Talk:Elon Musk

RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

Musk is the wealthiest person in the world. He has been described as an oligarch by prominent commentators, academics, and experts.

Should a variant of the following sentence be included in the lead?

Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

Does this addition have any support? Are there any other suggestions? (Some editors have argued that Musk should directly be referred to as an oligarch in the lead. I now agree with those that oppose doing so per WP:UNDUE.) Firecat93 (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support I support this course of action.

Here are just a few notable examples of prominent commentators, academics, and experts who have characterized Musk as an oligarch:

• Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, has described Musk as a "petulant oligarch" [8] [9]
• Former United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has referred to Musk as an oligarch [10]
• Senior fellow at Brookings and former Senior Director at the United States National Security Council during the Trump administration, Fiona Hill, has characterized Musk as an emerging oligarch [11] [12][13]
• Ali Breland, staff writer at The Atlantic, has described Musk as "a new kind of oligarch" [14]
• United States House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) has called Musk as an "unelected oligarch." [15]
• United States Senator Bernie Sanders (I-V.T.) has described Musk as an oligarch [16][17]
• There are many other examples in reliable sources of the term oligarch being associated with Musk, including by academics like Northwestern political scientist Jeffrey Winters, who specializes in the study of oligarchy. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]

This characterization has received significant media coverage, especially in the past year.

Influential Russian billionaires such as Roman Abramovich are referred to as oligarchs in their article leads, as there is consensus in RS that they are oligarchs. This is clearly not true in the case of American billionaires like Musk. However, I believe that this characterization should still be briefly described in the lead in as neutral a way as possible.

For reference, Oxford Languagues' Google dictionary defines an oligarch as, "a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence."

From the Business Oligarch Wikipedia Page: A business leader can be considered an oligarch if some of the following conditions are satisfied:

1. uses monopolistic tactics to dominate an industry;
2. possesses sufficient political power to promote their own interests, often exacerbating income inequality and corruption, particularly through policies that benefit the elite at the expense of the majority.
3. controls multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.

Firecat93 (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, per WP:NOTGOSSIP regarding leads of BLPs, "News reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary."

Additionally, per lead policy, "The lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents."

1. Does Musk's article go into more detail about him being an oligarch? The article must, if it is going to be considered summarizing the article's contents.

2. And do we believe calling him an oligarch is one of the most important contents? I don't believe so. Pistongrinder (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the items in Firecat93's Business Oligarch list, I see only the last example as true. This seems like the purpose of the post is a derogatory one, as the term Oligarch usually applies to Russians. It's one thing in a legacy or speculation section, but the lead??? Not a good fit. I'm sure there are even more people that would describe him as something like a benevolent genius, where I'm sure he is closer to something in the middle ground. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click) Regardless of whether or the label applies, Musk has been described as an oligarch by academics and experts such as Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and Fiona Hill. I am not advocating that we describe Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as in the lead.

  Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

  I've listed some examples of this characterization in my comment above such as House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.)'s description of Musk as an "unelected oligarch" [27] Firecat93 (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Look, we all know how politics is these days. If you are on the opposing side you're nothing short of Godzilla out to destroy the world. That isn't encyclopedic, and it's undue weight. As I had said, and what we do with many sports figures, in a legacy section or political enemy section, it could fit.... but it is certainly not something we would put in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• @Firecat93 Support

reasons:

the duck test: The "duck test" is a form of reasoning that identifies something based on its observable characteristics: "If it looks, swims, and quacks like a duck, it likely is a duck".Applied to Elon Musk as an oligarch, critics like Bernie Sanders argue that Musk's immense wealth and political influence resemble characteristics of oligarchy- concentrated power in the hands of the wealthy.Musk's actions, such as pressuring lawmakers and influencing government decisions, align with this critique, fitting the "duck test" for oligarchic behavior.

International perception: sources should still be collected by expanding the relevant section of the article but internationally musk has been perceived as Oligarch.

Elon Musk has been characterized as an oligarch internationally, particularly in Germany and Britain:

Germany: Politicians like Dennis Radtke (CDU) and Anton Hofreiter (Greens) condemned Musk's endorsement of the far- right AfD, calling it a threat to democracy, "Haken dran" and "Lanz und Precht" discussed him as an Oligarch.

