Talk:Peter Thiel

philanthropy?

Surely the Gawker lawsuit wasn't philanthropic. Why is it in that section? Also, his funding of seasteading seems more political. 71.89.74.77 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree, very little of the stuff under that heading is actually philanthropic, more funding for his own often eccentric personal hobbyhorses. It is especially ridiculous to include the bankrupting of gawker under that heading. The whole article is a hagiography. 222.153.254.63 (talk) 21:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

Footnote 24 does not support the proposition that "Thiel had interviews with Supreme Court justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy." It only says that he applied. Additionally, this sentence "After not being hired, he instead took up a post as a judicial clerk for Judge James Larry Edmondson of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, but soon moved to New York to work as a securities lawyer for Sullivan & Cromwell," is nonsensical. You don't apply to clerk on the Supreme Court unless you have already secured a Circuit Court clerkship. The relevant cite (https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-lawyer/articles/q-a-legal-matters-with-peter-thiel-92-ba-89-bs-89-and-mark-a-lemley-ba-88/) only indicates that Thiel clerked for Judge Edmonson and then went to Sullivan and Cromwell. A more accurate sentence would be:

"After graduating Stanford Law School, Thiel clerked for Judge Larry Edmondson of the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Thiel unsuccessfully applied for clerkships with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kenned of the Supreme Court of the United States. After his clerkship with Judge Admondson, Thiel worked as a securities lawyer at the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell in New York." 199.107.16.123 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Spintendo ᔦᔭ 22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not a New Zealander

The New Zealand categories are completely inappropriate. He has never lived in New Zealand and has no intention of doing so. 222.153.254.63 (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• He has never lived in New Zealand
• He has no intention of ever living in New Zealand
• All he has is New Zealand citizenship, which he acquired in controversial circumstances, essentially buying it
• He kept his New Zealand citizenship secret until it was revealed by a New Zealand Herald journalist
• He has no New Zealand identity, the way he has a German and American identity
• Categories should be WP:DEFINING. No reliable source makes a statement such as "Peter Thiel is a New Zealand billionaire", "Peter Thiel is a New Zealand Christian" or even "Peter Thiel is a New Zealander" (except ironically).
• Categories should be non-contentious. There is widespread disquiet in New Zealand with the way his citizenship was obtained.

All of the above, plus the WP:OVERCAT policy points overwhelmingly against including Thiel in any New Zealand related categories.

MaxBrowne (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I made a section about this (narrowly) before you, see below. Also, with this edit are you confirming that the above IP address is you editing while logged out? Can you confirm that the other IP address (also Auckland-based, Spark New Zealand address) which requested the edit yesterday is you too? Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You are asking the editor to "out" (WP:OUTING) theirself (do you realize???). --IHTS (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

They voluntarily edited while logged out, thus revealing their IP address(es). See WP:ILLEGIT. You otherwise could think that 3 separate people have made very similar comments, which is not the case due to obvious editing similarities. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You are asking the editor to "out" (WP:OUTING) theirself (do you realize???). --IHTS (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2018

Vindictive efforts to bankrupt gawker by means of a case that he had no direct personal interest in are clearly not "philanthropic", nor are weird fantasies about seasteads with perfect libertarian societies or living forever by transplanting young people's blood. Please reorganize the article so that these activities are not included under the "philanthropy" heading. 125.236.165.185 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC) 125.236.165.185 (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Removing categories, other edits

User:MaxBrowne, you have made several controversial edits with no discussion on the talk page. Discuss here and attain consensus before attempting to reinstate. (By the way, to your most recent edit summary matter-of-factly saying "Not a single RS says "Peter Thiel is a New Zealand billionaire"", see Paypal founder and New Zealand billionaire Peter Thiel by Radio New Zealand.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

From WP:CATV - "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." MaxBrowne (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Peter Thiel is a New Zealand citizen. That is a fact, as mentioned in numerous RS. I think you are misunderstanding the guideline you linked, intentionally or unintentionally. Facts are not up for debate. You could say there was controversy over Bob Dylan being awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, but this would not negate the fact that Bob Dylan is a Nobel laureate, or constitute a valid argument to remove "Category:American Nobel laureates" from Dylan's article; same for Kissinger, Obama, etc., being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Citizenship and nationality are not the same thing. If there were a category "New Zealand citizens" he would qualify. Anything beyond that is a violation of NPOV as explained. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

