Talk:Palantir

Richard Perle

If Richard Perle was involved in the creation of Palantir Technologies, why don't we add a mention of this to this article (in order to help make it more properly encyclopedic)? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How significant was his involvement? Are there are any verifiable, third-party sources outlining his involvement? Ndunruh (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Ndunruh, Perle was instrumental in introducing Karp and Thiel to Pointdexter / DOD so they became defense contractors according to "verifiable, third-party sources" like the Washingtonian, teh Washington Standard. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Errors in Funding Summary re CIA, etc

In short, CIA's In-Q-Tel was not the initial backer of Palantir. The CIA funding arm joined the Series C round in 2008 -- at least the fourth known round of funding. The articles used to source the incorrect assertion do not state the claim forwarded in the article. By more correctly summarizing the existing sources and adding an institutional funding source like Crunchbase or Pitchbook, this section can be easily fixed. Here's a suggestion.

Existing language: The only early investments were $2 million from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm In-Q-Tel and $30 million from Thiel himself and his venture capital firm, Founders Fund. (not true)

Palantir developed its technology over three years, using computer scientists and analysts from intelligence agencies, through pilots facilitated by In-Q-Tel.(incorrect summary, omission.)

Suggested Edited Version:

Initially, Thiel largely bootstrapped Palantir's expenses through injection of direct capital with limited outside help. (WSJ 10) Local angel investor Andrew Maguire led the initial funding round in July of 2006, Corporate VC firm REV took the Series B in November of 2006, and In-Q-Tel -- the CIA's venture investment arm -- joined the $36.8 million Series C round in 2008. (cite WSJ source 10 plus Techcrunch and Tracxn links see below).

After the In-Q-Tel investment, Palantir worked with an estimated 50 state and federal government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense to develop targeted use cases for the company's software. (WSJ story reference 10)

Funding references: Palantir - 2025 Funding Rounds & List of Investors - Tracxn; As Palantir preps IPO, a look back at its growth history | TechCrunch

Early Funding Timeline:

• July 2006: Palantir raises a $7.5 million Series A led by Oakhouse Partners. (Source: Crunchbase)
• November 2006: Palantir raises a $10.5 million Series B led by REV. (Source: Crunchbase)
• February 2008: Palantir raises $36.8 million in a Series C. Company valued at $400 million, per Tracxn. (CIA round)
• June 2010: Palantir raises $90 million Series D, led by Founders Fund. Company valued at $730 million, per Tracxn.
• May 2011: Palantir raises $50 million Series E. Company valued at $1.7 billion, per per Tracxn
• October 2011: Palantir raises $68 million Series F.
• As 2011 comes to a close, Palantir is worth $2.5 billion.

J425Live (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I've done a preliminary fixing. Thank you. Deamonpen (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

In-Q-Tel

A description of In-Q-Tel as "the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm" was recently removed from the article. On p. 113 of the book The Venture Alchemists: How Big Tech Turned Profits Into Power, which is currently being used as a source for this section of the article, In-Q-Tel is described as "the CIA's own venture capital group". In the Wired article that is used later in the same paragraph, In-Q-Tel is described as "the venture-capital arm of the CIA". Burrobert (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You may read the article In-Q-Tel itself. I think your addition(s) give the impression that the In-Q-Tel is part of the CIA. Certainly, the In-Q-Tel has a close and complicated relationship with the CIA, but this is not the page for it. It is better to add to the In-Q-Tel page that such and such publications give it the label "the venture capital arm of the CIA" or whatever.

This is from a SEC document:

IQT is an independent nonprofit corporation under contract to the United States Government represented by the Central Intelligence Agency to protect and advance the national security of the United States by promoting development and adoption by the Intelligence Community (defined below) of commercial technologies having applications to intelligence problems

Deamonpen (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, not to mention In-Q-Tel's connection to the CIA on this page seems rather questionable. Especially given that the sources we are already using on the page make that connection clear. It was long standing content in this article since its creation in 2010 until you made your recent edits. Generally, long standing content should remain in an article if there is a disagreement while a discussion takes place. WP:STATUSQUO Burrobert (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

But it is clearly inaccurate, and we have legal documents to prove that. If the definition of the In-Q-Tel needs to be changed, it should be done on the In-Q-Tel page first, not here.

