Talk:Thomas Peterffy

Why exactly are we not using a photo for this article?
I suggest the portrait be changed to be a photograph in style with rest of Wikipedias biography entries 130.226.179.58 (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I can't find a free photo of him (see WP:NFCC), but I was able to find a free drawing of him. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest removing the graphic as it doesn't seem suitable for an encyclopedic article. Glimz (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We regularly use artwork to represent older people for whom no photograph is available (such as William the Conqueror), so I don't see a good reason that non-photographic art would be inappropriate here until we can get a free photograph of him. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference with historical figures. We use official portrait paintings or other depictions that inform how they wanted to be seen or how their contemporaries saw them (Louis XVI, William the Conqueror). In some cases we use later depictions (Homer). We look for cultural significance of the work but also balance/neutrality, e.g. we use J.L. David's sanctioned Napoleon portrait, not one of the many (perhaps more famous) caricatures.
 * For contemporary figures (born long after the advent of photography), I feel including a non-photographic image in the head of a biography article necessarily carries a message. Even if it's the most neutral, realistic, neither too flattering nor unflattering depiction, there's still the message that this person warrants a departure from norms by having a work of art serve as their depiction in an encyclopedia article. If it's a picture they dislike, it would be problematic for Wikipedia to use it. If it's a work they like and actively encourage people to use (instead of supplying a free photograph of themselves), it feels like unnecessary reverence / indulgence. I would hate to see the Jeff Bezos article begin with a Napoleon-style painting of him. This would not change if we were in the situation of not having a free photo of his.
 * Just my 2c, I don't see any official policy on the matter. Glimz (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If I can remember it correctly, we almost always prefer a photograph over a non-photograph, though I do think that there was some WMF/Women in Red initiative to draw pictures of female article subjects so that we could have infobox images of them (I think it was VisibleWikiWomen if my memory serves me right). I agree that it's odd, but that's what we have to deal with if we're going to only allow for free content to be used. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer a photo as well, if only because his name was mis-spelled by the artist (blocked user ) in the written caption. :( Perhaps someone that knows Thomas can suggest he contribute an appropriately-licensed photo. —[ Alan M 1  (talk) ]— 22:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump donations
The Bloomberg source clearly says he donated 100k to the Trump campaign. The 5.4k claim is what John Paulson, listed right after in prose, donated. And claims of him not being a fan of Trump were not unsourced. Please verify citations before claiming they are being removed due to a "bias". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Jumping in with a partial revert: the source states that the donation was to a Trump group. That can be distinct from Trump's campaign (i.e. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.), as superPACs and the like exist and can be donated to. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The claims of him not being a fan of Trump were in the Bloomberg piece that was cited in the same paragraph. The interpolated OpenSecrets.org source may have made this a bit less clear than it needed to be, so I've restored some of the material had objected to removal of with rephrasing and better inline sourcing. —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 18:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)