Britain: Media outlets like Spiked and Byline Times referred to Musk as a "foreign oligarch" due to his rumored $100 million donation to Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, raising concerns about foreign influence in politics Aberlin2 (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

By virtue of a "duck test," Musk would also be an engineer. The ASCE and other sources have described him as such. So if a "duck test" and having some quantity of experts stating as such does not justify being described as an "engineer" on this page, then neither is it sufficient for "oligarch." Foonix0 (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Foonix0 Hi, thank you for your reply.

so, when is it possible for you to describe him or to call him an Oligarch or will you always move the goalposts? Aberlin2 (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

also I'm noticing, actually the discussion is not wether he is or is not an Oligarch but If it should be mentioned that people seem to perceive him as such. what do you think about this? Aberlin2 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aberlin2 Yes, thank you. I apologize if I didn't make this clear: I am not advocating that we describe Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as one in the lead.

Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

I've listed some examples in my comment above such as House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.)'s characterization of Musk as an "unelected oligarch" [28] Firecat93 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Could it be acceptable to briefly mention he has been characterized as an engineer in the lead as per your proposal?

The relevance here is that established standards should be applied in a consistent manner. It's fine to change the standard, but it should be applied consistently. If we don't, then people will pick and choose which standard they want based on their preferred preference, which presents a bias issue. Editors will favor relaxed standards for information they like, and favor more stringent ones for information they don't like. Foonix0 (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ. QRep2020 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose As we do not fact know how much influence he really has, yet. Also if we have him as an Oligarch would that not mean we have to say this about every rich person who meddles in politics? What makes Musk special? Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  If every other rich person who meddles in politics has been described as an oligarch in a number of reliable sources, then we can describe them as oligarchs too. That's the only criteria for describing them as such; and this is an RfC on Musk alone, not every article about a rich person who meddles in politics. He's reliably described as an oligarch, he's one of the world's richest men; I would be comfortable describing him as such in-article.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am not advocating that we describe Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as one in the lead.

  Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

  I've listed some examples in my comment above such as House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.)'s characterization of Musk as an "unelected oligarch" [29] Firecat93 (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven I wanted to make this distinction clearer, as it appears that my RfC suggestion was misinterpreted by some editors. Firecat93 (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, I agree EarthDude (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Slatersteven

  if this discussion is only about mentioning his characterisations as Oligarch and not if he in fact is an Oligarch, then the difference is the reception. there are a lot of of rich people who are not characterized as Oligarch by scientists and influential public persons in multiple states across the globe

  hth Aberlin2 (talk) 18:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support as per my comment above.—Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support, WP:Spade applies, doubt any reliable source contests it. Some academic sources:

• Zelinsky 2024: By supporting the Reddit crowd, Musk performed a remarkable persona in-between his elite status as one of the tech oligarchs, at that time the world’s richest person, and his support of the populist cause against the routinized and supposedly immoral establishment.
• Allcorn 2023
• Waller 2024: Yet the oversize personality of figures such as Musk and the clear trend towards the oligarchization of near-Earth space settlement…
• Lipsitz 2024: On the question of Khan, it seems likelier that he’ll take his cues from an oligarch like Musk than from his own vice president.
• Kampmark 2024

Kowal2701 (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Zelinsky 2024 is dated within the GameStop short squeeze. Allcorn 2023 has an indirect association between Musk and oligarchy through X, and I would be hesitant to use it if there are better references. Waller 2024 might be acceptable—though oligarchization is in quotes—but I question if space colonization is the sector that most who claim Musk is an oligarch would identify their claims with. Lipsitz 2024 is an opinion article. Kampmark 2024 mentions Musk being a "tech oligarch" in passing and does not elaborate on that much, analysis that is absent from most of these articles and would greatly strengthen them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe

does that mean oppose or support? Aberlin2 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't mean either, and that is not relevant to my comment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Strongly oppose While I personally find it very interesting that the "oligarch" rhetoric ramped up as soon as Musk aligned himself with Trump's campaign, outside of that tidbit Musk's influence on the US government is being greatly exaggerated and this push to label him as an oligarch feels blatantly partisan.

Per Firecat93's comments above, which "monopolistic tactics" are being used to "dominate" an industry? Which industry? How much political power does Musk actually, legally possess? Even if he does possess political power in some way, how is he using it to promote his own interests and thereby exacerbating income inequality and corruption? Which of his businesses are "intensively" coordinating their activities?