By the way, I have added this edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palantir_Technologies&diff=prev&oldid=1307422164 Deamonpen (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you write "on the other hand...", it seems you don't argue against the accuracy of the SEC document or the In-Q-Tel page itself. If your main argument is that it is a long standing content, I don't understand the why this is enough for the label "venture capital arm of CIA" to stand in an article like this? Deamonpen (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't look at the SEC document, which is a primary source. It presumably does not mention Palantir so is not relevant to this page. My argument is that the long-standing content accurately reflects what reliable sources used in this article say about In-Q-Tel. Therefore, the long-standing content should remain in place. Your amended edit describing In-Q-Tel is fine. Burrobert (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

When I try to use various sources in this section, the purpose to show the differences in accounts of the early days of Palantir. And thus one article is used to put the others in perspective. They might all be reliable sources according to Wikipedia's requirements, but we do not have to select an obviously inaccurate part that is denied by the subject's own article to put it here.

As for the kind of sources that you want and also mention Palantir, it is easy to find them. For example:

Fortune

Also I fail to see how the SEC document is different from any "website" source accepted by the Wikipedia. It is not "promo" content for sure. We are not writing about a historical character far removed from modern times, with primary sources that require an expert to decode here. Deamonpen (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

We seem to have come to an understanding that the connection between In-Q-Tel and the CIA should be mentioned here. That's enough for me. Burrobert (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

The Controversies section should mention Palestine

According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, Palantir is one of the corporate entities profiting from the genocide in Gaza. She went as far as calling to "<...> investigate and prosecute corporate executives and/or corporate entities for their part in the commission of international crimes and laundering of the proceeds from those crimes."

This needs to be mentioned in the article.

Potential sources to use:

1. Global firms ‘profiting from genocide’ in Gaza, says UN rapporteur (Guardian coverage)
2. A/HRC/59/23: From economy of occupation to economy of genocide - Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (UN report itself)

Amberkitten (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Lede as dumping ground for opinions/Brittanica isn't a source

I culled a bunch of commentary in the lede that is nowhere discussed in the body. There's no consensus on use of Britannica as a source, it's tertiary, and a lengthy quote is, frankly, lazy. We're supposed to provide narrative summarization of other sources, not just quote them. Far worse, this quote from Britannica is nowhere discussed or characterized in the body of the article. The (over)cited preceding sentence is also not discussed in the body - abuse and mismanagement can happen anywhere, but we don't have a crystal ball to imply that Palantir is in some way more prone to it than other entities. Absent actual examples of failures, it's not much different from saying 'Palantir may be a CCP asset; we aren't sure'. Speculation doesn't belong in articles; the lede is a summary of the article; add it to the body of the article, then summarize it in the lede. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Surveillance/data gathering or being complained by former employees (the Wired link also mentions employees who defend them, so I don't see how this is a notable aspect that should be mentioned in the lede) etc are not specific problems of Palantir either. All we know is that Palantir does not have the infrastructure for actual surveillance and data storage (cameras, drones, datacenters), so that can be considered crystal ball predictions too. Abuse and mismanagement can happen anywhere, but certain people (/commentators) are under certain impressions: 1.Palantir is an extremely powerful company (might be true); 2. Palantir pools data in a single database, so if something happens, whether abuse or accident, it will be a catastrophe etc. My opinion is that if there is concern that is being widely discussed, then let's mention it and make opinions balance themselves out, even if certain concerns are blatantly false. Deamonpen (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Wow - hats off to you, Deamonpen, excellent job with the cleanup. I still think the Britannica quote is largely inappropriate - but that's a minor quibble considering the degree of improvement you've imparted. Thank you! cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Page Improvements

@Dialetric requested to bring my proposed edits on talk page. I don't think many were controversial, but I've outlined the proposed edits below. In addition to those listed, I made minor grammatical changes and added links to pages. My goal with these edits is to make the page more encyclopedic and fact-based about the company. In my view, the edits below are rooted in bias or are off topic for the page.

Please note I have no connection whatsoever to this company. I'd prefer that next time, rather than just reversing all of one's work, if there have any issues that you address specific edits. For example, I don't want to have to re-read this page and remove every "that", which is usually an unnecessary filler word.

Proposed Changes:

Intro Section

-         Remove unnecessary reference to profitability from intro section, which is duplicated in financial information later and not a crucial part of the summary of the page

-         Remove last paragraph, which puts undue weight on the perceived controversies of the company. This page is about a company, not about the world’s view of the company and most other company pages put this information in a controversies section (like this one has)

History

2003-2008: Founding and early years

-         Remove reference to Karp pursuing a “classic German approach”, which has nothing to do with the history or page

-         Don’t feel that strongly about this but I personally think the anecdote about VC investors doodling through meetings is superfluous

-         The last paragraph of this section is a classic example of Wiki FRINGE

2010-2012: Expansion

-         Unnecessary and random reference to its revenues 14 years ago

Products

Palantir Foundry

-         Remove reference to Foxglove (who are they and how are they relevant) and MP (are we just going to cite what every politician has said about every company out there). This is also an example of false balance in this section.

  Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I do not agree with the removals

Introduction

-Introduction is not supposed to introduce new ideas that the body does not mention. Some basic info about the company is normally mentioned, and one of the notable things about Palantir is that its market value is high but revenue and profit are low

-Controversies are a common thing for companies, but with this company, almost any article about it (except when it's about stocks) addresses controversies

History

-The manner and ideologies the leaders associate with their small company definitely have something to do with this page and the company's history, especially because they have repeatedly mentioned this matter

-It's about the fundraising situation. If the article is too long it can be omitted but things are still within boundary. We do not write a SEC report.

-Webb IS a notable expert on Epstein-related matters and things she have said are leaking to different channels. Mention of widespread theories/conspiracies is necessary, that is why we have pages like this (they build this page mainly from usually used "reliable sources", but they also cite some direct sources of the conspiracies) .

2010-2012: Expansion

-Why, it is part of this company's history. Are we working on a report to try to entice its investors or something?

Palantir Foundry

-The part informs the readers regarding who are campaigning against Palantir. Foxglove is a notable NGO. Again, I think this can be shortened or removed once the article exceeds 15,000 words, but leaving them here is OK> Deamonpen (talk) 02:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking some time to go through these. I obviously disagree with a lot of your logic, but hopefully we can find some common ground here. Maybe @Dialetric can weigh in since they first reversed the edits?

Intro—having speculative controversies where some people who don't like the company or the US admin isn't appropriate and violates Wiki: FALSE BALANCE. I also think saying "almost any article about it" has controversy is a bit of a red herring. Articles don't usually get written about a company just going about its business, not bothering anybody. The controversy section of the page is where this can go, not having the lead section disproportionately weighted toward controversy. If you scroll up on this talk page, you'll see another user was blocked for having something like this in the lead section back in 2016.

History—don't really care about editing out the ideology and fundraising sentences, they just seem superfluous. Fine to keep if you like them. However, the Webb part is still very much violates WIKI: FRINGE. Being an Epstein expert doesn't mean all her theories are valid and worthy of inclusion, and it definitely doesn't make her theories "widespread". Kyrie Irving was a great basketball player but he thought the earth was flat (kind of poking fun here).

Expansion—should we also include the company's SG&A costs in 2013? Or its interest fee expense in 2015? Those are part of the history too, but it's not really useful to include in a written section

Foundry—I think saying Foxglove is a notable NGO is a bit of a stretch (they have like 10 employees and got 15 seconds of fame for picking legal battles with tech giants that went nowhere), but if you think this is critical information, it should still be the controversies section, not as a key part of describing what this part of the business does.

Also, depending on what you decide to exclude or not, this article is well over 15,000 words. Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding controversies, if it is mentioned a lot it should be mentioned. When talking about false balance, it should be applied when there are concrete evidences for one side. For the lede, I oppose the inclusion of articles that claim Palantir "knows everything about you" or that it pools everything into a massive data pool, but critics worrying that Palantir plays a role in a wider system of surveillance is not something that needs to be removed, although I personally think that this is not a Palantir problem per se, but a geopolitical problem. Certainly the intelligence business is always sensitive. In Germany it is noted that they do get access to the sensitive data when the software is installed or updated, so the authorities have to trust them with that.

Regarding Webb, I think it serves the readers when we include her here, as long as we also mention what organizations she represents and uses to publish these theories (other than youtube or X). Many readers come to this page having read her theories or stories that are built based on those sources on other channels. Not long ago this page itself mentioned that Palantir began when Total Awareness Program ended (without mentioning Webb), using a Chinese website as reference. I think it is similar to the case of Soros. Conspiracies are conspiracies but when their audience reaches a certain extent, it is better to mention them and provide readers with info. It is better than letting readers come here and think that we are trying to whitewash Palantir or Soros. Nobody believes Kyrie Irving, but there are people who think that Webb is an objective source. And if Irving were the originator/main author of Flat Earth, I think he would deserve being mentioned too.

