Talk:Peter Thiel/Archive 1

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 01:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

EDGAR reference
Reference #5, which uses the EDGAR service, appears to use an invalid link. Also, the citation is formatted incorrectly. http://edgar.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=1706843-282690-299054 Tweisbach (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Thiel headshot
I've gone ahead and changed the photo of Mr. Thiel to a more contemporary, and clearer picture...the old one was out of date and poor in quality, and I don't know what anyone keeps switching it back. The current photo I've uploaded is superior, and fully CC licensed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandusky sweeper (talk • contribs) 02:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Views
I'm concerned about the "Views" section. It is rarely a good thing to have huge lists of opinions on any topic under the sun, even when the person is very notable this is problematic: the question of what is worth noting or not is extremely vague, and many of the entries tend to be irrelevant to what makes the person notable (in this case, business). All the other expanded sections about what he has actually done are obviously worth mentioning, but I'm going to go ahead and remove the views subsections that are not directly related to business or philanthropy of his. Steven Walling &bull; talk   05:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

-- this seems like it still contains all kinds of irrelevant information: who cares about his views on Christianity, or on ? Sorry for the lack of formatting on this post I don't know how to do that. --User:someone else not the guy above 16 July 2012 (EST)


 * Sometimes Wikipedia articles get too large and begin showing subsidiary information. In such instances, Wikipedia policy suggests to separate some sections into articles of their own (see Summary style). You may find an article about Peter Thiel's views irrelevant, but Wikipedia has article about all sorts of topics, including article about personal views of specific individuals (e.g., Political positions of Ron Paul). There's nothing holding Wikipedia back from expanding indefinitely. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not about size, it's about appropriateness. As the author of forked articles like Domestic sheep reproduction I have no problem with forking into obscure/detailed/even weird topics. But the insanely detailed coverage of every opinion one venture capitalist has expressed is just too much. Unlike figures such as politicians or others whose opinions are a matter of public importance reflected in reliable source coverage, this is just an extreme amount of undue weight. Steven Walling &bull; talk   04:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Net worth
Thiel 's net worth probably needs to be revised after he just sold the majority of his stake in Facebook. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

miscellaneous section
I removed this section as trivial and poorly sourced. If any material is readded, can it go in an appropriate section and use high quality RS. --Malerooster (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Higher education bubble
Thiel has talked a lot about that and even authored a program where he invested in people 100,000$ each to give up on college and pursue their business ideas instead. Probably should be mentioned in the article. EIN ( talk ) 13:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Beginning should be rewritten
"Peter Andreas Thiel (German: [ˈpeːtɐ̯ anˈdʀeas tiːl]; born October 11, 1967)[1] is a German-born US (wholly internet) entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and hedge fund manager. Thiel cofounded PayPal with Max Levchin, and later, Elon Musk..."

1) What does "US (wholly Internet) entrepreneur" mean? Is it supposed to mean "US, Internet entrepreneur"? Right now it reads as though somehow he is only an American on the Internet.

2) "Thiel cofounded PayPal with Max Levchin, and later, Elon Musk..." How can simeone be a founder if they came later? At the very least this should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneCallahan (talk • contribs) 13:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed Musk from this sentence. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Rene Girard
What is the basis for calling Rene Girard a "conservative Catholic?" This is probably baseless. I have read a lot of Girard and never got that impression, but I never really ran across clear evidence one way or another. The guy has done a lot of interviews, and he comes across as kind of a moderate. Maybe conservative in some ways, liberal in others. The terms are relative and mean little without context. Dan Knauss (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Why label Peter Thiel atheist?
The WP article on Peter Thiel states clearly he's views on the subject. Why is it then that some groups forcibly need Thiel to be branded with the atheist label? Why? I see it being done systematically all over Wikipedia by using no source or simply bad ones like NNDB. Wikipedia is not a place for spreading misinformation with clear ulterior motives. SO - Thiel has publicly identified himself as a Christian and the  Peter_Thiel section make it also quite clear. Major Torp (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been corrected. Danski14(talk) 20:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Peter Thiel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501185429/https://www.ufm.edu/cms/es/honorary-doctoral-degrees to https://www.ufm.edu/cms/es/honorary-doctoral-degrees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Peter Thiel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080123224151/http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/2007/12/22/peter-thiel/ to http://people.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements/2007/12/22/peter-thiel/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Why all the double quotes?
Some examples: "American entrepreneur", "venture capitalist", "hedge fund manager", "social critic", "Thiel", "PayPal","co-founded", "chairman", "first", "social-networking", "stake", "board", "parents" Are these necessary? Why? Zaurus (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(I was going to ask this question, but since Zaurus has already asked it, I guess I'll just second it.)

