WP:WORLDVIEW. This is not how word definitions work. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:WORLDVIEW does not apply. Section 501 is a fact not an opinion and therefore bias does not come into it. As I stated, if you have an RS that puts forward the argument that the Institute is not a charity then cite it. NealeFamily (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Words like "charity" and "philanthropy" are not defined by what section whatever of United States law says any more than they are defined by what Russian law says. Different countries will have different laws on this point. There are certainly reliable sources that criticize the use of the term "philanthropy" for this libertarian fantasy. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's an RS. And, again, please give an example of one of these countries. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
MaxBrowne - I agree with you that different countries have different legal and cultural definitions of the terms. What I am saying is that you will need to find an RS that says that Peter Thiel's support of the Seasteading Institute is not what he claims or has been accepted by his country of origins Governmental agencies (in this case the IRS) to be. For instance if, just for example, the New York Times said something like the foundation is a fraud and so is Peter Thiels support of it, then you could add a sentence along those lines citing that as the source. That is what I am saying. Also, if Pravda or some similar extra-national source said the same thing, then you could use that. What there needs to be is a direct link between the negative view (not a charity or philanthropic) and 'Peter Thiel in the RS. If this can't be provided, then it becomes one (or several) persons opinion/s, which then make the claim WP:OR. The article you cited says why the bogus mantle of philanthropy is about the Seasteading Institute and while it mentions Peter Thiel as having given financial support does not paint him in a negative light. NealeFamily (talk) 07:42, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Huh? No--these things aren't philanthropy. How are things like "Breakout Labs" to be considered philanthropic institutions? One could possible consider that Seasteading Institute to be something of a good cause, but in general all these are donations, and calling them philanthropic donations is just rich people's vanispam--and if the man is worth $2.2 billion, these amounts aren't huge, relatively speaking. Only the other causes qualify as "philanthropy". Drmies (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Its not whether we consider them philanthropic or not. It is whether or not an WP:RS states it or not. The alternative is WP:OR NealeFamily (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment seems to be reasonable positions on both sides of this debate and no real consensus. I suggest creating a section called The Seasteading Institute and put his activity inside that. This way we preserve WP:NPOV by not taking a position if the activity is charitable or political, as it appears there are sources advocating both. If there are not such sources, then we go with what the WP:RS says, which seems to be charity (if i understand the comments above correctly). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
That's not a compromise - see the question posed in the RfC. The issue is whether to ignore the all the sourcing provided because of editor's own personal opinions on seasteading. Is this new standard going to apply to progressive philanthropists like Tom Steyer & George Soros because some editors may not like their underlying political philosophy? NPalgan2 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

German citizen??

The article says he is a German citizen by birth. Yet in this interview, when asked if he has a "German passport" he says "I don’t have a German passport. I was born in Germany, but by the time I took up the US passport you couldn’t have both." Danski14(talk) 01:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF and philanthropy.

WP:ABOUTSELF prohibits us from using sources as a cite for anything "unduly self-serving". Based on that, I'm going to go through the philanthropy section in a few days and remove anything that lacks a secondary source (that is, one that passes WP:RS on its own merits, independent of Thiel) - I think it's clearly obvious that describing oneself as a philanthropist and enumerating achievements is too self-serving to pass the WP:ABOUTSELF test. Anything worth including there should be easy to cite to an independent source. I also think that the weight given to some things there is excessive based on the current sourcing (most of it is only mentioned in passing and therefore deserves a sentence where it's currently getting an entire subsection or paragraph), but the WP:ABOUTSELF cleanup probably takes priority since it's so clear-cut and deals with problems that anyone who wants to retain the material can easily address by finding better sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary "rules" about number of paras in lead do not override NPOV