I don't think we need to mention every detail about finance, but including some is OK. It shows how the company has grown through the years. Deamonpen (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

You wrote "Many readers come to this page having read her theories or stories that are built based on those sources on other channels." - how do you/we know this? Asking in good faith, just curious if there are metrics available for how someone reached a given page on WP. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know if such tools exist. I've arrived to that conclusion due to my personal experience with Webb's popularity on certain social media channels, and more importantly, the way her theory has already infiltrated Wikipedia (multiple languages) despite the fact that she only publishes in English through obscure channels. Some examples involving Palantir/Peter Thiel:

German Wiki article on Surveillance (no citation)

Swedish article on Webbn, presenting her as seemingly neutral author

Slovenian version òf Palantir Technologies, which preserves the Chinese citation on Palantir – Total Information Awareness

This author reminds me of David Irving. They are good at digging out new sources and they present reasonable arguments in specific areas, but then they manipulate isolated facts (sometimes combined with invented events, as explained here — the case of Alfredo Rodriguez can be checked easily — by Michael Tracey) to create grand theories about history/modern politics. But at least Irving seems to believe what he says. I am not sure about Webb.

But I would prefer for her connections with channels like Mintpress and Trineday to be explained somewhere on Wikipedia, instead of having her theories come back again and again *innocently* through some channels that parrot her words (it is not that these channels are all Kremlin-backed propaganda sources — some are well meaning government-skeptic sources such as Telepolis: article; some others like TRT might have an agenda: article).

Certainly this does not affect Palantir only. She makes questionable claims about other organizations and people's connections with the intelligence community and surveillance too, or Israel (by the way, she blames the portrayal of Mintpress on Wikipedia on pro-Israel activists.

Her works are cited extensively in articles such as

Mark Middleton (businessman) (same with German version)

Bruce Rappaport

Also recommended on

Jeffrey Epstein (same with German version and Hungarian version— apparently somebody has been meticulous in advertising her book)

And many others.... Deamonpen (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the clarity on that. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't oppose having a general statement about controversies in the lead section but this page contains very specific alleged controversies that should be generalized at the very least (imo). It's a fine line between "not white washing" and including potentially politically biased sentiment, which with all the best intensions, still gets interpreted as fact.

I think we've both presented our sides enough on this talk page though, so I'm going to back off for the time being. Other users can determine what's more compelling rather than us rehashing. It looks like some of my proposed edits have been adopted by others, while others haven't. Appreciate your time and discourse on this. Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Was AI/an LLM used in generating this proposed content? (query is to Ynwamerchant22 (talk · contribs) on the original post, not Deamonpen, just to be clear) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:27, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

No - but let me know when there's an LLM that can make a joke about Kyrie Irving and flat earth policy lol. In all seriousness, I think now is more important than ever to make sure that we have a strict, unbiased eye at what we are putting on Wikipedia because LLM's rely heavily on Wiki as a primary source and people take whatever LLMs spit out as truth. Nobody believed what was on the internet for like two decades after it emerged but we trust AI bots instantly. Go figure Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the original "proposed changes" block of text, not the section with the Kyrie Irving joke. The specific formatting of the text has signs of AI structuring. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:34, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

yeah it was a bad joke (clearly). Just the way I format things Ynwamerchant22 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Opening paragraph reads like an advertisement

An informative description describing what the company does is fine, but the phrasing of the opening paragraph reads like blatant promotional material and is not encyclopedic in my POV. Enabling solutions for "everyone"‽ _What does that mean‽_

I think there is a really strong case for revising the copy in this opening paragraph to better take account of WP:NPOV, a more neutral and clinical tone would be much better. ~2026-49758-5 (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't advertising/promotional, it was a temp editor attempting a not-so-clever POV change to imply that Palantir is spying on everyone. Reverted. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:47, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 5 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. While many people did claim that the fictional object has greater long-term significance than a $300 billion-dollar company, no one ever explained how this possibly could be the case, and given that pageviews are dramatically in favor of the company, an extremely compelling argument in favor of long-term significance would have been necessary. It was pretty clear from the discussion that WP:SMALLDETAILS was not enough to distinguish these two topics (cool WP redirect there, btw, I wonder who made it?) but the primary topic argument clearly carried the day, especially in a TWODABS situation. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:45, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

