Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26

RFC, can we mention Musks alleged nazi salute?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:SNOWBALL consensus in favor of Yes. The exact wording should probably be discussed separately, and probably go to a RfC after a few options candidates can be agreed upon. guninvalid (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

So, can we say "Musk received widespread criticism for what some perceived as a Nazi salute (An accusation he denied)"

  1. Yes
  2. No
  3. other text?
Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C — The salute is already mentioned. There's no need to change the wording. Loytra (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It keeps getting edit warred out. But I have to say, we give it too much pace with what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    In that case, I still maintain my vote for C. I agree that perhaps previous edits have given the incident too much weight, so I think a couple of sentences such as "At the second inauguration of Donald Trump, Musk performed an action that was heavily criticized as bearing resemblance to a Nazi salute. However, Musk denied the accusation, pointing to examples of other political figures making similar gestures." would do nicely. Loytra (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've changed my mind, I think something similar to what is written at the current revision of the 'Nazi salute' page (under the section 'Elon Musk at the 2025 Donald Trump presidential inauguration') would be best. I think my previous version runs the risk of downplaying the event. Loytra (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A is all we need. Note, Im oppose any whataboutism edits, we go by what RS say, so unless RS makes an accusation we can't (per wp:blp). Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)A or C — Widely covered in reliable sources, even if there is a range of views about what he meant by it (which is covered in the article). I'm yet see any convincing reasoning, in above sections, about why this can't be covered. We shouldn't tailor content to save Musk's feelings, or because some think it would save use from disingenuous and unsubstantiated accusations of bias on Xitter. How much coverage, will depend on how long the coverage continues, but probably less than current but more than just a paragraph. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @JamieBrown2011, do you have a policy based reason here, keeping in mind that RFCs are not votes. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I would say Wikipedia:NOTNEWS The question to ask ourselves is is this ambiguous gesture going to be enduring in nature, or is it simply an attempt to cast a slur against someone who's political views leftism media disagree with? Somewhat of the same nature as Trump being called "Hitler" a few days before the election. Even though it is covered in RS, the average reader is fully aware it is simply the dirty tactics of politics. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with "leftism". I identify as a conservative, politically on the right. That does not mean I like nazis or nazi salutes, nor the far-right. You might want to look into people such as Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle, both of whom were staunch conservatives and right-wing leaders, yet forcefully combated fascists. Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Noting that @JamieBrown2011 referred to it as an "ambiguous gesture," it seems jamiebrown is implying that the leftist media is attempting to make a gesture out to be something it was not as a political tactic. Jamiebrown is not implying that genuine fascist gestures are acceptable. WP:ASG Pistongrinder (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A We should be careful here. There is a 'guilt by association' attatached to the media interpretation of such things and we to avoid 'joining the fray'. For example The RS we have in the pic simply says "Several users on X, the social medial platform he owns, have likened the gesture to a Nazi salute". That is too weak to be used. A better scource (which we have in the text) is our 601 for example. I think we should row back on our very extensice coverage of the gesture and it's interpretation - but we should mention it.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment (invited by the bot) Covering or repeating something that his political opponents have invented is not about covering the topic of the article. But if covered it should be treated as such. Probably should include wording like "without basis". North8000 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    If we intend to include this at all, I agree with the caveat "without basis." Pistongrinder (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C The topic is widely references in reliable sources, and likely to be raised in the future. But because of WP:BLP considerations we must give more elaboration to Musk's position. Vegan416 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A per Slatersteven. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Because of WP:NPOV I would suggest to change the title of the RfC to the more neutral "Can we mention the accusations of Nazi salute made against Musk?" Vegan416 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C I'm not in favor of, or opposed to, including the photo. However, if the photo is included, Wikipedia:NPOV requires that it also include this collage of photographs that Elon Musk retweeted, which shows several prominent Democrats in a very similar pose. Including just the text that Musk wrote is not enough. It has to also include that exact image that Musk retweeted. Fair is fair. Wikipedia:NPOV must be obeyed, especially in the case of Wikipedia:Living persons.
    https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881746484229763524
    A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I do go back to my first post in a thread about this, we can't judge based on a snap shot picture, we can about a video. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Actually Musk reposted a video of AOC doing a similar gesture https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881924748717982070, of course a more reliable source needs to be found for this video. Vegan416 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    And there is the problem, she does not swing her arm straight once from the heart, she is in fact waving it about. so yes, we would, need RS saying this was a nazi salute, not Musk saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The wikipedia article Nazi salute doesn't say anything about starting the salute "from the heart". Vegan416 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the AOC link. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Slatersteven Yes but we currently have a gif, that autoplays rather than an actual video clip. And that gif is missing key context, so it should be removed until a video clip can be provided. Ergzay (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    My proposed addition:
    File:Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, ELizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris with arm in the air.jpg Musk's tweet also included a retweet of a tweet by Libs of TikTok, which showed this collage of photographs of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris holding their arm in a similar position.[1]]] A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Really not sure that all of four of those photos are in the public domain...
    Regardless, I don't think still images really cut it in this scenario. Musk didn't simply raise his arm, he made a very defined, forceful gesture that has even been "embraced by white supremacists" as a Nazi salute. Loytra (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I think ideally we'd want a video clip covering the entire gesture, freely licensed if possible, but I think we can argue it meets Contextual significance/Minimal usage of NFCC if not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Agreed. Reverting latest removal. QRep2020 (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    @QRep2020 It was rather difficult to find your comment here buried in this discussion. This comment you replied to is from a week ago and I see literally no other discussion here. Is this what you were referring to? Can you open up a new section for the clip if you want to discuss it? Ergzay (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    I think these comments are integral to this RFC discussion and the clip to the subsection. Besides, a week is hardly a long period of time on a Talk page.
    Regarding the clip, it presents what Musk performed nontextually and therefore allows readers to view the object of the subsection as directly as possible. QRep2020 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    It does not present what Musk performed nontextually though as it's effectively engaging in cherry picking by excluding audio contextual clues which are in the text the primary argument for why it was _not_ in fact a nazi salute. By not including that context, or only presenting a narrow subset of information it's skewing readers interpretation. On top of that it's a primary source, which isn't allowed. Ergzay (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
    Obviously these aren't all in the public domain (most seem to be from campaign events, not federal government photographers). Please don't upload images with incorrect licenses like this. Second this is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV which is about representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis added) and explicitly not about WP:FALSEBALANCE by including every fallacious argument made by Libs of Tiktok. We already include his rebuttal (and the rebuttal of others) cited to reliable sources, but we should not be making arguments unsupported by reliable sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks again for your comments on this, both here and on my talk page. I tried to delete the image, but even though I removed hundreds of characters of text from the page, the image is still there. Maybe someone who knows how to properly remove it could do so. I already posted a message on the image's talk page. I apologize for having created the image in the first place. Thanks for your help and advice. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason this is an RFC? Also as far as I can tell Musk has not denied anything. Citing (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because we have edit waring and at least two other discussions, this is about centralizing it, and coming to a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B While this edit meets the 'widely covered' standard in reliable sources, that is by mere default because of the subject and news cycle. Either we include everything that is 'widely covered' on notable figure or we raise the bar to subjects are 'widely covered' AND are encyclopedic content. This particular item is more mainstream tabloid pop news, than encyclopedic content. --Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A is all we need. It has received condemnation in 7 continents. He was pursing his face and it was an entirely planned thing. Its not same as those image gestures of folk waving to the crowd, in a natural happy movement. scope_creepTalk 14:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A Musk's salute got tons of WP:RS and is encyclopedic in consideration of the topic of Musk's perceived anti-semitism. Video of those Democrats shows that they are making other gestures, not Nazi salutes. That's why there's no RS about them doing Nazi salutes, just Elon's whataboutism tweet.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    However it is also disputed that Musk made a Nazi salute. Vegan416 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes and we include his denial, as we should. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    But version A only mention his denial, and not the hate & antisemitism watchdogs which seem to accept his version. We should mention them as well. Vegan416 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The current version does not say that he denied it. In fact, it specifically says that he did not do so, cited to [2] - do you have a source for his denial? Because I'm not seeing it currently. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B Absolutely not. Please stop trying to add stuff like this every time there's a headline. WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENT Big Thumpus (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A Absolutely, obviously relevant. This was Musk's first public speech after the administration in which he serves took office. It has been widely covered in WP:RS media, not just in the US but around the world. Furthermore, this coverage is not just mentioning it in passing, but entire articles dedicated to discussing it. Also, can I remind those citing WP:NOTNEWS that that policy does not say major news should not be covered. Those voting 'no' by merely mentioning NOTNEWS might want to read up on what that policy actually says. Jeppiz (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A- Yes There has been extensive coverage in mainstream media including Associated Press, The New York Times, BBC News and other leading news services. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, to A, B, or C? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I've added A to my "Yes", thanks for catching the omission. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Given the comment, and the fact that the question is "Can we mention Musks nazi salute", I'd say it is unambiguous that it is an A. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A/C (whichever is "include it in the article"). Widespread sustained independent coverage in reliable sources of a notable individual that has generated international response. This has not been the case with various other individuals in snapshots posted above, which is why we don't mention it in, for example, the Laura Ingraham article (and frankly the whole argument smacks of whataboutism). Citing (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Question: Am I missing something? It IS already in the article --FMSky (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    As I said above, the problem is (was, and maybe again) it was being edit warred out, and there was (and is) an ongoing argument about if we should include it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Its notable enough to be included, its just imo the length thats a problem -FMSky (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Hence A, one line of text. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    The .gif image is probably also undue --FMSky (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    A would not reduce anything to one line of text, it would only be consensus that the line of text is acceptable for inclusion as quoted. If anything it would indirectly imply that elaborating on this would be acceptable in order to provide further context. Did you mean to imply that A would be only that line of text? If so, this RfC is malformed, and it's too late to change it now after !votes have already been made. Editors are also voting A in favour of reducing the coverage, as well as to include broader context, which is an obvious contradiction here for anyone paying attention. I appreciate your efforts in trying to find post-edit-war consensus, however consensus from this RfC would only provide more disagreement over interpretation than any form of agreement between editors. I'll respectfully wait for your reply before !voting here. CNC (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I took it as read that A meant only that as C says "other text", so it seemed obvious to me that A meant only that text (and only that text). Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    "So, can we say" does not make it obvious I'm afraid, at least not to !voters so far based on my interpretation of the discussion. Other editors can correct me if I'm wrong here... CNC (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I otherwise read "other text" option as a different form of wording, rather than "more text" or context, if that helps to explain the confusion at least from my end. CNC (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Query for Jeppiz, Wellington Bay, Athoremmes, EF5, RodRabelo7, Autarch: you all believe the content should be reduced to the proposed single sentence, per intended meaning of voting A referenced above? Excuse the ping, but clarity would be useful here from a sample of A voters. CNC (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I don't care how it's formatted, as long as it's no longer than four sentences and mentions the nazi salute, in whole. EF5 19:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, I just mean you voted for it to be no longer than the proposed sentence per intended meaning of voting A. If that's what you meant, then all good. Thanks for reply. CNC (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Well, then the wording of this RfC sucks. EF5 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I had thought "other text" meant something other than A rather than anything in addition to A. I've changed my comment to A or C due to your clarification. I think the incident merits mention. While we should be cognizant not to give it WP:Undue Weight there should be as much text as necessary to cover the issue fairly and as comprehensively as needed. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    [[[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]], I agree with EF5 that it is poorly worded RFC. My view is that the incident and the widespread criticism should be included. I did not intend to comment on the exact wording. Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes Athoremmes (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, this RFC is entirely too confusing. The article's coverage of the act and its impact is perfectly appropriate at the moment - which option conveys that? QRep2020 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    It's supposed to be Option C "Other text", but I don't see it either. Other than what? The proposed text? The current text? The text per diff when RfC was started? It's too vague and misleading. CNC (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment whether this thing is mentioned or not, the current article gives it way too much WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I agree. WP:RECENTISM strikes again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I tried to cut it down per WP:BOLD. Let's see how long that lasts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    I approve of the state of the article left by Muboshgu's edits. QRep2020 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B This is too WP:RECENT and Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHENEWS. Frankly, this RFC is premature and there's no support in policy to justify inclusion of a controversial news item of the day story in a WP:BLP. I hope the closing editor discounts the votes not citing any policy and those hand waving WP:RECENTISM away for a something that happened less than 3 days ago. Nemov (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C, or A as a distant second if that's the only version we can get consensus to include; we should mention it in some form, though it's going to require workshopping - the key sentence currently in the article is a good starting point, though. While it obviously needs attribution the double-distancing of the "received criticism... for what some called" in this specific proposal isn't ideal. Also, by my reading it is not actually true that Musk has denied it, as the AP points out [3] and the article currently says. But either way coverage is sufficiently overwhelming and broad to justify some sort of mention, especially given the politicians calling for him to be banned from multiple countries - if it does vanish from the news tomorrow we can always remove it, but at this point the trajectory of coverage and the broad international reaction makes it impossible to justify complete omission. Recentism doesn't mean we automatically ignore everything that has happened recently; there's a level of coverage and impact for events that necessitates that our articles reflect them. And nobody opposed to inclusion has really made a more detailed rationale for why this doesn't meet that standard, or even engaged with the amount of coverage it has gotten at all. EDIT: This prompted me to write an essay, WP:CRYRECENTISM - though I should add that none of this means that I feel that the current amount of text in the article is necessarily proportionate; I just think that it ought to be included in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    (Extended discussion in response moved to below.)
  • B as WP:RECENTISM. Even if this were some sort of Freudian slip or dog whistle it is ultimately an awkward, ambiguous hand gesture that you can't say much about other than that it generated controversy. If it acquires enduring coverage then I'd support reintroducing it later, but for now I think it is mostly just distracting from much more serious and substantial things that are going on. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A Yes, absolutely, it is quite a relevant controversy, which attracted significant traction from prominent organisations and etc. Athoremmes (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A - per above. EF5 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A as per above --RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A as per above. Autarch (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A. Well-covered and not just by fringe American media. We shouldn't say in Wikivoice that Musk intended to make a Nazi salute (ultimately only Musk can speak for himself), but describing what the gesture was and the reactions to it are perfectly fine. However, what I would suggest is spinning out a Elon Musk and politics article given that this article is already nearly 14k words and WP:SIZERULE gives 15k words as when it should definitely be split and 9k as when it probably should be. Then we could reduce the amount of coverage here while still covering it appropriately.-- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    There is already Views of Elon Musk and Political activities of Elon Musk. The issue in this article is the complete inability to adhere to summary style editing guidelines for summarising child articles. CNC (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    Fair enough. My concern was that the current split isn't really conducive to content like this which isn't a view (it's an action with a mostly undisputed similarity to a Nazi salute but a disputed motive) and isn't really a political activity either (besides being at an inauguration). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    I see your point. I already removed it from the Views article based on discussion there, so can see that argument being used at Political activities as well. However now there is Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy, which looks like it's here to say based on the AfD, then I'll stick to my point of child article summaries, noting that a significantly larger summary is now entirely appropriate. I think if we just stuck to editing guidelines and policy, we wouldn't need this RfC. CNC (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B At best it seems like an awkward and energetic hand gesture from a man known for being awkward and energetic. There's no context before or after the gesture that point to it being a Nazi salute. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS. Wiki is also WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE, and this smells somewhat of WP:RECENTISM and tabloid material. Reliable sources and wide coverage aren't enough with someone like Musk, who is wildly famous and wildly controversial. He could have farted during his speech (speaking of smells) and there likely would have been wide coverage by reliable sources. Even Ben Shapiro, who doesn't shy away from calling out antisemitism, wasn't bothered by it. Kerdooskistalk 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Malformed RfC. It's become clear there is a distinct variation interpretating what these options imply from multiple editors, as documented in this discussion. It's therefore highly likely that !votes have become malformed, will continue to be malformed, and therefore determining the consensus by a closure will be very difficult to achieve without confirmation of what each !vote is explicitly voting for. I recommend a procedural close, in order to re-create an RfC that is clear and concise, not ambiguous and misleading. CNC (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C – We should leave the text as is. Really not sure what the purpose of this RFC is. – MW(t•c) 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C, but if not C then A. The nazi salute is a significant event considering the already extensive content describing evidence of his views on Jewish people (i.e. antisemitism). The opinion of individual Wikipedia editors as to whether it is or is not a nazi salute, including mine, are irrelevant —- all that matters is that some sources have interpreted it as a nazi salute, and still more have published stories saying it was a possible nazi salute, including both the New York Times and the Washington Post, which is to be honest, a slam-dunk for it being notable. C because we should use “interpreted”, not “perceived” —- different people don’t see different things, and words matter. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A - Yes. I think it is notable and well-covered and not recentism. The only part I feel is debatable is the amount of text and image to use on the topic. At this moment, I feel like its inclusion is raising concerns that Wikipedia editors are slanted, and so that should be considered. We want to be held to a higher standard, no? I edited quite a bit on the Rob Ford article and we had to deal with this quite a bit on a smaller scale. At the moment, I feel like the salute should be limited to a paragraph at most. And I don't suggest this as a fan of the guy. I think he does espouse very right-wing views and a salute is consistent with that, especially with his involvement with Germany. However, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to counter his views, just a place to document them in a suitable amount of content and detail. It's a tough call, but I think Wiki wisdom does exist. Alaney2k (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B - no For reference I was accused of being too biased against Tesla based on my comments at the TslaQ article. No, the guy didn't do a Nazi solute and the fact that people tried to turn a nothing into a thing doesn't reflect on him as a person. It tells us nothing about Musk himself. I would much rather the article talk about his involvement with the Hothi defamation lawsuit (this reflects on his true person)[4] vs some freeze frame of a video where he is gesticulating that his heart goes out to the people in the audience. This has no place in a serious encyclopedic BLP. Springee (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A/B. What is in the article now is far too detailed for this event. This shouldn't have it's own headline, which is currently the case. If it's to be there, a sentence is a more reasonable length. Yes, it's in the news. Musk is in the news all the time. Everything he does which is picked up by the media can't have it's own section in the biography. /Julle (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A. Well covered in WP:RS. As we get more comments from historians of fascism and political scientists who study current US politics, C the statement should become less vague ("some") and should instead state the degree of consensus of viewpoints among historians of fascism and political scientists who study current US politics, e.g. "wide consensus" or "disputed" or "minority" view the event as a pair of Nazi salutes. That will only be known in a few weeks' or months' time. Boud (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C/A whichever of these means the detail of the current text remains roughly as-is. This is heavily covered by a wide swath of reliable sources, so its inclusion, with this level of detail, is more than warranted. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C/A per above. Current text is fine, includes his response and the response of groups defending and condemning him. Only fair to include with the amount of attention this has received. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A/C, not seeing any valid arguments against it being due and significant coverage is overwhelming... What I do see is NOTNEWS and RECENTISM being abused by people who have apparently never read what they're linking to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Can you explain how you feel WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are being misinterpreted? Big Thumpus (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    In this context neither can be used to oppose inclusion. That they are misinterpreted vs anything else is AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes and I'm asking why you don't think they can be used to oppose inclusion Big Thumpus (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    Because nothing in the text of either of them opposes inclusion in such a context as this. If you disagree then you can of course provide the parts which you feel are relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

    Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others:

It's difficult to argue that this RFC which was opened within hours of this event doesn't fall into that exact scenario. Also, it's ridiculous that you attempt to argue others who have cited this haven't read it. In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? I'm not sure it'll be relevant in six weeks with how the news cycle works these days. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Err, its difficult to say this even makes up a significant portion of this article. Slatersteven (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
If every single news story about a high-profile person were included, this article would never end. This individual is making headlines every day for one thing or another. How many more RFCs will this article generate, and how long will it get before someone trims it down? Nemov (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
While I can't estimate how long this article get's before being trimming, to provide a specific timeframe, I do intend to start enforcing editing guidelines after 23 February 2025 if there is no opposition. CNC (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
True, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this makes up a significant part of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Just to say my latest criticism to this RfC is that it was unknowingly started prior to the standalone article being split off, meaning the editing guidelines to assess the quantity of content to summarise has since completely changed. Until the AfD has been closed, it's impossible for anyone to accurately judge (based on such guidelines) how much coverage this event should include in the article. But of course everyone is welcome to speculate and !vote their opinion in the meantime, even if it seems pointless to me. CNC (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Nemov: WP:RECENT says "Just wait and see... Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." Basically the one thing you can guarantee about an editor citing recentism in an edit war or contentious deletion discussion is that they have not read the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Saying that WP:RECENTISM doesn't discourage inclusion of recent events seems like a slightly outlandish interpretation of the essay. NickCT (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A Current text is OK. obviously relevant. This was Musk's first public speech after the administration in which he serves took office. It has been widely covered in WP:RS media, … around the world. Furthermore, this coverage is not just mentioning it in passing, but entire articles dedicated to discussing it, per Jeppiz. Whether it was consciously a fascist salute, or arose out of an awkward excess of feeling seems fairly academic.Pincrete (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
A @Horse Eye's Back has good reasoning. Further I want to add that Rs continue to cover this[2] This was not just them trying to fill the inauguration day's news. Czarking0 (talk) 05:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
C Something like "At second inauguration of Trump, Musk did a hand gesture which many perceived as a Nazi Salute. He denied the accusation." RealStranger43286 (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tweet by Elon Musk, Twitter, January 21, 2025
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/jan/26/elon-musk-far-right-antisemitism
  • B Reliable sources reporting observers' inferences of a hand gesture is not reason enough make this moment WP:DUE on a WP:BLP, particularly considering WP:RECENT. This moment has been sensationalized not because it tells us anything important about Musk but because the notable inauguration receives splashy media coverage. That doesn't make it WP:DUE for a BLP. I would understand, however, if it were on a page discussing this specific inauguration. Penguino35 (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion (salute)

(Extended discussion below moved from comment above.)
  • There is no way to accurately judge the long term impact of an event that happened 24 hours ago, even a week ago. One particular sector of the media rushing to characterize a particular event a certain way does not automatically qualify the evnet as encyclopedia material. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The reaction was broad and international, as the article says; it was not "one particular sector of the media." It also has coverage across the political spectrum - the fact that different sources interpreted it in different ways does not change that; it demonstrates that even Musk's supporters considered this a big enough deal to cover it. And we're required to look at the sources to determine long-term significance - that is how WP:DUE weight is assessed. They are, currently, treating it as something significant enough that it seems hard to justify the lack of long-term impact (including eg. politicians in multiple nations calling for Musk to be banned from them.) Is your assertion that we could never cover anything recent at all? Should we omit Trump's inauguration entirely, on account of it being recent? What level or type of sourcing would be necessary to convince you that this should be included? In fact, by crying "RECENTISM", you're inherently trying to judge the long-term impact of a recent event - this is intrinsic to the essay, which runs on the WP:10YEARTEST. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Is your assertion that we could never cover anything recent at all? Should we omit Trump's inauguration entirely, on account of it being recent? This is a very unserious straw-man. We live in a 24/7 news cycle where anything[5] can be covered by reliable sources and be reported internationally. Our job is to parse through all this fog and include information that is central to this biography. If you cannot tell the difference between covering an inauguration and some sensational news about a gesture after 72 hours then perhaps your not the right person to be writing about "crying recentism." Nemov (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It was, of course, a rhetorical point; but it seems to have gotten the message across? The person I was replying to argued that there is no way to accurately judge the long term impact of an event that happened 24 hours ago, which is what prompted that point; yet that one rhetorical point focusing on the problems with that statement was enough to make you concede that yes, of course our job is to do exactly that when you admit that we must parse through all this fog and include information that is central to this biography. You're still not quite right - biographies obviously don't just contain central points (we're not putting this in the lead!) - but it's closer to policy. At that point the only bone of contention left is whether we think it is sufficiently relevant to his biography and, more to the point, whether the sources support that contention. I feel that the breadth of international coverage (including focuses on potential long-term consequences, such as politicians pushing to ban him from specific countries over it) illustrates that it does, and I don't feel that you or anyone else has really articulated an answer to that, but at the very least considering the obvious fact that some recent stuff does have to be included has moved us past the "nobody is capable of judging if a recent event is important" silliness. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

D - Can we mention it? I suppose so. It has gained a flurry of hype and commentary in the media. Must we mention it? No. Should we mention it? Debatable and my call is: Not yet, and perhaps not at all. Per RECENTISM, there is no indication that his gesture will garner the sort of ongoing and in-depth coverage that we need to assess DUE WEIGHT). I seriously doubt that his hand gesture (or the reaction to it) will be something that academic historians will mention when writing future bios of Musk. I suspect that it will be deemed irrelevant very quickly. I could, of course, be wrong… this could be something that historians mention… but until they do, I am going to remain on the “omit it - at least for now” side of the coin. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)


Well its still being talked about, and even our discussion of it is. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Its even now part of his dispute with Britain [[6]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Musk's greeting is as Nazi as Lili Ivanova's greeting when she says thank you :)))) Илиев2010 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Read wp:or do any RS describe that as a Nazi salute? Unlike (say) this one [[7]]? Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2025 (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.