See New Zealand nationality law. Your opinions about the supposed distinction between nationality and citizenship are as relevant as the comments you made last year that the subject of this BLP is a "creep". Peter Thiel is a New Zealand citizen/national/passport holder. "Facts are stubborn things." Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You dare to lecture me about "relevance" even as you make personal attacks??? Stop making this about me, I find it, well...what's the word... creepy. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Please try to respond to the arguments here. You claimed a distinction between nationality and citizenship, I presented evidence to the contrary. You have offered no credible argument that Thiel is not a New Zealand national. Also, I notice you haven't responded to the link I provided above which refuted the claim in your edit summary, what is the reason for that? Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely a difference between nationality and citizenship. Anyone with a million bucks can buy citizenship in various Caribbean countries without ever setting foot in them, for example. https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2017/07/economist-explains-4 MaxBrowne (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no mention of Peter Thiel in that article, or anything that states he isn't a New Zealand citizen/national/passport holder. Also, I will reiterate, you haven't responded to the link I provided above which refuted the claim in your edit summary, what is the reason for that? Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

You claimed that "nationality" and "citizenship" are synonyms. The article I provided (and many others) clearly demonstrate that they are not. Nationality is something you are born with, a part of your identity. Citizenship is a legal relationship between a state and an individual. If you have a spare million bucks you can become a citizen of Saint Kitts and Nevis tomorrow, you don't even have to visit there let alone live there, but that wouldn't make you a Kittitian or a Nevisian. Congratulations on googling the phrases "New Zealand billionaire" and "Peter Thiel" together and finding a single hit in a RS. That still doesn't meet WP:CATDEF which requires reliable sources to commonly and consistently define a subject as having a characteristic. Even the "Christian" categories are problematic, probably the majority of actual Christians would dispute his "Christian" status but I can't speak for them. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

None of that is related to Peter Thiel being a New Zealand citizen/national/passport holder, which is a fact. In any case, you agreed that "New Zealand citizen" should be included, so you also need to show that the "New Zealand xyz" categories are for your specific definition of "identity". See WP:CAT/R, it is a sourced self-identification. Your opinions about the subject's Christian beliefs are again as relevant as your comment that the subject of this BLP is a "creep". Thanks for the congratulations. You said "Not a single RS says "Peter Thiel is a New Zealand billionaire"", and I provided a "single RS" which did, thus you were wrong, yet you have not re-added the categories, what is the reason for that? Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's simple - if a category is controversial, don't include it. It is clear to me that further discussion will be unproductive. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't intend to get involved in this discussion but I agree the claim 'not a single source' is just bizarre. The NBR Rich List is pretty much the only ranking of wealth specific to Kiwis that has any significance and Peter Thiel was included last year [1], as noted by pretty much every source which discusses it (nearly all NZ media with decent coverage of national news) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they should have taken 20 seconds to check if what they were saying was true before making the edits, though this is a person who has called the article's subject a "creep" and told other editors to "fuck off, creep", so there may be larger problems beyond the baseless claims. Hrodvarsson (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Chess stuff

This is trivia, only chess geeks (like me) care about that sort of thing. Non-chess media routinely throw around words like "prodigy" with regard to young chess players, and it's usually not justified. If Tartajubow's blog is correct (and no I'm not citing it in main space, but he's normally pretty accurate), Thiel's rating at age 12 was 1791, which is pretty good but not "prodigy" level. By his early 20's he had become a low-level master at which point he gave the game up. There are many like him and his "career" was unremarkable. Quoting ratings and titles means nothing to non-chess players who make up the bulk of readers of the article, and creating a second infobox certainly gives undue weight to something that really only deserves a passing mention in a biography. Compare, say, Humphrey Bogart and I. J. Good who were also strong chess players - they get passing mentions of chess activities and no headings devoted to it. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in multiple RS. You could say Thiel was not a prodigy (and I may even agree with you, compared to super GMs such as Carlsen) but RS state that he is. Also, see chess media (ChessBase) mentioning Thiel's chess. WP:OSE. If RS described I. J. Good as a chess prodigy, then I would have no problem with adding that to his article. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