It is clear that mentioning the Bollea vs Gawker case like it's just an aside, in a paragraph dealing mostly with philanthropy (or at least Thiels's definition of it), is an attempt to downplay the case. The case has caused widespread concern among those who care about freedom of expression, and is an important component of his notability. The fact that he funded the case secretly was also cause for concern. Does this mean billionaires can use the legal system to bankrupt any media organization they don't like now? It's clearly an important and precedent setting case, and attempting to gloss over it in the lead with the benign sounding "financial support" is a violation of NPOV. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, the gawker case is not that important to the subject's notability. Thiel is notable as an entrepreneur and investor. His non-business pursuits are suitably covered in the fourth paragraph. Adding a separate paragraph in the lead for the gawker case is WP:UNDUE, and it goes against the four-paragraph MOS:LEAD guideline. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You disagree because your assumption of bad faith causes you to automatically revert any edit I make at all to this article. The gawker case has been extensively covered in numerous sources, including a documentary movie and a book. It is one of the things Thiel is best known for, and it is in no way undue to include it as a separate paragraph in the lead. Mentioning it as an aside with the non-neutral wording is an attempt to downplay the importance of the case, which has raised real concerns about attacks on the media by the rich and powerful. The four-paragraph guideline is irrelevant. In any case I find talk page discussions with you absolutely pointless because you never seek consensus or compromise, just edit war and display wp:ownership behaviour. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't automatically revert any edits you make (this edit in July is a recent example) and to say I do is assuming bad faith, as is implying I am only arguing against your position rather than expressing my own opinion. Regarding the last point, the feeling is mutual so thanks for starting an RfC. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You do it constantly, WP:STONEWALLING and citing "consensus" (i.e. you, the "owner"), and ignoring valid concerns about NPOV. NPOV is far more important than whether there are four or five paragraphs in the lead. You also revert wholesale rather than trying to improve the article, a hostile act which should be avoided for non-vandalism edits. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
UNDUE is a subsection of NPOV. Please read a policy fully if you're going to repeatedly cite it. Regarding the reverts, many of your edits to this article are similar to each other, in some cases (e.g. the removal of the NZ categories) exact repeats of edits previously challenged and discussed. This is very disruptive, because it is either an attempt to wait out other editors and sneak the edits through or simply edit warring for the sake of edit warring. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way we could rewrite the final paragraph of the lead to make sure it doesn't seem to imply that the Gawker case is included in his philanthropy or political giving? It doesn't have to get its own paragraph, maybe just its own sentence. I'm hesitant to lump it in with a political donation, since in a related lawsuit, Thiel's lawyers claimed that he gave money to Bollea in expectation of a financial return, implying there was some litigation funding agreement where he received some of the payout. Either way, I think it's a large enough section in the article to merit its own sentence in the lead, and I think a compromise is possible here. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions, though this discussion has been somewhat superseded by the RfC. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
So *now* you're "open to suggestions"?? Why aren't you "open to suggestions" when I make them? Your position that Thiel's secret funding of several lawsuits in a personal crusade to bankrupt a media organization is "not important to his notability" is untenable, given the numerous sources which discuss the topic. It is clear that your reversal of my edit was motivated by spite. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
When did I say I wasn't open to suggestions? I said adding a separate paragraph in the lead for detail on the gawker case was UNDUE, and went against the four-paragraph MOS guideline. You then started an RfC about the issue without further discussion. File a report at ANI if you feel my editing is "motivated by spite", otherwise don't make comments such as your last one again. Thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Stop telling me what I may or may not say. You reflexively undo any substantive edits I make to the article. You make no effort to improve them, just undo, as if I'm vandalizing the article. You then quote "BRD" at me, but you don't actually do the "D" part of it, because you've already made up your mind that any edit I make must be opposed, then retroactively justify it by whatever straws you can clutch at. (Who cares whether it's 4 or 5 paras? There is no absolute rule about this). It is absurd that you basically expect me to run any improvements to the article past RFC. This is stonewalling of the worst kind. For your information, there is *no* presumption in favour of the status quo on wikipedia; quite the opposite. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I notice you've changed the accusation from "automatically revert any edit" to "reflexively undo any substantive edits", which is also false. I did engage in discussion, at which point you said you don't like discussing with myself and started an RfC. You also did not discuss the rewording of the sentence, instead removing it while the RfC concerning it was ongoing. I cannot respond to suggestions that have not been made. For the record, "bankroll" is defined as "support (a person, organization, or project) financially" so the "financial support" wording is just a more formal version of "bankroll", but, as I said, I'm open to suggestions. The editors who developed the MOS:LEAD guideline evidently care about the number of paragraphs, or it wouldn't be mentioned in the guideline. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the problem is mixing his 'philanthropy' and his 'politics' into one paragraph. This is ultimately a reflection of the issue in the RFC above, in that a lot of his 'philanthropy' is basically him pushing for political views; it's obviously inappropriate to lump political donations in with philanthropic ones the way the paragraph does at the moment, so I would suggest splitting it into separate paragraphs for his politics and his philanthropy, and possibly dropping philanthropy from the lead entirely. The weight devoted to it both there and in the article seems WP:UNDUE relative to coverage; much of the coverage in that section only mentions him in passing or is WP:PRIMARY, yet it's given huge amounts of text. Actually, before revising the lead, it might be a good idea to focus on trimming and condensing the philanthropy section, particularly with a focus on relying primarily on secondary sources that focus on Thiel specifically and limiting or removing primary sources entirely. (It's dicey to rely on them for something like this, since WP:SELFCITE doesn't allow for "unduly self-serving" stuff.) Once the excessive weight on his philanthropy has been condensed down to a paragraph or two with better sourcing, that can be mostly excised form the lead and we can have a paragraph devoted directly to his politics instead - which has much more coverage and is WP:DUE much more weight. If we're going to stick to the four-paragraph limit, it's obvious that his philanthropy is the weak link that isn't going to get a spot in the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 09:22, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
in that a lot of his 'philanthropy' is basically him pushing for political views. The recently concluded RfC did not establish that this is the case. But the philanthrophy section probably does not need as many sub-sections; the research subsection has three subsections which likely could be condensed into the one subsection without problem. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Chess coverage