Hogan rumour
Has no actual nexus to Thiel from an actual reliable source of fact, alas. Collect (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

New sources state Thiel has covered some costs of the lawsuit, but no nexus between Thiel and any specific claims by Gawker appear relevant in this BLP. Collect (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No comment on inclusion, but the BBC published this an hour ago. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Political Activities
I'm having a hard time understanding how the link to the Gawker lawsuit could be tied to political activities. The body of text really makes no attempt to do this either. Is there another section this would be more relevant in? More than anything it seems to be personally motivated. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I am going to move the section now.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Outing & Gawker lawsuit
Currently the article states that Thiel was 'openly gay' and that both Thiel and the Gawker Valleywag author agree on that, which by implication counters any idea of him being 'outed'.

The cited NY Times reference however states that Thiel was 'openly gay in a wide circle' and that the Gawker author considered that this group did not want this to be known to the public at large and that he disagreed with that notion.

With the best will in the world, that IS the textbook definition of outing someone. Many people historically were 'openly gay' within their own (often elite) social circles, Oscar Wilde for example.

Outing is not only revealing a gay person's sexual orientation if they are 'in the closet', it's also disclosing orientation of someone who is 'out' to those of their choosing, to the world at large, which this guy certainly did "Peter Thiel is totally gay people" being a direct quote.

Just my ten cents78.16.170.235 (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Chess
this sentence is not clear: "Thiel, in his youth, was an under-21 chess player", perhaps it should be changed to: "Thiel, in his youth, was a very good chess player" 2:16 PM 11/2/16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.4.180 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"Quotes" section
The 'quotes' section under political activities is awkward and flawed. It reads more like a selected compilation of catchy statements rather than an organized summary of his political positions. I'm not sure why his quotes warrant inclusion here anyway - they don't seem to be necessary to understand his other actions and activities, even the political ones. I'm tempted to redistribute the material into relevant spaces throughout the article and turn it from quotes into summaries. -- K . Bog  03:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Religious Views
The second paragraph in that section quotes nearly verbatim from George Packer's book 'The Unwinding' without quotation marks or referencing its original source. The source given is an article that quotes from the book. Shouldn't the original source be referenced here and the paragraph either be highlighted as a quote or be properly paraphrased?Creditisdue (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I suspect that "evangelical" here is a mistranslation of the German "evangelisch," which simply means Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.213.61 (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2016
please change:


 * In 2004, Thiel founded Palantir Technologies, a big data analysis company named after the Tolkein artefact, and

to:


 * In 2004, Thiel founded Palantir Technologies, a big data analysis company named after the Tolkien artefact, and

per the typo-fix-request above. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 22:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2016
I just wanted to add that he also wrote this book with Garry Kasparov:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blueprint-Reviving-Innovation-Rediscovering-Rescuing/dp/0393081478

Someone else can add it too. It doesn't have to be me. Thanks. Knight victor (talk) 02:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Support for political candidates
It just seems not neutral to list out all those in political office that Peter has contributed to while George Soros and many others are free of this type of addition in their entry.--RedmondKane (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 discrimination lawsuit against Palantir
has three times added information about the lawsuit to the lead and been reverted twice by different editors. On the third addition, they added, somewhat clumsily, the information to the body as well. My position is that at this point, the lawsuit is more appropriately covered at Palantir Technologies, where I've started a similar discussion on Talk:Palantir Technologies. So far, all we have is a statement of the accusation against Palantir, not an adjudicated result. Until there is such a result, repeating the complaint in the lead, or in this Peter Thiel article, is WP:UNDUE.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  14:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what I said on the other talk page: "Given that tech companies are known to have employees monitor their Wikipedia pages, it's not surprising at all to be reverted upon posting the slightest damaging information. Any lawsuits (especially one by the United States government) that allege systemic wrongdoing within a company should be placed in the lead, just like doping scandals are placed in the leads of athletes even when they're not conclusive. It is not undue." I already made the appropriate adjustments to the lead to summarize rather than duplicate the body contents. Thanks for the unnecessary jab though. Thiel co-founded and chairs the company being sued, so he is directly relevant to the case. Any suggestion that this should be buried or hidden from the lead reeks of ulterior motives and conflicts of interest. —Sleeping is fun (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This material has been re-introduced to the lead by LibertyDash. As I understood the consensus of non-banned editors, there was no justification for it appearing in the lead, so I have done another revert.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  05:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An edit war has erupted over this very issue. Apparently now it's an issue of neutrality, censorship and bias, at least according to Empr1ze. While I'm all for neutral, uncensored, unbiased information, I disagree with that viewpoint in this specific scenario because the omission of that information isn't about neutrality, censorship or bias, but rather relevance to the subject in question. In other words, that statement should be kept off this article and kept on Palantir's article, seeing as how it's much more pertinent to Palantir than it is to Thiel. There is such a thing as too much information, even on Wikipedia. Blurp92 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2017
please change:


 * In 2004, Thiel founded Palantir Technologies, a big data analysis company named after the Tolkien artefact, and

to:


 * In 2004, Thiel founded Palantir Technologies, a big data analysis company named after the Tolkien artifact, and

✅ "Artefact" is a valid British/Australian spelling, which would make sense in the Palantír article, but Thiel is American and mostly known for activities in the U.S., so I've changed it per MOS:TIES. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Clerkships
Is there a source for the proposition that he interviewed for clerkships with Justices Kennedy and Scalia? 216.165.95.72 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017
Move New Zealand information and nationality "German-American New Zealand"? out of the opening paragraphs. Garry Kasparov has Bosnian and Croatian citizenship but is not called Russian-Bosnian-Croatian chess grandmaster... etc. 2A03:8600:1001:1023:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a tough call because examples of both exist on Wikipedia. Jim Carrey is a Canadian actor, but due to his dual citizenship in both Canada and the United States, Wikipedia calls him a Canadian-American actor. However, Mike Myers has Canadian, American and British citizenships, but Wikipedia refers to him as a Canadian-born actor with UK and US citizenship. Similar case with Elon Musk. I'm tempted to go for something similar to what is on Myers' and Musk's articles and say that Thiel is a German-born entrepreneur who also holds American and New Zealand citizenship. Blurp92 (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The Jim Carey article is incorrect in its assignment of nationality. Carey was clearly already notable as a Canadian actor at the time he acquired his US citizenship. Hence he should have been referred to as only Canadian in the lead sentence. Likewise Thiel was already well known as an American businessman, so the reference to his recent NZ citizenship is not in accordance with the wiki guidelines. Theodore D (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done &mdash; Train2104 (t • c) 18:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Modern TurboFan Engines on Commercial Airliners
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jet-Engine-Rolls-Royce/dp/B00KCS6S4W/ref=sr_1_1_twi_har_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1488836501&sr=1-1&keywords=rolls+royce+the+jet+engine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_GE90#Variants

You should have a good look at the Boeing 777

Best Regards

Darren Mark Horton

86.164.82.154 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

German-born?
The long-standing version of the article descibed Thiel as a "German-born American". This version was first changed by User:Fat&Happy → - and the editor keeps removing the information, although most contemporary sources describe him as such, e.g. Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, Perseus Books, 2013. Often, Thiel is even laballed as (e.g. Daily News) "the German businessman, who co-founded PayPal" In my opinion, per WP:OPENPARA → 3.2. the info is "relevant to the subject's notability." - if not relevant, why does the media mention it all the time? → see refs below, for example:


 * Peter Andreas Thiel (born October 11, 1967) is a German-born    American entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and hedge fund manager.
 * References

I would suggest following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted until a consensus is reached on the talk page, however User:Fat&Happy prefers to edit war and to remove the content. --IIIraute (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He was born in Germany. The media mentions it. Media frequently mentions things about notable people, especially things that may seem interesting of different; that doesn't make every fact mentioned in the media relevant to their notability and worthy of being placed in the first sentence of the lead. Thiel is notable for being a rich, successful investor and entrepreneur. There is no indication he is particularly noted for his investments in German companies or for his support of particular German politicians or charities. He left Germany as a "toddler", so the culture of the country had little chance to profoundly affect his investment outlook. Would he be less notable if, all other things being equal, he had been born in Mexico, Ghana, Afghanistan, or Antarctica? Exactly how is his birthplace remotely relevant to his notability?


 * Additionally, IIIraute's version of history seems more than a little disingenuous. The "long-standing version of the article" would actually be the version which described Thiel as "an American businessman" for eight years before IIIraute arbitrarily added "German-born", a version which remained for 20 months before I happened upon it three months ago and reverted it as inappropriate and contrary to the guideline. The more stable version is clearly the version without the late addition. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 02:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, 20 months is a long-standing version - obviously other editors had agreed with my edit that is backed by countless sources. The media, as well as respected authors do not just mention it, but often even dropp the "American" part - calling him "the German-born", "the German businessmann", etc. meaning, that per WP:OPENPARA → 3.2. the info is "relevant to the subject's notability".