WP:OSE is a valid argument in this context. WP:SSEFAR. I'm not saying don't mention his chess playing, just that it's unimportant and should not have this level of prominence. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but multiple RS think his chess is notable enough to mention. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

None of which go into chess geeky detail about his rating etc. Precedent is a good guide in this case. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Financial Times and The New York Times discuss his status as a "chess prodigy". ChessBase and Fortune both discuss his rankings. FIDE and USCF are also reliable sources. There is no precedent, as neither Bogart nor Good are described as chess prodigies by RS, or, at least, you are unable to present such sources. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hrod. Although it's not what the subject is currently notable for it seems to be something of relevance about him considering the coverage Hrod mentions. I wouldn't oppose to removing the infobox, though. Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a matter of degree of emphasis. If anyone tried to create an article about Thiel solely based on his chess playing it would be laughed off wikipedia. Established precedent suggests that someone who is notable in another field but not as a chess player might get a few lines about their chess playing if they are reasonably proficient at it. But they don't get a whole section, let alone one headed by "chess career" and certainly not an infobox with ratings etc. Howard Stern is another example I could mention here. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any RS stating Howard Stern was a "chess prodigy"? If not, then there is again no precedent. I'd be willing to along with Saturnalia0's suggestion however as a means of compromise. Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Citizenship is a public matter

This is clearly a matter of public interest and the decision to grant the citizenship was heavily criticized in New Zealand. The government was virtually on its own in defending the decision. Personal life is for stuff like relationships, kids, hobbies etc - broadly the kind of stuff that's under Category:Personal life. Non-controversial stuff. Putting a matter of public controversy under the "personal life" heading looks like an attempt to downplay it, and part of a wider tendency to whitewash any publicity that's less than glowing. By the way WP:CSECTION (couldn't they have come up with a better shortcut?) is just part of an essay, but I'll take it on board. MaxBrowne (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

A person's citizenship is very much part of their personal life. Also see Roger 8 Roger's comment from 8 months ago: "It seems to be overlooked that any criticism, justified or not, is against the NZ authorities who granted him citizenship, not against Peter Thiel himself." Additionally, the section discusses his German and American citizenship, so your proposed title is exclusive of that information. Your claims that the article is biased towards the subject are difficult to take seriously considering your previous insults directed towards the subject. (Imagine if someone tried to influence a discussion in real life while having previously repeatedly called the subject of the discussion, and other participants in the discussion, a "creep".) You are also making the same arguments you made 8 months ago when you did not seek consensus yet you're doing the same thing again? This is very simple, you require consensus to make these changes, no amount of edit warring is going to work. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

For the last time, STOP. MAKING. THIS. ABOUT. ME. You constantly use ad hominems and refer to events from the past again and again and again and again and again. This is not only unhelpful, it's CREEPY!.

You are not being objective about this. This is a political matter, questions have been raised about it in New Zealand's parliament. It is disingenuous to claim that it is purely a part of his personal life. "Personal life" is for someone's family, religion, hobbies, how many cats they have, what their favourite colour is, not for stuff that has caused widespread controversy and been debated in a country's parliament. Why would anyone object to the same material being presented outside of the "Personal life" section? MaxBrowne (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You repeatedly called the subject of this article a "creep" (I did not dig through your edits to find this out; you continued to insult the subject despite my explicit requests you not do so), so you either have no respect for BLPs or you chose to disregard it on this particular article, and are now claiming that the article is biased towards the subject. If I go around claiming LPs' articles are biased towards the LPs while having previously insulted the LPs, feel free to point out the absurdity of my actions. In any case, your link reiterates what Roger 8 Roger said. Any criticism is directed towards the New Zealand government who granted Thiel citizenship, not Thiel himself ("The Government must respond", not "Thiel must respond"), so this is shoehorning political rivalry into a BLP. I think the NZ information should be limited to the statements of fact that: a) Thiel became a NZ citizen in 2011, b) this was not made public until 2017, c) he did not meet the standard requirements but was granted citizenship under the exceptional circumstances clause. It may be relevant to discuss the decision to grant Thiel citizenship at New Zealand nationality law if this is/was such a huge controversy with real implications and not just political bluster. Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. It does not belong in "personal life". MaxBrowne (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC) You are nobody. You don't get to tell me what I may or may not say. Drop the pompous attitude. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected for a week, hopefully this will give involved parties time to decide on a consensus. Black Kite (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Gawker and "philanthropy"