---

Palantir Technologies → Palantir – The company is primarily referred to as "Palantir" (including by the company itself as well as by others). Its logo is just "Palantir" and its website is palantir.com. The name of the fictional object has a diacritic in it which is not used in the name of the company. Five years of page views show that the company dominates readership interest. The ratio has been about 10:1 over the last year. Note that there was a relevant redirect discussion five years ago. It was remarked even then that the company had a 10:1 pageview ratio advantage over the fictional magical object. The disambiguation page can just be deleted in favor of a hatnote, due to the WP:TWODABS situation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 10:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support This is clearly the common name for the company and the primary topic. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think a diacritic is even enough for WP:SMALLDETAILS to apply, and given the greater longterm significance of the fictional object, there is no primary topic for "Palantir" without the diacritic, making the DAB page properly placed. There is no need for a change. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  oppose Secarctangent (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  @Secarctangent: Can you please clarify what you are opposing and why? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ because of their reasons, oppose your proposal BarrelProof. Secarctangent (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't personally see the argument for saying that the fictional object has great long-term significance. Attributing great long-term significance to something because it is found in The Lord of the Rings seems like basically fancruft. The company is very prominent and has long-term significance. This is an S&P 100 company with a market capitalization of about $300 billion that intersects the major issues of surveillance, artificial intelligence, and government relationships. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  The fictional object has played a large role in creative inspiration for many decades, including directly inspiring the name, goals, and LOTR-based crystal ball logo of the company Palantir. I do not think that the LOTR object is primary, but I also don't think you can argue that the company totally overrides its inspiration either. I should also add that "fancruft" is implying something is literally useless information important only to fans. The fictional object is certainly more important than mere fancruft and easily passes the notability criteria. I would avoid throwing around that word without proof, as it makes your argument seem biased against fictional topics. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per Zxcvbnm. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support This is now the primary topic for the word "Palantir" and the Lord of the Rings "palantir" has a different spelling. Guz13 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Skitash (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support. The company is primary both by pageviews and long-term notability, and "Palantir" is its COMMONNAME. 162 etc. (talk) 02:46, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Zxcvbnm.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:57, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Antibabelic (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. The company is explicitly named after the fictional object. Best to keep them separate. Saves confusion. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 16:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

  Per WP:DPT, "Being the original source of the name is (...) not determinative." 162 etc. (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think Zxcvbnm has it. Halbared (talk) 11:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
• Move to Palantir (company) per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, that's not a bad idea. Support ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 17:05, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  While I don't necessarily object, how is this better than the current WP:NATURAL title? 162 etc. (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Mass surveillance, and WikiProject Companies have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. The fact the fictional object, which is the clear primary topic by long-term significance, has a diacritic is neither here nor there. Most people wouldn't know which has a diacritic and which does not. I would support Palantir (company). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Lobby

Palantir made political contributions to both Republican and Democratic Congresspeople. Given the current layout of the page, where should we put such a subsection? ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 15:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

A lot of companies do that. It should probably only be included if it's verifiably unusual. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Palantir is currently the 30th largest company by market cap in the US. They gave 38K to federal candidates in the 23-24 election cycle. While Individuals at the firm did make larger contributions, according to Open Secrets, Palantir only ranked 204th among profiled organizations whose PAC or employees and their families made contributions to candidates, party committees, other PACs. That seems well within tolerance of being an ordinary level of contributions. Cfgauss77 (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide

I'm adding a pronunciation guide to the article, based on how I've always heard the company's name pronounced. If I need a source for that feel free to strike me down and let me know how foolish I am on my talk page. Hugo P. Behrmann (☎) 02:36, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Reverted the good faith edit. Please cite sources. 162 etc. (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Palantir Technologies is named after a seeing stone used in the Lord of the Rings. The Wikipedia page for the Lord of the Rings Palantir gives a pronunciation guide. (Aside: I found two well sourced crowd sourced articles about that gave etymologies on how to pronounce Palantir. . I am aware that crowd sourced material isn't typically good for reliable sources, but these are very well sourced, give a deeper understanding behind the origin of the word and are just in general interest to read) Cfgauss77 (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

These sources are indeed not reliable, and the pronunciation guide at the Palantír article should probably be removed as well. 162 etc. (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The pronunciation guide's reliable sourcing was actually discussed on the Palantir talk page. That discussion happened 3 years ago and the pronunciation is still on that article, so I would assume it is considered reliable. Cfgauss77 (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Louis Mosley - job title

Louis Mosley is described in different sources as either 'Executive Vice Chair' or 'Executive Vice President'. This may be a geopraphic different of reference, but it'd be helpful to decide definitively on how he is recognized in this article. He is also referred to as the 'Head of Europe' by the BBC, not just the UK.

Palantir UK boss says it's up to militaries to decide how AI targeting is used in war - BBC News

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/16290/html/ Ndunruh (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Controversies

1.) An amazing observation by the Guardian: "Draw a circle around all the assets in the US now devoted to artificial intelligence. Draw a second circle around all the assets devoted to the US military. A third around all assets being devoted to helping the Trump regime collect and compile personal information on millions of Americans. And a fourth circle around the parts of Silicon Valley dedicated to turning the US away from a democracy into a dictatorship led by tech bros. Where do the four circles intersect? At a corporation called Palantir Technologies and a man named Peter Thiel." It says a lot. Maybe deserves incorporating into the article.

2.) There is concern that US and Palantir are trying to recreate China's Social Credit System with Palantir's database Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2026 (UTC)