In the end, Thiel's chess rating is no more important than his golf handicap or his judo ranking, i.e. of no interest or meaningfulness to anyone who does not engage in this activity themselves. Accordingly, I have given this section a trim, per WP:UNDUE. A three sentence paragraph is quite enough, and it's debatable whether it should even have a heading. Is Thiel a strong chess player? Yes. Is he exceptional? No. Is he notable as a chess player? No.

Note also WP:VNOTSUFF - just because something is in the New York Times doesn't mean it belongs in wikipedia. Anyone who would describe Thiel as a "chess prodigy" clearly knows little about chess, or about prodigies - this is sloppy journalism. Wikipedia should not perpetuate such sloppiness. I have however left the citations intact. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

He was described as a chess prodigy by the NYT and the FT. Business Insider also has described him as such. We follow what reliable sources say, not our own opinions. If you believe the NYT and FT are known for "sloppy journalism", consider creating a discussion at the WP:RSN to determine if they are reliable sources or not. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
They are non-chess sources. There is a school of thought that there is no such thing as a prodigy. No chess-related sources (i.e. people who know what they're talking about) describe Thiel in any exceptional terms. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Per George Orwell, "Early in life I had noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper". I have found this too - every time an event that I have personal knowledge of is published, I find they've got some details wrong. A common example for chess reporting is describing a game as a "match", even the NYT does this. A heavy metal friend of mine pranked a reporter by telling her he was in a band called Deicide - this got published. Therefore there is a reliable source which says that Joe Smith is in a band called Deicide - doesn't make it true. Specialist sources are best for specialist subjects. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
There is no WP:CHESSRS guideline in the way there is a WP:MEDRS guideline. NYT and FT are RS, and both have described Thiel as a chess prodigy. Attempting to fact-check RS based on personal analysis is WP:OR. Create a discussion at the RSN asking if the NYT, FT, can be used as sources for the description as your argument is based on the reliability of sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Non-specialist sources usually get some details wrong. It is not a violation of WP:OR to not repeat what a RS says. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I am not interested in arguing in circles about this. NYT and FT are well-established as RS, you cannot dismiss them as "sloppy journalism" because you do not personally agree with something they stated. Create a discussion at the RSN regarding their use in this case or I will restore the description as it is supported by RS and your argument for removal is about the reliability of the sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:ONUS, it's up to you to obtain consensus that the word "prodigy" belongs in the article. Sure NYT and FT are "reliable sources" in general, but I wouldn't turn to the NYT if I wanted reliable information on (for example) cognitive behavioral therapy - I'd go to specialist sources for that. As a chess player yourself you know that Thiel is nothing exceptional as a chess player, so why are you so insistent on perpetuating a reporting error? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Your opposition to the description is that it is not reliably sourced, when it is sourced to well-established RS. This is not a valid rationale for removal, notwithstanding anecdotes about your friend Joe. (Also, discussion of CBT would likely require MEDRS, which as I said is a guideline that exists while CHESSRS does not.) I do not particularly care about the description, hence I did not originally revert your removal of reliably-sourced material on the basis of sourcing. But I am actually interested to see a discussion at the RSN if the sources can be used for the description, regardless of the outcome. Accordingly, I have created a discussion myself. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