Various opinions have been expressed on the gawker lawsuit and the motivations behind it. Some thought he was acting from some kind of high principle. Some thought it was petty and vindictive. Some thought gawker deserved it so who cares? Some thought it was ominous, a chilling effect on free speech and a free press. Sources can be found to support all these views. Calling it "philanthropy" as Thiel did is surely at the extreme end of views on the case, and Wikipedia should not be endorsing it by putting it under that heading. Again I do not understand how anyone with any sense of objectivity could have a problem with the same material being presented without the biased heading. Also, the section itself is biased, with the cited material being written almost entirely from Thiel's point of view. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a bit of an exaggeration IMO but I'd agree with reducing Thiel's quotes and the length of the last paragraph, joining it with the previous one, thus making his view point less prominent in the section text. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

What about the main point, that there is nothing remotely philanthropic about it and it doesn't belong under that heading? MaxBrowne (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Its previous position was stable for over a year. You edited while logged out (WP:ILLEGIT) and requested it be moved, then gave the rationales "it sure ain't philanthropic" and "nothing even remotely philanthropic about this, stop putting it under that heading" when reinstating the edit you requested. I don't have much of a problem with it remaining where it is or moving it to its own sub-section but lean towards it remaining where it is. If someone such as User:Saturnalia0 weighed in either way as to the placement of the section I would be willing to go along with their suggestion. Hrodvarsson (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Stop talking about me and start talking about the specific objection. Placing this section under "philanthropy" is endorsing a specific POV (namely Thiel's) and this has no place on wikipedia. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That's the main issue at hand here? Jesus... Put it wherever. Again, you're exaggerating. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a trivial matter. Headings and organization of articles must reflect a NPOV, and placing it under "philanthropy" clearly does not. It is not an exaggeration to say that placing it under this heading is endorsing a POV, namely Thiel's. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't have much of an objection to it being moved to its own sub-section (I left it there—despite the fact you requested it be moved while logged out, then later logged in and reinstated the requested edit without discussion—until you made another change of section without any prior discussion). Saturnalia0 has also said he does not have a problem with it being moved, so you could move it if you want, or let the RfC play out. Enten-Eller. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Argumentum ad hominem is a poor reason to override NPOV. Do you really not understand this? MaxBrowne (talk) 01:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

There was no prior discussion about the change and you had not made any policy-based arguments, instead giving the rationales "it sure ain't philanthropic" and "nothing even remotely philanthropic about this, stop putting it under that heading" when reinstating the edit you requested while logged out (which is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT). I unfortunately cannot read other people's minds and ascertain the reason for their edits, I can only go off what they say. In the future, if you can give rationales in your edit summaries that are consistent with policy, we could avoid such occurences. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV is not only policy-based, it's WP:PILLAR-based. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

NPOV is a policy based on a principle. (I don't think a policy can be based on itself, though this is a semantic point.) If you are referring specifically to the rationales you gave in the edit summaries, "it sure ain't philanthropic" and "nothing even remotely philanthropic about this" are not policy-based rationales. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a huge fan of WP:3LAs, particularly on something so self-evident. If you cannot see how putting the gawker stuff under "philanthropy" is a violation of WP:NPOV (and your repeated reverts indicate that this is the case) then you are beyond hope as an editor. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean to say by mentioning 3LA. In any case, I think you are misunderstanding my point, which is that you did not make any policy-based rationales for moving the section in the first place. You requested the edit while logged out (again, this is a violation of WP:ILLEGIT), an uninvolved editor made the edit, I challenged it, you reinstated the edit you requested while logged out with the rationales "it sure ain't philanthropic" and "nothing even remotely philanthropic about this". You then made a number of other edits, such as removing the NZ categories again. I restored the categories but did not move the gawker section to its previous position as I thought a reasonable argument could be made for moving it (though you had not made such an argument). The section remained there until you then made the same section change you had edit warred over in June 2017 (while repeatedly insulting the subject of this BLP), at which point I restored the gawker section to its stable position as you had not actually made a policy-based argument for moving it. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the details of this dispute, but your insistence for a "policy-based argument" seems really counterproductive. The argument "the Gawker lawsuit shouldn't be placed under philanthropy because it's not philanthropy" is more than sufficient to justify the change. You're basically saying you kept putting material in the wrong place over and over again for no reason whatsoever. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