Twitter controversies

This man has a lot of Twitter controversies, I was suggesting adding it to his catagories. Alexkrzywicki1 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"MAGA civil war" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA civil war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § MAGA civil war until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"Kekius Maximus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kekius Maximus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § Kekius Maximus until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should the page describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the page describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes? BootsED (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Sources

  • Clayton, Freddie (December 22, 2024). "Elon Musk courts Europe's surging far right". NBC News. Archived from the original on January 19, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025. Musk has thrown his support behind far-right politicians in the U.K., Italy and Germany, where the leader of the AfD party has evoked Nazi rhetoric. ... What began as a tech mogul railing against political correctness in the U.S. has evolved into what appears to be a global campaign of support for far-right ideologies, forcing governments on both sides of the Atlantic to reckon with Musk's growing political and cultural influence.
  • Mac, Ryan; Bensinger, Ken (January 8, 2025). "As Elon Musk Embraces Far Right, Some of Its Top Figures Reject Him". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on January 8, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025. Mr. Musk's falling-out with some on the far right stands out as he increasingly embraces more extreme parties and figures globally, including in Germany, where he has backed a political party with ties to neo-Nazis and plans to host a livestream with one of its leaders on Thursday.
  • Lawless, Jill (January 7, 2025). "Elon Musk helped Trump win. Now he's looking at Europe, and many politicians are alarmed". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on January 8, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025. The Tesla and SpaceX chief executive has endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany, demanded the release of jailed U.K. anti-Islam extremist Tommy Robinson and called British Prime Minister Keir Starmer an evil tyrant who should be in prison. Many European politicians have been left concerned by the attention. Musk's feed on his social network X is dotted with abusive language — labeling politicians "stupid cretin" and "sniveling cowards" — as well as retweets of far-right and anti-immigrant accounts.
  • Siddiqui, Faiz; Merrill, Jeremy B. (August 11, 2024). "Elon Musk's X feed becomes megaphone for his far-right politics". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on November 24, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
  • Darcy, Oliver (March 19, 2024). "Radicalized by the right: Elon Musk puts his conspiratorial thinking on display for the world to see". CNN. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2025. At this juncture, calling Musk a right-wing shitposter is no longer provocative. It's simply accurate. ... Musk appears to be growing more intolerant of other viewpoints. While elevating right-wing extremists, he simultaneously seeks to destroy trust in credible news sources.

Polling

Support

  • Support This appears to be contentious on this page, and there are constant edit wars over it and disagreements on talk. I believe there are ample reliable sources that describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes as presented in the proposed sources section above. Note, that we are not saying Musk is far-right, but that he is a supporter of the far-right, which is what reliable sources describe him as. BootsED (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the average reader would consider that the statements "supports the far-right" and "member of the far-right" to have different meanings. Most think of those two as identical meanings. Ergzay (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    You are so close to figuring things out. Just keep rubbing the sticks together. 155.186.205.191 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - per RSs. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support This statement is backed by numerous reliable sources. I agree with the above reasoning. Marincyclist (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, repeats what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say this. Thus we should too. Fieari (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: As per reliable sources EarthDude (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: If not even a recorded Nazi salute can convince some that he endorses these types of regimes, I'm genuinely not sure what else he needs to do to change their minds.
Being afraid to use labels that are not well-received by some in society is not being neutral, but rather the opposite, because you are artificially trying to make everyone look "normal" by hiding what your prejudice deems to be "bad." Yoitai (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support, one only has to look at the situation in which he changed Twitter's policies on doxing, almost overnight, in order to provide cover for the neo-Nazi StoneToss (read the article for more details and sources) when he could not have given a flying fuck about doxing on his platform previously. That aside, per the reliable sources given above. TarnishedPathtalk 10:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, that is a wholly uncontroversial description, very well supported by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support - Following RS is what we do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support We go by what reliable sources say, not what editors think about those sources. Carlstak (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support WP:WEIGHT is met for including this in the body for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft support per the sources available. Might be worth waiting for academic sources. Surprised we need an RfC on this? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: There are more than enough reliable sources suggesting this with verifiable proof of this pattern. There appear to be no reliable sources denying this is happening or contradicting the proposed wording. The opposing argument that "far-right" is a slur lacks any basis, as it is used extensively by reliable sources and there are a number of high-quality Wiki articles dealing with this topic. CrazyPredictor (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support as per sources already in the article --RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support We can't say he's a Nazi (yet), so this will have to do (for the time being). Serial (speculates here) 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Per sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This is a man who openly supports and advocates for neo-nazis in Germany and the UK, performs the nazi salute on stage, is criticised by numerous world leaders in democratic countries for his far-right propaganda, and is described as far-right by a long list of recent and reliable sources. Should be one of the most obvious RfCs ever on WP. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Musk has been extremely vocal in his support of far-right parties and policies abroad. His support hasn't been ambiguous, indirect, or isolated. I'm inclined to believe that someone is a supporter of something when they have a long history of saying that they support that thing, and their statements have been verified and interpreted similarly by multiple third parties. RFZYNSPY talk 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Even if Elon Musk didn't make a Nazi salute, there are more than enough proof from reliable sources of him supporting the far-right. Prime6421 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support Reliable sources clearly state this, with little to no reputable rejection of this description. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. We document what RS say. It's that simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support per other !votes, I also don't see this as controversial, though I understand the need for such an RfC given this is a contentious topic on a highly notable figure. Reliable sources clearly document Musk as a supporter of the far-right in the article body already, in a variety of ways, so an inclusion is merely WP:DUE at this point per WP:BALANCE, in order to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I also don't see this description as WP:WEASEL words, nor as a slur like MOS:RACIST, it's merely an accurate description of the end of the political spectrum that Musk supports. While being far-right can be seen as negative, similar to far-left, there is nothing inherently WP:CONTENTIOUS about these labels, even if often associated with a negative connotation. Overall, for balance we go with what a diversity of sources say. CNC (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support simply because it is objectively and verifiably true. Musk consistently supports political figures who our own Wiki, as well as most verifiable news sources, describe as either right-wing or far-right. There are dozens of available examples where reputable sources document Musk supporting international right-wing/far-right figures and causes:
a right-wing opposition leader in in Canada,
a right-wing Prime Minister in New Zealand
a right-wing to far right Prime Minister in Hungary,
a right-wing to far-right head of state in Argentina,
an imprisoned alt-right figure in the UK,
a far-right leader the Netherlands,
a far-right party in Germany,
a far-right activist movement in Ireland,
a far-right former President Brazil,
a far-right Prime Minister |in Italy,
far-right "anti-white genocide" activists in South Africa,
Respectfully, the available sources are clear and overwhelming. The discussion closer who assesses for consensus should keep the above evidence in mind. FlipandFlopped ツ 23:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  1. Support per CNC. Multiple RSs support this. We should be careful about the precise wording, but something to this effect is entirely justified by the available sources. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
QalasQalas (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose I feel like the proposed sources above are claiming that far right is negative, and to some that may not be the case. The sources are also making assumptions about someone's character who supports far right policies, which is a very bias opinion and not a neutral fact. If it can be done in a more neutral way I think it is Wikipedia appropriate, otherwise just sharing his support of Trump and pursuit of politics in that sense will allow those reading to make their assumptions and not provide rhetoric one way or the other. 🦄✨bedazzledunicorn✨🦄 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose reference to far-right but, to some extent, with less objection to a reference of "right wing". All the same a lot of support from the parties concerned are from the working class who simply oppose disproportionate levels of migration and of people who would like to protect their own indigenous cultures, Kirr Hardy who founded the UK Labour party had parallel views. GregKaye 01:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose "far right". I like the lists of Presidents and Prime ministers he allegedly supports (see above in the "supports"). All of them elected by their nations. Who knew _the_majorities of the_people_ were "far right"? "Far" is just a cheap attack on conservatives... by far left journalists? I don't mind if Wikipedia states in its own voice that Musk favors the right. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Far-right discussion

  • Comment I wasn't going to make any comment on this subject whatsoever, but in light of several news outlets picking up on recent comments made by said person, and in light of this person's position on the world stage, I feel I must speak up. I have had no desire whatsoever for politics, who said what, who did what, whatever it may be, and this is an extremely sensitive topic, but it is also one that shouldn't be happening on this platform. I love this site, probably just about as much as all of you, but when another very important person is making threats and telling half of the nation not to support or endorse a website, I would highly pay attention. That is more of my (hopefully valid) main concern here... I am not in favor of seeing this site obliterated. --Skeeball93 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2025 (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.