RFC - categories

There is a clear consensus that it is appropriate to include categories describing Peter Thiel as a New Zealander. Editors noted that reliable sources call him a "New Zealand billionaire", that citizenship is a "significant connection" to New Zealand, and that there is a section about the issue in the article

Cunard (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it appropriate to include categories describing Peter Thiel as a New Zealander? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

[1] "people who were born in New Zealand or who had significant connections with New Zealand". If these are the criteria then the question is simply whether being officially a NZ citizen equates to having a significant connection with NZ. I think not, they are distinctly different. All being a citizen does is grant certain rights; taking up those rights would probably create a significant connection with NZ, but that is all. Thiel use of the citizenship rights is minimal. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The NZ category should remain. The case of acquiring Citizenship was controversial and is still topical. NealeFamily (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree NealeFamily, it was. But do you think that that constitutes significant connections (plural) with NZ? I think being in the media for a week or two with the minister that approved the citizenship application isn't enough. I had thought he might have other connections that would justify his inclusion, but I cannot find or remember any. Anyway, just my thoughts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It may well drop into obscurity and therefore be of no more interest. I'll put the article on my watch list and look at it again later in the year to see if it is worth retaining the NZ category.

Yes. For example, here he is at number 2 on NBR's rich list. "Newly-revealed New Zealand citizen Peter Thiel is the second richest New Zealander with $3.7b worth of wealth." https://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=11894256 https://www.nbr.co.nz/wealth-order-3 NPalgan2 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Being a NZ citizen isn't enough. WP criteria as quoted above is what counts. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
It's up to RSs to decide what counts as "significant connections", not wikipedia editors. In this case, we have NZ's equivalent of the Wall Street Journal calling him a New Zealand billionaire/second richest New Zealander and the highest circulation newspaper in NZ repeating that description. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Inclusion - True Theil's claim to be a New Zealander is pretty tenuous, but holding legal citizenship to a country probably represents a "significant connection". Unless there's some credible reason to exclude him (e.g. Theil's on the record as saying he's not a New Zealanders, or there are significant RS's challenging the assertion) we should probably include. NickCT (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The article should be in Category:People with acquired New Zealand citizenship (not the subcategory Category:Naturalised citizens of New Zealand, because he acquired citizenship after 1977, when naturalisation ceased). I don't think it should be in categories such as Category:New Zealand billionaires or Category:New Zealand libertarians. In my opinion someone should have lived in New Zealand, at the very least, to justify categories like this; with New Zealand citizenship alone being insufficient. Consider Barnaby Joyce: he was born in Australia with New Zealand citizenship in 1967 due to his father's New Zealand citizenship. Joyce has never lived in New Zealand. He renounced his New Zealand citizenship in 2017, but from 1967 to 2017 he was a New Zealand citizen (and didn't know it). While he was a New Zealand citizen, putting his article in Category:New Zealand accountants and the like would not have been justified, in my opinion. Nurg (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, the "no bloody foreigners" clause of the Australian constitution. Anyway it emphasizes that citizenship and nationality are separate concepts. Anyone with a few hundred grand can become a citizen of various Caribbean countries. And apparently, you might be able to get nz citizenship too if you're a billionaire. Even Shania Twain didn't try for citizenship. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC) P.S. Derryn Hinch apparently isn't a Kiwi anymore. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:CAT In addition, each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. Thiel is a New Zealand citizen; he is listed by RSs among the richest New Zealanders, he should be in the various NZ categories such as NZ libertarians, etc. NPalgan2 (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The emphasis in that guideline is on "most specific", not "all". there is also the word "logically" - it's not logical to call someone who has spent less time in New Zealand than James Cameron or Shania Twain a "New Zealander" regardless of any legal arrangement. There is also the requirement that categories be non-controversial. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
"Controversial" means disagreement in RSs, not Wikipedia editors' opinions about the underlying issue. NPalgan2 (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
It means whatever suits your argument best apparently. Look, how about stepping back from this and letting other people speak? It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree, NPalgan2, (comment further back). In this context a 'significant contribution' has not and can not be referenced. If a case is disputed, like this is, what is and is not is down to consensus. I would agree though, if I have understood you correctly, that it is not a call an individual editor should make, if a situation is disputed or likely to be disputed. The NBR comment does not make any reference to Thiel making any significant contribution to NZ, which is what counts here. Being described as a New Zealander, which can mean many different things depending on context, is not really relevant. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It says "significant connections" not "significant contribution". NPalgan2 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, my slip up. But does it make any difference? How does being very rich connect him with New Zealand? The reference descrition of Theil as a NZer means, in context, that he is legally a citizen, which by itself is still not enough to establish a 'significant contribution' with NZ. So we are back where we started and the NBR article does not, IMO, add anything to this debate. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes with the sources, not editors' opinions. If you feel the NBR wrong in calling him the second richest Kiwi, write a letter to the editor. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_wrong. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rfc on extent of Gawker case in lead