Labeling a living person as an "oligarch" is a serious step and should only be taken if there is abundant proof, not just a relatively small collection of highly opinionated political commentators who have spent most of the last decade assigning derogatory titles to people who disagree with them politically. Big Thumpus (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The FT is probably the best source we could have, hence why it’s £40 a month. See From Putin to Musk: the making of a modern-day oligarch (2023), I can’t access it but that’ll answer most of your questions Kowal2701 (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Does the monthly cost of a source indicate its quality? I can't access it either, so unless someone who has a subscription can provide some quotes from the article for us to analyze it's not very useful. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s useful in that a highly reputable source supports the nom, I used to have access to it, but agreed quotes would be very welcome Kowal2701 (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

A plain text version of the article's body is available at https://pastebin.com/wKTThszJ.

"First, oligarchs are not simply tycoons. The latter are rich business people who may not have any political power. Lingelbach told me that Elon Musk went from tycoon to oligarch when he bought Twitter last year. The social media company, now renamed X, shapes opinion on events from Ukraine to Israel — often by platforming falsehoods. Today, adds Lingelbach, "Musk is one of the five or 10 most consequential oligarchs in our world."

QRep2020 (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay so in that article, the person referring to Elon Musk as an "oligarch", David Lingelbach, just so happens to be the author of the new book the article is entirely about? The article that even states that the definition of oligarch has been "reworked" by the two authors of said book, in order to accommodate the actions of people like Musk? Big Thumpus (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Big Thumpus & Kowal2701 - here is an archived copy of the article that is accessible. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this Big Thumpus (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701 I am not advocating that we "label" Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as one by some academics and politicians in the lead. Firecat93 (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus To clarify, I am not advocating that we describe Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as one in the lead.

Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

I've listed some examples in my comment above such as House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.)'s characterization of Musk as an "unelected oligarch" [30] Firecat93 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification but I still oppose as the opinion of a few politically biased commentators - or at the very least, commentators who may hold negative personal opinions of Musk - is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and certainly not for the lead of an article about a living person. If, say, history rolls on and it turns out in several years that Musk does in fact end up using any political power he might gain to enrich himself, increase corruption, etc. then it would be fine to expand the article. Doing so out of pure speculation before the fact gives the appearance of mud-slinging at the very least. Big Thumpus (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus

" a few politically biased commentators" are politicians and scientists from multiple nations around the world. it should of course be expanded in the article ...but still it should be mentioned in the introduction otherwise the article's introduction could seem Like Cherry picked favorable facts about his life.

Aberlin2 (talk) 16:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

They aren't favorable facts, they're just facts. That he is an oligarch is not a fact; it is the opinion of people who just so happen to also oppose him politically. Not at all appropriate for the introduction, at the very least. Big Thumpus (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That he is an oligarch is a fact, even if those who support him politically dislike the label. What else can you call a man who spent $200 million supporting Trump's campaign on top of buying out the world's largest social media platform to censor his critics and platform his political allies? For god's sake, he's even trying to bend this very site to his whims! plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I could not agree more with this positioning. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TOOSOON and rushing this to a RFC after four comments shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RFCBEFORE. Some time needs to pass before we can have a real conversation about this topic. Musk and Trump's current association is being sensationalized and what that means is mostly a lot of speculation for which it appears some of the arguments above have decided to indulge. We do not have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is a biography, not a news article. Nemov (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov Just as a clarification, I am not advocating that we describe Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as one in the lead.

  Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

  I've listed some examples in my comment above such as House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.)'s characterization of Musk as an "unelected oligarch" [31] Firecat93 (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your clarification doesn't change my argument. People engaging in name calling and speculaction falls considerably short of justification for inclusion here. Nemov (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose oligarch, as the lead of our article on Oligarchy states that it's rule by the few, which I don't think really applies here. I would Support plutocrat. Support after clarification from nom Feeglgeef (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it applies, he has been described as an oligarch by academics and experts such as Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, and Fiona Hill. I am not advocating that we describe Musk as an oligarch. My suggestion is that we briefly mention that he has been characterized as one in the lead.

Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

I've listed some examples in my comment above such as House Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.)'s characterization of Musk as an "unelected oligarch" [32] Firecat93 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Feeglgeef Firecat93 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've changed my comment. Feeglgeef (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose adding it to the lead. The term "oligarch" isn't featured significantly enough in the article body (see WP:SUMMARY) or in reliable sources (see WP:DUE) to include in the lead in my opinion. Doing a keyword search on the article's current references, I found 336 sources containing the word "billionaire" and 9 containing the word "oligarch". – Anne drew 19:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yep. We should add that he's been called an oligarch, and there's quite a few reliable sources to back that up, but it shouldn't be added in the lead. Maybe adding it in the public perception section would be better? EarthDude (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  While I still oppose the idea of adding "oligarch" generally, I believe this is the first inclusion idea that could be argued as an appropriate use of WP:DUE and WP:NEUTRALITY. Pistongrinder (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  That would work for me although we seem to have a general consensus not to include now. Thanks EarthDude Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion in the lead. This seems like basically just unnecessary name-calling. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose adding this in the lead, per Anne drew and BarrelProof. It might just about be WP:DUE as a single sentence in the politics section of the body, though note that wording such as "some academics and politicians" is discouraged by WP:WEASEL. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose A sentence is WP:DUE in the lede if it summarizes the body, and a sentence is allowed an exception to WP:WEASEL if it is used in lede and if it summarizes the body. It does not summarize the body, failing both principles. Kenneth Kho (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite what the bias news media calls him, be it oligarch or president Musk, he is neither by any definition of the words. Dream Focus 10:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, primarily because his influence has broad populist appeal. At this point, he is effectively a businessman and politician. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Dream Focus

  the discussion is currently not about if he is Oligarch or not but if it should be mentioned in the introduction that someone people publicly state that they see him this way.

  i also got this wrong the first time are you aware of the distinction?

  hth Aberlin2 (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  And some in the media call others dictators, or compare those they don't like to Hitler. We don't put that in their articles. We don't list everything anyone ever said about someone in their articles. Dream Focus 18:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support I found Aberlin2's line of reasoning especially persuasive. QRep2020 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The term oligarch isn't used much in America, it is a Russian thing and therefore it isn't clear what it means. But he can't be an oligarch in that sense because Trump isn't in power yet. Most of the sources are political opponents of Elon and not reliable. Kruger is an economist not a political scientist. Here he is acting as a pundit. I am troubled about the appeal to authority based on his so-called "Nobel Prize", because it is not relevant. Using the definition of one scholar to decide if Trump is an oligarch is SYNTH. Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I also oppose "using the definition of one scholar to decide if" Musk or anyone else is an oligarch. The RfC asked whether or not a brief sentence explaining that prominent academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an oligarch should be included in the lead. Firecat93 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - too soon. Also does not meet traditional definition of oligarch, seems like tech oligarch is a new label.

Not sure it'll last. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - We have all been following the recent events and know that the way he has used his fortune during the elections is why he was appointed to join the Department of Government Efficiency, people are just in denial about it at this point.

In the future, should US politics remain as they are, expect more billionaires to join this and similar parallel government agencies where their voices are louder than those of the public. Yoitai (talk) 12:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. Mentioning this in the lead section of the article seems appropriate, as it is backed by multiple credible sources that explicitly describe the individual as an American oligarch. The term oligarch is not exclusive to the post-Soviet context but has been applied in broader political and academic discourse to denote individuals wielding outsized influence on government, media, and public affairs and opinion due to their financial leverage. This individual's substantial influence over key industries, public discourse with privately owned social media platforms, recently policymaking, and involvement in multiple countries' elections headings aligns with this characterization. Adding this description provides important encyclopedic context for his societal role without violating WP:UNDUE, as it reflects notable, sourced opinions rather than fringe perspectives. While Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view, accurately labeling such influence with correct term seems necessary. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose While we do describe some people as oligarchs (See eg.: Roman Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, Vladimir Potanin, etc.), there is not enough here to reliably define Elon as an oligarch. However, the bar set by some here is much higher than it should be - if there is some reliable, peer-reviewed research defining Elon as an oligarch, and enough reliable reporting, then I believe the bar is met (and it isn't as far off as some here indicate). This isn't a matter of gossip, being news media, name calling, or about helping a reader understand the article, this is about the reliability of the claim that Elon is an oligarch and whether it is a defining characteristic of the person. Here, it is not - for now. ReidLark1n 23:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The RfC asked whether or not a variation of the following sentence should be included: Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch.

The discussion is not about categorizing Musk as an oligarch. Firecat (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The same logic applies whether he is being categorized as an oligarch or inserting your sentence in the led as far as I am concerned. I.e., if there was a hypothetical list of American oligarchs, then Elon would need to belong in that category to call him an oligarch in the led.