First sencence

We need to do something about the first sentence. It has been amended a few times recently, but it doesn't work very well. Currently, it is: "a businessman and United States government official known for his key roles in the automotive company Tesla, Inc. and the space company SpaceX." A few things are problematic about this:

The term "businessman" does not adequately capture his role or the way his business interests are entangled with government power. He is also not a typical government official. Unlike a typical businessman or government official in America, he runs around "shutting down" government agencies, wielding influence in a way that goes beyond market competition or private enterprise or what government officials normally do.

The term "oligarch" has long been used for figures whose wealth grants them direct sway over state functions, and it is a more accurate label for Musk's position and actions. The term "oligarch," or "tech oligarch,"[13] has now become a common way[14] to describe Musk in RS. In his farewell address, President Biden warned of this "oligarchy [that] is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom."[15] The word oligarch covers both his wealth and the way he wields political influence. We have routinely described Russian oligarchs in this way, even oligarchs with far less sway and wealth than Musk.

He is also not "best known" for Tesla (which he neither founded nor invented) and SpaceX; that implies that his role as an oligarch, the political power he wields, is secondary to owning 13% of the Tesla shares, which is obviously ridiculous. He is best known for wreaking havoc on democracies around the world, supporting the far-right, meddling in elections in the United States and other countries, and now acting as if he were the unelected President or perhaps Emperor of the United States. --Tataral (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh please stop. Please. Stop.
Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead
Please, stop. Big Thumpus (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
No, we're not going to stop having discussions on how we can improve the article. There was indeed an RfC that addressed a part of the broader topic discussed here, a while ago and before he started running around unilaterally "shutting down" huge government agencies and acting as if he was the President. And before President Biden warned of this "oligarchy [that] is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom." But we obviously need to revisit this question, among others. Things change. --Tataral (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Let's uphold WP:NPOV. if you can't. stay away from any political articles. your personal opinions are irrelevant. facts matter here. CViB (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Now the lead has been changed to "is a businessman and United States federal special government employee." While it may be technically correct that he currently holds such a role, it doesn't at all capture his role and political influence as an oligarch, during the election (when he didn't even hold this role) and after it. Again, nothing he does is typical of a "federal special government employee." For pretty obscure oligarchs (by comparison) linked to Russia, we have described them as oligarchs without any issue if they meet the typical definition, and combine wealth with closeness to state power. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
This won’t happen until lots of high quality academic sources describe him that way. There’s a few low quality ones at the moment. Media is junk. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Reference DOGE in the first paragraph?

The article opens by identifying Musk as a businessman and a government official. The opening paragraph goes on to describe his role and history as a businessman, but neglects his role as a government official. Should the department of government efficiency be listed in this paragraph as one of the things he is known for? ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 17:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN

For the opening paragraph I had included at the end: "Since 2022 Musk has supported the Republican Party and become progressively involved in politics both domestically and internationally." as additional context for notability per MOS:OPENPARABIO, but alas it was reverted. Do you think this is a suitable neutral addition? Is there a better way to phrase this without having a contentious argument?

Additionally, the Views article that after trimming undue content is still 8,000 words, so I now wonder if also including the sentence: "Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure." (from last paragraph of lead) would also be suitable to move into the opening paragraph, linking those child articles in the process. Notably the Views article is one of the most viewed child articles, so I'd assume enough readers are looking for this, and with the new summarised sections these are more appropriate audience targets.

I think this has the benefit of helping the reader navigate to the relevant child article content they are looking for, similar to how business career and his ownership of X is also wikilinked the MOS:OPEN. The full paragraph (based on current wording) would then read:

Elon Reeve Musk (/ˈiːlɒn mʌsk/; born June 28, 1971) is a businessman and government official known for his key roles in the automotive company Tesla, Inc. and the space company SpaceX. He is also known for his ownership of the technology company X Corp. and his role in the founding of the Boring Company, xAI, Neuralink, and OpenAI. Musk is the wealthiest individual in the world; as of January 2025, Forbes estimates his net worth to be US$426 billion. Since 2022 Musk has supported the Republican Party, has become progressively involved in politics both domestically and internationally, and his views have made him a polarizing figure.

CNC (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I moved these sentences up that we're burying at the bottom of the opening paragraph instead. I was going for something a bit more neutral, but this wording has consensus so it's fine.[16] Now I'm just counting down for it to be reverted I guess. CNC (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Treasury Dept. gives Elon Musk's team access to sensitive federal payment system

This is a huge event, but it's recent.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-doge-treasury-5e26cc80fcb766981cea56afd57ae759 Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

We may want to give it a few days to see how things go, but yes, unlawfully and unconstitutionally shutting down a government agency and interfering with payments directed by Congress, while ignoring classification laws is kind of a big thing.
Maybe pretending that this isn't happening will distract his fans from posting endlessly about how he's too autistic to know what a Nazi salute is? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Please no more "two anonymous people ~familiar with the matter~ and one political opponent said [insert event related to Trump administration] could be a catastrophe!". We really need to stop adding things to articles, especially BLPs, that get headline news coverage for a few days and then turn out to completely unravel. If DOGE does anything unconstitutional, it will absolutely be covered in reliable sources in the future and can be incorporated into the encyclopedia. Otherwise WP:NOTNEWS. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
We already know that what he's doing is both illegal and unconstitutional, and that multiple sources are talking about it.
This is the one of the same things Trump got impeached for last time, when he withheld aid to Ukraine to try to blackmail them into making up dirt about a political opponent. Congress directs spending, the President can't just say, "No, I don't feel like it."
We don't need to rush it into the article, but being at the center of a constitutional crisis is absolutely notable and we'll need to be ready to add it in when things settle a bit. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
No, we don't know that. "Multiple sources" just happen to be sources that have been openly politically opposed to the current president for an entire decade. If by "when things settle a bit" you mean 5 to 10 years in the future then I agree, I think we'll have a much better understanding of everything by then and academic sources to rely on instead of news media. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay? *You* may not know how the US government works and aren't familiar with the issues from that impeachment, but almost everyone else here is? Why don't you let the people who understand the issue edit this section?
And no, we don't need to wait years to document his involvement in illegal activities just because it would make his fans unhappy. This is a dictionary, not a fan page. We should have at least something up by the end of the week, there's already at least one lawsuit about it and there's going to be more soon. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Good luck achieving the consensus you desire without remaining WP:CIVIL Big Thumpus (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
If you're trying to pretend that disagreeing with you about having to wait "5-10 years" to tell the truth about Musk is 'Uncivil' you're going to keep getting hugely outvoted by unbiased editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I think you need to really read over WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS and maybe WP:CIVIL one more time while you're at it Big Thumpus (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Stop posting your personal attacks on the article talk page. If you can't contain yourself to discussing the article, move it to a user talk page.
If you're going to quote policies, try to follow them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The Financial Times reported on February 2 that Musk responded to an X post by Michael Flynn, who posted a spreadsheet purportedly showing federal payments to Global Refuge, a charity that provides services to legal migrants. Without evidence, Flynn asserted there was money laundering involved and that there were many other organizations "cashing in on our hard-earned money". Musk responded that DOGE "is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments." He later asserted that federal employees are "breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress".[17] soibangla (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This page may be of interest of editors here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Large overlap in politics and views sections

These sections should be combined, they largely describe the same thing. --FMSky (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed overlap in this article with this edit. Going to sort out the overlap in Views and Political activities articles. The international sections need to be merged whole and left at the activities article it seems, but will see. CNC (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I meant the individual sections "Views" and "Politics", not the lead --FMSky (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

AfD notifcation

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other activities of Elon Musk regarding deleting Other activities of Elon Musk. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other activities of Elon Musk. Thank you. CNC (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Extreme concision edits have introduced comprehensiveness and due weight issues

There were issues with this article, but the extreme shortening by CommunityNotesContributor has harmed the quality of this article. They have trimmed it to a shockingly shockingly brief 1,830 words. For comparison, the Jeff Bezos is at 7,200 words and Mark Zuckerberg is at a similar 6,271 words. Both of those are Good Articles. Should Musk's article really be 5 to 6 times shorter? That seems very extreme. And beyond the unwarranted brevity, CommunityNotesContributor has introduced a number of issues to the article:

  1. Undue weight The uneven trimming of certain sections has created significant issues in terms of undue weight and recentism. For instance, Twitter gets nearly as much coverage as the entirety of the rest of his 25 years of business. etc. Note that almost one half of the lead is about his business career. Because that's what most of the coverage on Musk has focused on in the past 25 years. That should be reflected in the body as well.
  1. Factual inaccuracies and prose quality CommunityNotesContributor has taken a haphazard, seemingly random approach to what is and what was not kept. And gross factual inaccuracies have also been introduced. For instance: "Musk received $176 million after PayPal acquired eBay as the companies largest shareholder." is incorrect as eBay purchased PayPal, and the latter half of the sentence is both nonsensical and lacks an aprostrophe. There is slop like this everywhere.