The consensus is that the appropriate level of coverage in the lead of Thiel's involvement in the Bollea v. Gawker case is one sentence since the topic is covered in multiple paragraphs of a section in the article. This has been done.

Cunard (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the appropriate level of coverage in the lead section of Thiel's involvement in the Bollea v. Gawker case? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Increase focus or restructure. I think breaking it off into its own paragraph the way you did is fine. It has an entire section in the article, and had extensive coverage at the time. Alternatively, the entire political paragraph could be restructured a bit to give it more focus without requiring a separate paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
  • LIttle or nothing in the lead because it is a trivial matter in Thiel's biography, although understandably a big deal to Gawker and others. This article is about Thiel, and the lead should summarize high points relevant to his life and career. (Summoned by bot) HouseOfChange (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • At least one sentence, and don't associate with donations or philanthropy - It has received significant coverage in numerous sources and has its own section in the article. A previous Rfc has established that it is not appropriate to link this activity with political or philanthropic donations, so not appropriate to mention in the same paragraph (even same breath) as political and philanthropic donations, or otherwise attempt to put a benign spin on it. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Little or nothing. Similar reasoning to HouseOfChange. A brief line such as "he financed Hulk Hogan in Bollea v. Gawker" somewhere in the paragraph that covers the subject's non-business pursuits is adequate. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • At least one sentence Given that this topic takes up a substantial portion of the article, with multiple paragraphs under its own heading, I think this should be given at least one sentence in the lead. As described in MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEADREL, the lead should briefly summarize the major topics in the article, and the weight given different topics in the lead should reflect the weight given those topics in the rest of the article. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Citizenship