"x sure ain't y" is not "more than sufficient to justify the change", as you could just as easily say "x sure is y". "x sure ain't y" is definitely not a valid rationale for reinstating a challenged edit. Hrodvarsson (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you correctly, your justification for challenging the edit was pedantic and bureaucratic. The only reason you've given for maintaining it how it was is inertia—it was there for over a year, therefore it must stay. Do you have any argument one way or the other about where the material actually belongs? If so I haven't found it on this talk page. A simplistic argument "it doesn't belong here" is still infinitely superior to "it was here before, therefore here it must stay", since the former at least attempts to address the actual content of the article. I guess this is all pointless now because there's an RFC, but I think it is better to address an argument about content with another argument about content, instead of falling back on procedure. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Both of the edits related to the aforementioned edit summaries also moved donations to the Committee to Protect Journalists, the Human Rights Foundation, and to an earthquake appeal fund as political activities. When just the gawker section was moved, I did not restore it to its stable position until another section was moved without discussion, as I said. A retort of "x sure is y" to "x sure ain't y" does not seem to be an "argument about content", but you are correct that this is a pointless discussion as an RfC is ongoing. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC - organization of article

Where should the coverage of Peter Thiel's funding of the Bollea vs Gawker lawsuit be placed in the article, in order to best comply with WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? MaxBrowne (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• (summoned by bot) Political activities - My gut reaction is the most appropriate section for this material is "Political activities". Pretty clear Thiel was making a political statement about freedom of speech issues with this money, so why not the political activities section? Having this under the "Philanthropy" section is clearly inappropriate. NickCT (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
• Political activities cannot add anything useful to NickCT's rationale. Though since no one seems to object to such a move in the discussion above, is the RfC necessary? Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably not, though to be fair there is also the option of moving the section to its own sub-section rather than one of the preexisting sub-sections so the RfC may be useful for determining that. Hrodvarsson (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Political activities the terms of Thiel's agreement with Bollea are private, and thus for all we know, he could have financed the lawsuit on the condition that he'd receive a percentage of the payment upon winning (which is apparently standard in such litigation finance cases). Some statements by his lawyers in a case involving Gawker suggest this might the case source. If it's true that he made money of this lawsuit, then it is absolutely not philanthropy. Even if it isn't the case, it still fits better under political activities, since even he claims that advancing his political ideals was the primary motivation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

• New Section or Personal -- I agree that philanthropy is really a biased selection, but it does not seem to be part of any Politics activity either. It seems a personal action of attacking through law courts so perhaps "Legal affairs" would do, or since it is notable and there is no other legal item to mention perhaps just a section "Gawker lawsuit". As a distant second I would suggest "Personal" since it was both his own private actions and since he mentions it as from being outed and impacts to his friends. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Can we wrap this up please? MaxBrowne (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

RfCs run for 30 days but you could remove the rfc template and make the discussed change, as there is no objection. There is some opposition from User:Markbassett to moving it to political activities however, so moving it to its own sub-section may be the best choice if you are closing the rfc ahead of schedule yourself. Hrodvarsson (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Do me a favour and don't reply to me unless absolutely necessary. MaxBrowne (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not see the point of asking a question if you do not want a response. There also exists no interaction ban, and this is not your talk page. But, now that you have explicitly asked, I will agree to your request from now on. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously I wanted a reply, just not from you. Pretty much everything you post on this talk page makes my blood boil. And if you mention "creep" or "fuck off creep" again, I will go to ANI. Now stay out of my life. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Political Seems best,. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)

Peter Thiel philanthropy section

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)

• 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)
• 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)