We need to return to a length and level of summary style that this article possessed when it was successfully promoted to GA status by myself and QRep2020. I have just restored an appropriately concise business career section, but all other sections must be addressed as well. ~ HAL333 01:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Article is currently 6,185 words.[18] There's also approximately 2,000 words from Other activities of Elon Musk that is lilely to return via AfD, meaning it'd be within the ideal remit of words per WP:SIZEGUIDE. CNC (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
The article is 6,185 words because I just added a lengthened business career section and the public image section. Before I restored much of the old content, it was 1,830. Additionally, WP:SIZERULE is not absolute. Note that an article that is 8900 words does not necessarily even need to be trimmed/divided. Although such a length is likely too long in this case. ~ HAL333 01:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Before you restored content, it was 4,478 words.[19] With Other activities returned it would have been around 6,500. I otherwise have no objections to returning sections in summary style as you have done. CNC (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
According to X-tools, the article was 1,830 words prior. Regardless, that's good to hear. I'll trim the Personal Life section next (which I think is too long and can be better organized) and then I'll start working on making sure other sections adhere to summary style. ~ HAL333 01:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Good. I appreciate the effort you are putting in to returning the article to better quality. CNC (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Happy to help. For instance, the COVID-19 subsection definitely needs a reintroduction in some capacity. QRep2020 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1273402733 and its introduction of 2 subsections again shifts the focus too much on his views and poltics and away from his business career which he was exclusively known for until last July. - FMSky (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, I reverted that. Adding two random sub-sections is how you end up with a dozen sub-sections instead of a summary style section. No need to go down that route again. To clarify, I'm not completely opposed to having sub-section summaries for Views, similar to Business career, but adding Transgender and COVID-19, when these aren't the main sub-sections of the child article, provided WP:FALSEBALANCE and I don't consider an NPOV edit either. If higher-level indpeth sections were summarised, say Politics and Science and technology, I wouldn't be opposed, or otherwise summarising the entire child. CNC (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Related but there should really be a "political career" section at this point. His activities in the current US administration have been covered extensively in reliable sources (e.g. [20]) but are barely or not at all mentioned beyond his political views. Citing (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
It has not even been a month, and for all we know it might not last a month. Lets at least wait and see if this does actually become anything long-term. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I concur, see WP:CRYSTAL. ~ HAL333 17:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Ditto. There is also the entire Politics section of the Views article. CNC (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I can't tell you how long it will last or what its impact will be but it is absolutely not WP:CRYSTAL to point out that his career as a politician exists and is currently happening. Hell, he's worked with the White House longer than Anthony Scaramucci. Citing (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the better argument would be merging Political views with Political activities and making Political positions of Elon Musk or similar. There would at least be enough words for a standalone, and Views article would then get back below 9,000 words split (where it belongs). Though granted there is a lot of trimming needed there also. CNC (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
These are not abstract "views" or "positions", these are actions which he is undertaking or overseeing in his capacity as lead of a presidential commission. With respect to the activities/views sections, I think anything from 2024 onwards (like speaking at rallies or with other leaders, hosting political fundraisers and events, working with DOGE, etc) could easily fit the umbrella of a "political career" section. Citing (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Per comment in other topic, I'll sort out the "international" sections of both articles and merge where possible, but after going through both subjects I agree they are very distinctly different. I wouldn't be opposed to moving to Political activities to Political career, but also think it may be too soon if most it is still funding based CNC (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Some information from the article before the trimming needs to be added back EarthDude (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
This has more of less been resolved with editing, what information do you think is still missing? CNC (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually, i went thru the article and nvm lol. It seems that its been fixed already EarthDude (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Relationships & children

The following sentence should be moved from the last to the first paragraph of this section, where it is relevant:

The elder twin later came out as a trans woman and, in 2022, officially changed her name to Vivian Jenna Wilson,[377]adopting her mother's surname because she no longer wished to be associated with Musk.


The following sentence in the final paragraph of this section should be clarified - the previous sentence talks about Grimes therefore it is not clear that the ‘pair’ in this sentence is actually Musk and Zilis:

In September 2023 it was reported that the pair had had a third child (Musk's eleventh). Louise.a.thomson (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Trimming intricate detail

In the first paragraph of the lead, we mention no fewer than seven companies that he is said to have some involvement with. This seems excessive and makes the first paragraph overly long and intricate in detail. Some of these companies are ones where he was just one of several people involved in providing funding or held a minority position.

The second and third paragraphs already provide detailed coverage of his business career and mention these companies again. I believe it would be sufficient to highlight only two or three of the companies he is most closely associated with, such as Tesla (with his 13% ownership) and Twitter, in the first paragraph while covering the lesser-known ones in the second and third paragraphs. --Tataral (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN as well as #MOS:OPEN. Overall in the lead there is a false balance with undue weight given to Musk's business career, when there are child articles with 8,000+ words of due notability to cover instead. CNC (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the lead is still largely the same as it was two years ago when he was primarily a businessman. Just like we had to rethink the balance of the Trump article when he became a major political figure, we need to do the same for Musk, where the lead is overwhelmingly about intricate details about his business career. In the lead section of Donald Trump, only a single paragraph now briefly summarizes his business and entertainment career in the lead, so at least three-quarters of the lead is about his political role. For Musk, it would probably be appropriate to strive for a 50-50 balance for now. That means condensing his business career and expanding on his current political role. --Tataral (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree with this assessment. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
He's still primarily a businessman --FMSky (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. He seems to have spent more time acting for Trump over the past month. Perhaps we can find a recent source for that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes "past month", that would be WP:RECENTISM. We dont erase someone's 25-year career because of a bunch of viral moments and twitter posts in the last weeks. There is also a whole lead paragraph already dealing with this exact topic -- FMSky (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Based on due weight, there is a lot less about his business career and more about his views and political activities. You only need to count up the words to see that, putting aside the summary style of parent article. CNC (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
That was because you erased most of it lmao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Extreme_concision_edits_have_introduced_comprehensiveness_and_due_weight_issues which people even objected to --FMSky (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Can we edit this article neutrally and not have it become the mess that is trump's article please --FMSky (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Describing his role as "a bunch of viral moments and Twitter posts" is so ridiculous it doesn't really deserve an answer. When someone becomes the president or the de facto ruler of the world's most powerful country or wields unparalleled political power, then their previous career in private business matters far less in comparison. This is because the impact of governing a country, not to mention the United States, is far greater than that of being a private businessman.

The Donald Trump lead section went from being only about his business and entertainment career to only briefly mentioning it, spending most of the lead on his political career. That was the correct decision and a result of his new role when he became president.

Editing this article neutrally means taking into account that his current role is not the same as it was two years ago when he had no political role in a far-right government that is engaged in what many describe as a totally unprecedented coup, in which he personally plays a key part.