The move of the citizenship section is something that has been edit warred over since June 2017. The last discussion was in March, and ended with a "blah blah blah" reply to my comment. What is the argument for moving information on citizenship out of the personal life section that has not already been discussed? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Because the granting of New Zealand citizenship was controversial and received considerable media coverage. It is not simply a personal thing like playing chess or being gay. Putting it under personal life is a NPOV violation in that it attempts to downplay the controversy. You do not have "consensus" to put this under personal life, only inertia. "Discussed" (using that term very loosely) does not mean "resolved in favour of your preferred version" or "resolved in favour of the status quo". Get over the idea that there is an assumption in favour of the status quo. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, you said this already. I responded and you replied with "Blah blah blah", as well as a personal attack for which you were blocked. If you have a response to my comment other than blah blah blah I am willing to listen. Waiting several months then trying to make the same edit without further discussion is very disruptive. You unsuccessfully attempted to remove the NZ-related categories in the same manner, so what is the reason for edit warring over an extremely similar issue other than disruption? Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
You are impossible to engage with productively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If your idea of productive discussion is blah blah blah, that is your problem, not mine. Unwillingness or inability to discuss an issue does not justify edit warring. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You are impossible to engage with productively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the reiteration but I read it without problem the first time. Anyway, since your response to my comment in March was "blah blah blah" and you are unable/unwilling to provide a less nonsensical response to it now, I will restore the previous placement of the section. The question is: will you continue edit warring immediately or wait several months before trying to sneak the edit through again? Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
You are impossible to engage with productively. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

As founder of Paypal

the wiki article on PT states, "He co-founded PayPal in 1999," which is contradicted by the wiki page re: PayPal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:18D1:1220:D878:6F63:F7D1:17C1 (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Lede

The lede sentence on this article is too long which makes it confusing. The first sentence should establish the subjects primary notability. Including a long list of things they have done (even if they have appeared in the news) muddies the waters, makes it harder for the reader, and seems more like CV padding. After the first sentence, we can still mention the secondary things the subject has done. For instance, do we really need entrepreneur and venture capitalist in the same sentence, since they are very similar? It seems better to use the general term and explain any nuance later in the article. Additionally, his philanthropy and political activity seems better just mentioned in the 2nd or third sentence, once the reader is oriented. Ashmoo (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Venture capitalists are investors. Someone who sets up a company and someone who invests in it are different, though they are somewhat related. Thiel is very notable as a VC, but VC could be changed to the simpler and more encompassing "investor". I do not have much to say about the inclusion of the other three terms aside from what I said in the edit summary, so you can move them to another line as you suggest if you want a very streamlined first sentence. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

German Citizenship

According to interview https://www.weltwoche.ch/ausgaben/2018-29/artikel/en-hypnotische-massenphanomene-die-weltwoche-ausgabe-29-2018.html, Peter Thiel says he has no German citizenship "Don’t you still have a German passport? I don’t have a German passport. I was born in Germany, but by the time I took up the US passport you couldn’t have both." LS (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Bunker building in New Zealand

The word "bunker" does non appear in the article - what is a respectful holistic fair use of this issue in the article?

Text mdnp (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Gawker

I'm sure Hulk Hogan would rather have settled for a couple of million than discussed his sex life in court, with possible appeals and massive lawyer bills eating into any damages he might be awarded. The fact that Thiel rejected all offers to settle, not stopping until he had bankrupted the company, clearly shows that he was motivated by pure malice, putting his own desire for revenge ahead of Hogan's financial interests and public embarrassment. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Stanford Review

The article claims that Thiel was a co-founder of the Stanford Review. However, a news article [1] from 1982 talks about the Review as sufficiently established to get a new format. However however, the Stanford Review's own About page [2] says it was founded in 1987. It's a puzzle! Shuaksky (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The archive article is very interesting. Here is a solid source that clearly talks about Thiel's work as the founder of the Stanford Review. I'm uncertain about how it connects with your finding though, because they appear to contradict themselves. I'll keep looking into the matter; I hope you do too. https://stanfordpolitics.org/2017/11/27/peter-thiel-cover-story/ Another noteworthy point: He continues to meet with the editorial team. The source says "on a quarterly basis." I'm planning to put that into the article.Some of everything (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I just made an addition to this section, discussing Thiel's ongoing relationship with The Stanford Review. The topic was thoroughly discussed in the aforementioned Stanford Politics article. Quarterly editorial meetings, donations, hosted events at his home, internships & jobs, etc. Since it appears that he's using the student newspaper as a potential recruiting pipeline, the addition of this point seems relevant. Some of everything (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Peter Thiel and monarchism