 * Thiel was not just born in Frankfurt - he was born a German citizen - he is of German ethnicity - he was raised by German parents who moved to the US - his first language was German and he did not obtain US citizenship until a much later age. I am sure that had some influence on him. Basically his whole family lives in Germany. In the German-speaking media he usually is described as being "German", i.e. "the German ..." → Süddeutsche Zeitung: "... der Deutsche Peter Thiel ..."  --IIIraute (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know when he gained US citizenship? Was it before or after he gained his notability? I have removed the "german-born" for now. --Malerooster (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." I have provided lots of sources that show that it is relevant to the subject's notability. Most contemporary sources describe him as German-born, e.g. Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, Perseus Books, 2013 . Often, Thiel is even laballed as (e.g. Daily News) "the German businessman, who co-founded PayPal" Per WP:OPENPARA → 3.2. the info is "relevant to the subject's notability." - if not relevant, why does the media mention it all the time? → see refs provided in the lead of the article. --IIIraute (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that it is relevant to his notability. --Malerooster (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IIIraute, please gain consensus for the lede before reverting. What do others think? Maybe go to the BLP board? --Malerooster (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what you should do, before you remove referenced content; i.e. follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in, before you did your bold edit and remove content" (often called the status quo ante)? --IIIraute (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, as pointed out above, the article was "stable" for some 8 years? YOU changed the lede per your opinion and bold edit and have been called out on it by more than one editor. Why not have others comment? I will not revert for now. --Malerooster (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 23 months is not a stable, long-standing version? My "opinion" is well referenced. --IIIraute (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Looking at the edit history, and this talk page, shows this. --Malerooster (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I posted at the BLP board. Hopefully others will comment.--Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --IIIraute (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: At the BLP board, it doesn't look like there is consensus for using "german-born" in the first sentence. --Malerooster (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...nor for removing it - anyway, I have removed it for now. --IIIraute (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I wish more people had commented, either way. Oh well, this can always be revisited and consensus can change. --Malerooster (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there a source about him still retaining German citizenship? as far as I know if a German gets a different nationality they must renounce the old one, so is there source of him still having german nationality? --Shanqiti (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: Thiel has been a New Zealand citizen since 2011 and owns a large property at Lake Wanaka. So I guess that makes him a "German-American New Zealander".

NZ media attention about NZ citizenship
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. MaxBrowne, your edits are surprising, coming from a reasonably experienced WP editor.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

No longer affiliated with YCombinator
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15725108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrisonsimpson (talk • contribs) 20:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Peter Thiel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com/2100-1017-941964.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/13/magazines/fortune/paypal_mafia.fortune/index.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mprize.org/index.php?pagename=newsdetaildisplay&ID=0107
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://seasteading.org/stay-in-touch/press-releases/introducing-the-seasteading-institute
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apee.org/award-lay.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66TsnkxEg?url=http://www.weforum.org/404.html to http://www.weforum.org/docs/YGL/YGL2010_Community.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Typo
I saw that there is a typo in the Palantir paragraph. It says: "..named after the Tolkein artefact,..". It should be "Tolkien" of course. Maybe someone could correct that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.23.137.162 (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2016‎ (UTC)

Additionally, "artefact" should correctly be spelled "artifact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.14.216 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Thiel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120409180418/http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29 to http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525072242/http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=8 to http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:53, 14 December 2017 (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)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ   22:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

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 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)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:28, 28 February 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)

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)

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 [//www.nbr.co.nz/rich-list-2017], as noted by pretty much every source which discusses it (nearly all NZ media with decent coverage of national news) [//www.stuff.co.nz/business/94971943/making-rich-list-no-sign-of-contribution-to-society] [//www.newstalkzb.co.nz/news/business/revealed-new-citizen-peter-thiel-makes-nzs-rich-list/] [//www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/new-zealand-rich-list-released-big-winners-and-losers-collectively-worth-over-80-billion]   [//www.odt.co.nz/business/newcomers-add-diversity-rich-list-2017] [//www.stuff.co.nz/business/99305753/new-zealands-household-wealth-on-the-rise-but-inequality-high] [//www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/dairy/95047745/taranaki-dairy-farmer-and-hotelier-among-nzs-wealthiest] [//www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/thepanel/audio/201852197/nzs-rich-list-sending-a-bad-message] 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)

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)

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)

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)