The lead is already too long, leaving no room to describe his evolving role in government. It is absolutely necessary for us to remove the irrelevant intricacies about citizenship applications (like how exactly he qualified to apply in Canada) and CV-like details about his bachelor's degree, as they belong in the body of the article. We also need to condense his business career to focus on the main companies he is associated with, rather than listing every single investment he has made. --Tataral (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For now, the condensed version can be seen here[21]
There is still work to do to describe his role in the Trump administration more accurately, including what is going on with shutting down government departments, violating the Constitution and other laws, accusations of being behind a coup, and so forth.
And of course we haven't figured out the first sentence yet. A "United States special Government employee" is obviously not an adequate description of his political role, even if he now technically holds such an appointment. "Oligarch" would be the one-word description, but that is a separate discussion, above. --Tataral (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Since no kind of justification has been offered for reverting the necessary, careful, and conscientious trimming (with detailed justifications) of undue intricate detail in the already too long lead section that was discussed here, and since there is a general consensus in this discussion for this trimming that is well supported by policy (per above), the shorter version will be reinstated shortly. This version aligns better with our guidelines for lead sections and also leaves a little bit of room for a few extra sentences on his role in government once we agree on them, which is the next thing we need to do. --Tataral (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that FMSky is still edit warring over the edits agreed on here while refusing to provide any kind of justification for it and failing to gain any kind of support. And they are also introducing absolutely ridiculous puffery in a whole new section devoted entirely to praising Musk (without any kind of consensus). This should all be reverted immediately. --Tataral (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Which part do you consider edit warring? And which consensus are you talking about? --FMSky (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You have repeatedly reverted other editors' work, as discussed in this very section, instead of seeking consensus. There is consensus here to remove, for example, the intricate detail listing seven companies in the first section. There are also a number of other edits you have offered no kind of justification for, edits that have been discussed here and that editors have offered detailed justifications for. --Tataral (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
But there was never any consensus to remove these companies in the first place? --FMSky (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You don't have a personal veto. You are the only editor objecting, while several editors agree it doesn't belong. You also don't cite any kind of policy to back up your claims, while the argument that it doesn't belong is based on a solid policy foundation. You offer short one-sentence replies with assertions of your personal opinions but don't engage with other editors' policy-based arguments in a detailed or serious manner. That is not enough. You also posted a false edit-warring warning in retaliation for non-edit-warring, in this case implementing a change after discussing it in great detail and waiting for a response. --Tataral (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually only one editor has agreed with you so far, and the discussion has only been open for a bit over a day. Either way, you've got your wish, and your preferred version is now in the article (including the category "Neo-nazi polticians in the United States") --FMSky (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not one editor though, I assume you are referring to me here. There was a previous brief discussion about adhering to summary style guidelines, that other editors agreed to, hence it was implemented. The issue here is that after the radical re-summarization of the topic, the lead now requires refining and the due notable context included into the MOS:OPEN as I've stated before. CNC (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for a slight trim in the 3rd section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1274423433&oldid=1274423263 This doesn't really add anything. The main point is the increase in hate speech. --FMSky (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
@CommunityNotesContributor: Thoughts on that trim? --FMSky (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Slightly trimming the Twitter stuff by removing "large employee layoffs" and the Twitter verification issue, while keeping "His acquisition of Twitter was controversial due to an increase in hate speech and the spread of misinformation and disinformation on the service", would be fine in my opinion (in addition to the existing trim, of course). --Tataral (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah the existing trim can stay obviously. I actually changed my mind on that, as there wasn't really all that much lost - FMSky (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

RM notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Personal and business legal affairs of Elon Musk regarding a Requested move of the article to Legal affairs of Elon Musk. The thread is Requested move 31 January 2025. The discussion is about the topic Personal and business legal affairs of Elon Musk. Thank you. CNC (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Remove office holder template in infobox

Elon is a consultant [22] and hence should not use office holder template

The United States Digital Service and Department of Government Efficiency is not considered a public office because it is a government initiative staffed by professionals who are not elected or in positions of sovereign authority. They provide technical expertise but do not exercise legislative, judicial, or executive power in the traditional sense. It is not created by law

Office holder template should be used for individuals who hold or have held a recognized political or governmental office (e.g., a mayor, minister, senator, etc.).

Temporary Status: DOGE was created via executive order as a “temporary organization” under the U.S. Digital Service, with a scheduled closure date of July 4, 2026

The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen [23] “special government employee” (SGE), a temporary appointment limited to 130 days/year. SGEs typically advise agencies rather than hold permanent, statutorily defined offices

Using office holder template would misrepresent DOGE’s status and potentially violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies. Astropulse (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems a valid objection. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Your source does not state anywhere that Elon Musk is a consultant; it specifically mentions that Tom Krause was hired as a consultant, not Musk.
"The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen" is inaccurate. Even if temporary, an SGE is still a government employee (as indicated in the title). Therefore, the fact that he is an SGE with a temporary appointment and was not elected should not disqualify the use of the officeholder template, as he remains a government employee, and his involvement with DOGE is highly notable.
However, we do not know Musk's official title. We only know that he is classified as a Special Government Employee (SGE) and that he leads DOGE.
I suggest using "Head of the Department of Government Efficiency" or "Head of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization" in the infobox, as "Head" is a generic term. Max1298 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
"Trump said the new department will realize long-held Republican dreams and "provide advice and guidance from outside of government," [24]
All people in that department are consultants. Its a temporary department to start with.
question is not about Elon's title. weather office holder template should be used or not Astropulse (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The source you cited is from November, when DOGE was expected to be a presidential commission. However, it is now clear that they are not operating outside the government as Trump had claimed; instead, they are an official organization within the Executive Office of the President (EOP).
And no, they are not just consultants as you said. DOGE is actively implementing changes within the government, such as developing in-house AI for government use.[25] They will also “make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system” at the FAA,[26] among other initiatives. These are direct government functions, not advisory roles.
Therefore, yes, the officeholder template is appropriate, since Musk is now an official government employee leading a highly notable official government organization that is actively making changes within the federal government. Max1298 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
[27] This is feb 6. Musk's status with the federal government was unclear.
"The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen"
Thus office holder is not appropriate at this time Astropulse (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
The source you provided speaks of a lawsuit filed on February 3, in which the lawsuit stated that at the time of its filing, Musk's status with the federal government was unclear.
However, the White House has since confirmed that Musk is indeed serving as a Special Government Employee (SGE), which is a clear designation of government employment, even if temporary—it's literally in the name. As CNN reported, Musk is also "covered by a federal conflicts-of-interest statute, which prohibits government employees from participating in matters that would affect their financial interests." [28]
So, while the lawsuit raised questions before the clarification, the current, official confirmation makes it clear that Musk is indeed a government employee. Thus, the officeholder template is appropriate. Max1298 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
They made DOGE official already? Bro, there is so much insane shit happening in the US in such a short period of time, its getting difficult to keep up. Isn’t this RfC basically pointless now tho? EarthDude (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
DOGE has been official since January 20, when Trump signed Executive Order 14158, establishing it Max1298 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
all public officials are government employees, but not all government employees are public officials.
i need to think more and research whats happening right now. for now - ill let other's continue discuss Astropulse (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
[29]They argued access for Musk, a "special government employee", and Doge, which is not an official government department, violated federal law.
Judge has blocked elon teams access to treasury department. we need to wait until how this ultimately plan in court. Astropulse (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I don’t see how this is relevant to the discussion. Whether DOGE is classified as a 'department' or not is beside the point—it is still an official government organization operating within the Executive Office of the President. Just read the Executive Order that established it. Max1298 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
At this point, it really doesnt matter whether or not DOGE is an official government agency or not. DOGE is basically a private entitiy acting as a government entity, with all the powers a government agency would have. So, office holder should not be removed, and should be kept, because Musk and DOGE, be it officially of not, are functionally acting as a part of the government, and Wikipedia should represent this reality. Reliable sources back this EarthDude (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that. your comment only making my case. Musk do not have real power. eg. They only have read only access to treasury payment system. Elon advises president and president makes decision ( like consultants ). He cannot make any changes to government. Trump itself has said this [30] Astropulse (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
No. You completely missed the point. I said that even if DOGE is not an official agency, the org and Musk himself have enormous power in the system, and are functionally acting like a full government organization and Musk as a government employee. So, Wikipedia should represent that reality and keep the officeholder section in the infobox EarthDude (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
You are confusing influence with power. he doesn't have any official power because DOGE is not a official agency. He advice's the president. Trump has not made it clear if Elon is an officer or employee of the U.S. government as per the source already linked [31]. DOGE "provide advice and guidance from outside of government" [32] Astropulse (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this is a valid objection. Do we have any other articles for precedent we could compare to? I would guess not many, but the best I can find are others listed on the Special Government employee article. Both Huma Abedin and Scott Atlas do not use office holder infoboxes, and this is the closest position I can find to compare Elon's position. So far, the officeholder template seems to mainly be used for either elected/Congress-confirmed officials, or officials heading departments approved by Congress, or officials heading permanent government departments (such as the CDC or EPA). - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Adding Template:Infobox officeholder here for easy reference. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I dont mean influence. I mean full on political power, to do actions others wouldnt be able to do, but he can due to his position. For example, his recent unilateral actions in the Treasury or USAID, are some actions he was able to do via DOGE, which would otherwise require official govt agencies or acts of congress. Again, you are misinterpreting what im saying. DOGE is not an official government agency but has as much actual tangible political power, if not more, comparatively to any other official agency. Wikipedia should represent that reality, and so the inclusion of the office holder template for DOGE is really important. I would actually argue not having that included in the infobox would be violating WP:NPOV EarthDude (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
they are suing the trump administration over USAID [33] if he had the power to do it - then there wouldn’t be a lawsuit, would there? you need congress approval to dismantle USAID Astropulse (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't know what you want to achieve with this but musk doge held such a significant political power that is greater than many top officials, I agreed with EarthDude (wether doge is an official govt agency or not) it still have much actual tangible power and Wikipedia should represent this reality.
I see nothing different rather than the president executing his political power through doge and this is such a big deal to look down upon. Thisasia  (Talk) 03:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
BTW: wether congress agrees or suing him does not mean the president power is obsolete, this two are executive branch of the government and the executive power of the president are not something to belittle... A reminder: USAID was created through an executive order and can be dismantled through an executive orders. Thisasia  (Talk) 03:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
wiki should reflects facts through reliable sources. is there any reliable sources claiming it is a official government
[34] this article question its power
[35] this disputes its a official government agency
so at this point - i have not seen a reliable source source saying it is a official government agency and it has real power Astropulse (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
[36] CBS News has confirmed that DOGE was established by an Executive Order and is "housed within the executive branch"—meaning it is an official government organization. CBS News also explicitly states that it is not an outside advisory committee. The order also placed DOGE within an existing White House office (OMB) and assigned teams to federal agencies.
Additionally, CBS states that Musk is classified as a 'special government employee' by the White House—which means he is a government employee, even if temporary.
While there have been lawsuits questioning certain aspects of DOGE's actions, such as its access to data, these do not change the fact that DOGE operates within the federal government. Lawsuits and legal challenges are common for any new government initiative, and they are part of the process of ensuring accountability, but they don't negate the official status of DOGE as part of the executive branch.
If you still claim DOGE is not an official government organization, you need to provide a source that explicitly states it is not part of the U.S. government—because all evidence, including the Executive Order and multiple news reports, confirms that it is. Max1298 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I think we can keep the template until the outcome of the DOGE-related legal proceedings is determined. Astropulse (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
[37] As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commissioned officer, Musk will file a confidential financial disclosure report, a White House official said on Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about personnel matters publicly.
This is enough to remove officeholder template. I removed it Astropulse (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Please stop with all this misinformations and learn about what a president can do within his judiciary:
. The president executive order that established doge is enough for the reliable source, there are many sources all over his campaign periods on doge too.
. Just because there was a law suit from few people in the congress doesn't mean doge is obsolete and unofficial.
. The president doesn't need anyone permission to do anything within his judiciary and the establishment of doge is among too.
. As for the USAID: The president can still dismiss them through doge with his executive order and he has many valid reasons to implement it just as we have seen from the allegations against USAID.
. The establishment of doge and the dismantling of USAID are within the president constitutional judiciary and do not need the congress.
BTW: right now the congress are majority Republicans just if they are even needed to implement orders within their judiciary. Thisasia  (Talk) 15:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
there is no misinformation here. im questioning if he is officer or not. not presidents power.
and i was right. read [38] its confirmed - he is not a officer Astropulse (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
"As for the USAID: The president can still dismiss them through doge with his executive order and he has many valid reasons to implement it just as we have seen from the allegations against USAID."
Actually, the president's power is limited. USAID's existence and role is defined by an act of Congress, and the president has taken an oath to execute the laws. He can't just shut it down. And sociopath that he is (as Musk also is), the "allegations" you mention are just their self-serving lies. NME Frigate (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
There's no source that refers to Musk as a "consultant" in his relation to D.O.G.E., he's a special government employee and his role is heading the Department of Government Efficiency. This makes him an office holder.
Your desire to remove the office holder template under the false premise that Musk is a "consultant" may potentially violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies that we have to enforce as editors, I suggest that you withdraw yourself from the editing process of this article. RickStrate2029 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
see [39] its argued a "special government employee", and Doge, which is not an official government department, violated federal law Astropulse (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment - Members of presidential commissions have historically been included as an office holder and had a template for it on their Wikipedia infobox.
ColdestWinterChill (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Members of presidential commissions that have office holder infoboxes are usually senior advisors (as far as I can tell), meaning they were appointed to a position in the White House Office, an established government entity. Musk is not this; he is a special government employee, and as I said before, I cannot find an example of another one on Wikiepdia that uses an office holder infobox.
Musk's appointment as this type of "employee" also means his position can only be 130 days long. I don't see how an office "holder" position fits with that, if he is a temporary employee. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
i found out something interesting. SGE can be an officer or an employee [40] But how do we determine if Elon is an officer ?
[41] This claims "The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen" - so what should we do ? Astropulse (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
[42] As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commissioned officer, Musk will file a confidential financial disclosure report, a White House official said on Friday Astropulse (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
He's a cabinet member, keep the title Yesyesmrcool (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
He is not a cabinet member lol. DOGE isnt a cabinet department like Department of Education or smth. It is however a government agency, and a pretty powerful one at that, so yeah, the officer holder template should be kept EarthDude (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Elon - Director of the U.S. DOGE ??