Regarding recent edits claiming that Thiel is a "monarchist" or "has shown support for monarchism," three citations (all are blog-post style editorials/opinion pieces) were given which all fail verification; in none of them does Thiel explicitly express support for monarchism. You can check for yourself here: [techcrunch article], [nymag article], and [salon article]. These three sources are also *not* unanimously considered to be reliables sources, as you can see in WP:RSP. It's clear that WP:BLPRS applies, and since this claim not only fails verification but does not involve citation of reliable sources, I think it's prudent to revert these edits. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, it isn't enough that an article mention Thiel's quote that "democracy and freedom" are no longer compatible; we cannot infer anything more than what the quote actually says, which is already covered in the section on Thiel's views. A secondhand account of a lecture in which he stated that private startups are run like monarchies ("it ends up somewhere between constitutional republic and monarchy. Early on, it’s straight monarchy.") also obviously can't be used to assert here that he is a monarchist. Maybe it would be different if we stated that some writers speculate that he supports monarchism (as the authors of the above articles apparently do), but I think even this would be problematic given WP:RSP and WP:BLPRS. Again, I'm happy to reverse my position if anyone can produce a reliable secondary source in which it is explicitly stated that Thiel supports monarchism or is himself a monarchist. For now, it looks like these crappy sources are nothing but clickbait conforming to something like Betteridge's law of headlines; they don't actually offer even a single shred of evidence that Thiel supports monarchism, just gossip and speculation. Heck, it doesn't even have to come from his mouth; if a reliable secondary source explicitly identifies Thiel as a monarchist (regardless of what he says or doesn't say), that should be perfectly fine to include that viewpoint (eg "such-and-such identifies Thiel as a monarchist"); these articles (which are not reliable sources to begin with) don't even do that. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
BTW, anyone can take a minute to scan through Thiel's essay in which he famously said "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" over 10 years ago; The Education of a Libertarian; the words "monarchy," "monarchism," and "monarch" appear nowhere in the essay. In fact, the essay boils down to an explanation of why he's supporting seasteading. And incidentally, if seasteading has anything to do with monarchism, it's strange that the word is conspicuously absent from the article here on Wikipedia. Global Cerebral Ischemia (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

In the opening sentence the period following "Political activist" is wikilinked to Criticism of democracy for some reason. This is an inappropriate link violating numerous policies (WP:EASTER WP:SEAOFBLUE) etc and should be removed. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, several editors and myself were working on this sentence. This was an unintentional error of including the period in the link in a previous version of the sentence. Thank you for fixing. Steveok1 (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Critic of democracy (in opening paragraph)

Peter Thiel takes contrarian positions, and the most contrarian (and important) position he takes is his critique of democracy. He wrote in a Cato Institute publication that he does not believe “freedom and democracy are compatible.” He wrote a text about his most foundational political thinking, “The Straussian Moment,” which has a section about Carl Schmitt, a major critic of democracy. Four sources are listed in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article—Thiel himself, a leading legal scholar, and two analytical journalists. These 4 sources show Thiel’s critique of democracy is central to his thinking, influence, and activism. Thiel’s critique matters today and will shape how Thiel is remembered in the future. I propose “critic of democracy” should be included in the opening paragraph. Please discuss, so we can reach a consensus. Steveok1 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CONTEXTBIO, The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. Peter Thiel is not notable for his critique of democracy. KidAd • SPEAK 03:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Notable means “worthy of note, remarkable.” This implies importance, not mere public perception. For example, the opening sentence for John C. Calhoun includes the phrase “while adamantly defending slavery.” Politicians and activists are notable for important positions and ideas. As the 4 sources show, Thiel’s critique of democracy is central to his thinking and drives his influence. America takes democracy for granted today, as it took slavery for granted in Calhoun’s time. The importance of the influence is what matters. As Calhoun was notable, Thiel is too. Steveok1 (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that specifically name him as a "critic of democracy" or similar? Reading his own work and coming to your own conclusion is WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Here is one source using "critic of democracy": https://newrepublic.com/article/139147/year-silicon-valley-went-morally-bankrupt. Of course, it links to Thiel's own Cato essay in which he writes "Most importantly, I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." I agree Thiel's views are complicated. For example, he is anti-China and brings interesting religious and libertarian thinking (see his Hoover Institution video about "The Straussian Moment": https://www.hoover.org/research/peter-thiel-straussian-moment-0). But as Peter Robinson, the Hoover interviewer, states at 1:40 in the video: "You're famous as a contrarian. There could be almost nothing more contrarian than saying the Enlightenment represented a retreat." The 4 sources listed in the first sentence plus these 2 certainly establish that Thiel is critical of the Enlightenment and has serious critiques of modern politics and liberal democracy as most people think about it. Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders and framers of the Constitution were very much products of the Enlightenment and founded a representative democracy. Thiel in his own words says he does not see freedom and democracy as compatible. The founders would disagree. This is quite the contrarian statement. Thiel is a critic of democracy and the Enlightenment, but perhaps a friendly critic. I hope so, and he is a deep thinker. But hiding or whitewashing his critiques does not serve him or anyone else. Steveok1 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Funding anti-ageing start up

no mention of his injecting himself with "young blood" to keep him youthful, or live longer supposedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.145.31 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Would need reliable sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Change "using a $1,700 Roth IRA in 1997" to "using $1,700 in a Roth IRA in 1999." Roth IRAs did not exist before 1998. Review reference 181 to see that the purchase of the shares was made in January 1999. 100.36.231.62 (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2022

I would reccomend that under his views, there be a section regarding his views on democracy. This should have the quote, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible."[3] 104dragon (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Also provide secondary sources showing this is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Can someone fix typo?

Change "therefor" to "therefore" in the Views > Politics section Quohx (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Introduction states Peter is still on Board of Directors @ Meta/Facebook but he stepped down in Feb of 2022

"He sold the majority of his shares in Facebook for over $1 billion in 2012, but remains on the board of directors."

Meta/Facebook Leadership Page[4]

CNBC Article supporting claim.[5]

Peyotetheroadrunner (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Children?

The infobox says Thiel has two children. I don't see anything about children in the article's body. And I'm having trouble finding any sources verifying that he has kids. We should either find sourcing to verify this, or remove the content from the infobox. Marquardtika (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://archives.stanforddaily.com/1982/11/12?page=3&section=MODSMD_ARTICLE11
  2. ^ https://stanfordreview.org/about-us/
  3. ^ Thiel, Peter. "The Education of a Libertarian". Cato Unbound. Cato Institute. Retrieved 6 May 2022.
  4. ^ https://investor.fb.com/leadership-and-governance/default.aspx
  5. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/07/peter-thiel-to-step-down-from-facebook-board.html

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

In 2016, Thiel confirmed that he had funded Hulk Hogan in the Bollea v. Gawker lawsuit because Gawker had previously outed him as gay.

In 2016, Thiel confirmed that he had funded Hulk Hogan in the Bollea v. Gawker lawsuit because Gawker had previously outed Thiel as gay. 71.62.69.14 (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done: I could see why that wording might be vague. Endwise (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro

Looking at this as a reader not an editor, the intro does state that he is a political activist. While it contains very detailed information about his career it does provide almost no information about his political activism besides his donations. I would like to ask active editors to expand the intro so that it includes a summary of his activism. CarlFromVienna (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Using the term "South West Africa" in 1977

In Wikipedia's description on "Namibia" we find the following statement: "On 12 June 1968, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution proclaiming that, in accordance with the desires of its people, South West Africa be renamed Namibia. United Nations Security Council Resolution 269, adopted in August 1969, declared South Africa's continued occupation of Namibia illegal." When the article on Thiel says he lived in South West Africa in 1977, it clearly uses a term the illegal South Africans occupants used. 46.15.5.31 (talk) 13:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Husband Not Dead

Someone updated the info box to say his husband died, but he did not. His husband is still alive as of March 27th 2023. His kept boy died, Jeff Thomas. They are not the same person. Fjf1085 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I messaged the editor who updated the info box on their talk page and informed them they are confusing 2 different people and that Matt Danzeisen is still alive. Hopefully they'll make the correction soon. 2603:6080:B207:AE70:138B:67C9:77A4:D40C (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Secret Society

Any info on his secret society club? Frenchfriesaredelicious (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Thiel/Archive_2&oldid=1175306290"