It’s silly to see Elon listed as the Director of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization in the infobox.

He held that position for only a few days, whereas he has been the CEO of Tesla for years and is primarily known as a businessman. That remains his main role. He is not a political figure, as he has never held public office or run for election. Yet, we are using officeholder templates for him. DOGE is a temporary thing. Not even approved by congress

How did we decide to label Elon as a doge director over his long-standing career as a businessman and entrepreneur? Astropulse (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

He is not primarily known as a businessman. It is not his main role. He is primarily known as an oligarch who combines private wealth with political meddling and now state power, in what is described as a coup or power grab that has made him a principal figure of the current regime in the United States, and also a main target of protests. Apart from that, his exact formal title is of secondary importance; his political meddling started before he held that title, so we don't need it in the infobox. --Tataral (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
He is 53, he has only held political office for a little under a month. No he is still known mainly for his business. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
his political meddling has been going on for years before he took political office, though. - avxktty (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
And Donald Trump was in his 70s when he became president and had been a public figure known for business and entertainment for decades. But the thing is, governing a country has far greater impact than anything you do in private business, including owning 13% of Tesla. Now, business and entertainment are only briefly mentioned in Donald Trump's lead section to make room for what is most important—the impact he has on the country and world as president. This is a holistic decision based not only on the time that has passed, but also weighted against what has the greater impact.
Elon Musk already wields unprecedented power, does unprecedented things, and Democratic lawmakers are already protesting that nobody elected Musk. With this kind of impact on the country, it doesn't matter that he has only held a formal government role since this year. Plus, he meddled in the election and in other ways for around two years before that. --Tataral (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
no i think what elon did as a business man far exceeds what he did with trump in recent days.
its too much of a reach to say unprecedented power, does unprecedented things etc... he is just doing controversial things. and after few months DOGE will cease to exist. elon will get back to silicon valley and continue with his business Astropulse (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Not really. He's largely known for his politics now EarthDude (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
WP:RECENT Astropulse (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
He's been known for his politics for the past couple of years. This is not WP:RECENT EarthDude (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
what politics ? commenting on twitter and talking doesn't mean he is involved in politics. every successful business leader has some involvement with political leader's. that doesn't mean elon is a political leader or political person. he gonna run for a public office. never done that. Astropulse (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
he was directly responsible for buying twitter and turning it far to the right. this has had very significant effects on politics and the spread of information online. i do not think it is really a question whether he has had a major influence in right wing politics for the past few years. - avxktty (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
He does not have a "political office" -- he is a special advisor to the president.
We should not refer to Ckg (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
It's actually normal for Wikipedia articles on people holding government office to list that office first in their biographical information box.
And since we're talking about Musk's current job, I'll just note this new article here:
The many ways Elon Musk’s DOGE is breaking the law, explained by a law professor | Vox NME Frigate (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
He doesn't really hold political office though, so this is probably the wrong infobox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not a political office* but it is a government office. See for comparison the article on Ivanka Trump. The first two things listed are the White House positions she held in 2017-21: positions to which she was appointed, just like Musk.
Ivanka Trump was also a senior advisor though, correct? Meaning she held an appointed position within the White House Office. I'm guessing the officeholder infobox is used moreso for that reason, since all the Senior Advisors I've seen on Wikipedia use this infobox.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Musk was appointed, but instead is considered a "Special Government Employee".[43] The only two other special government employees I know to compare to (listed on the Special Government employee article) do not have office holder infoboxes either: Huma Abedin and Scott Atlas. They aren't the best comparisons, but since the legality of DOGE and Musk's position is being questioned in court, I feel like the article shouldn't jump the gun either. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, in infoboxes, governance and involvement in it takes precedence of business affairs EarthDude (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk:Elon Musk#Remove office holder template in infobox
@Avxktty@EarthDude@Kolya Butternut@NME Frigate@Slatersteven@Tataral Astropulse (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Why are you pinging those editors specifically may I ask? CNC (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
because its related conv. and pinging involved editors Astropulse (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Last sentence of Intro

The last sentence of the intro is a run-on sentence, and I don't have permission to edit it. I suggest editing it as "…and claims that it is politically biased." Bill (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_23&oldid=1275695127"