Otherwise, the current stasis of the article is sufficient in the public perception section. ReidLark1n 02:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Support as per reasons stated by other editors. Theofunny (talk) 08:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This s kind of like asking whether or not we should add that several media outlets have deemed him “shadow vice president” (I.e The Guardian). 2600:100C:A21D:971A:6018:4BB8:C9C0:2BE4 (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - If he weren't an American businessman he'd already be called an oligarch and it wouldn't be remotely controversial. The definition fits and the people labeling him as such are prominent enough. Many of the opposing comments implicitly rely on American exceptionalism. If this RFC fails I think it will be worth revisiting as Musk's role in the Trump admin becomes more clear Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:TOOSOON Sushidude21! (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Strong support: According to Oxford, the definition of an oligarch is "a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence". Musk ticks of everything here. He's the richest man on earth, with almost half a trillion dollars, and most importantly, he indeed has a great deal of political influence. First of all, he controls one of the world's most popular social media platforms, Twitter, which he has repeatedly used as a tool to promote Trump in the 2024 election, according to countless reliable sources(NBC: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-turned-x-trump-echo-chamber-rcna174321, CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/tech/elon-musk-donald-trump-x/index.html, NPR: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5156184/elon-musk-trump-election-x-twitter). According to Al Jazeera (https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/11/7/the-elon-musk-effect-how-donald-trump-gained-from-billionaires-support), Musk played a big role in Trump's reelection, taking not just Twitter, but also his sizeable donations, being one of the largest individual donor to the Trump campaign. His recent attempt to not let the government shutdown bill to pass, showed his direct attempt to leverage his wealth and influence in politics, which will only increase once the Trump Administration kicks in from Jan 20, and Musk heads DOGE. This Vox article (https://www.vox.com/money/387348/elon-musk-trump-president-billionaire-oligarchy) directly analyzes and calls out Musk's oligarch status.

EarthDude (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

So how is his status going now MAGA are telling him to eff off? Slatersteven (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — Taking a look at the six references—a number that automatically raises questions:
  • The first reference is to Business Insider, which is not a reliable source nor an unreliable source per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER. The Insider source links to an opinion article written by Paul Krugman, which might suffice here if Krugman were a qualified individual to make the claim that "petulant oligarchs rule our world"; having read Krugman's article prior to this discussion, one criticism I had of it was that it did not sufficiently associate wealth to power. I re-read it and came to the same conclusion, though I am sure that if it were written recently that Krugman could point to the debt ceiling fiasco. Still, this is not a particularly effective reference.
  • The second reference is to Barron's, which has no reliability at WP:RSP, though it was syndicated from AFP, which would make it generally reliable to use. The AFP article cites a tweet from Robert Reich. Again, the issues with the Krugman reference persist. Reich is not qualified to make the claim that Musk is an oligarch. By the time the article was written—when Twitter had named Musk to its board—Musk had a minimal political influence that primarily benefited his companies, such as his dinner with former president Barack Obama in February 2015.
  • The third reference is to The Hill, which is generally reliable per WP:THEHILL, and from October. The article cites Fiona Hill, but doesn't specifically quote her on claiming that Musk is an oligarch, but rather makes that conclusion from her statements. I continue to be skeptical of who is making these claims, though I suppose this could suffice if necessary.
  • The fourth reference is to The Atlantic, a generally reliable source, and from last week. Ali Breland makes the claim that Musk is an "information oligarch", a term he borrows from Shoshana Zuboff in the Financial Times. However, because the term is effectively a neologism, it can't be given the same weight as "oligarch" because it implicitly requires a suffix that is not widely applied as a subset of oligarchs. If it was, then Musk would be known as an information oligarch, not a general oligarch.
  • The fifth reference is a duplicate of the second.
  • The sixth reference is to Slate, which is no longer present at WP:RSP but is generally reliable regardless. The article is an interview with Jeffrey Winters, who is a political scientist and would be qualified to claim that Musk is an oligarch.
  • The seventh reference is to Newsweek, which should not be used in Trump-related articles per WP:TRUMPRS and WP:NEWSWEEK; the criticisms I have for Newsweek are elaborated in the former and which I recommend reading. Fortunately, the article is relatively acceptable given that it cites Bernie Sanders; unfortunately, it cites a politician, who is clearly not qualified to make this claim.

In all, there are only one or two usable references here. Six is a remarkably low number for a viewpoint that is not in the majority. For instance, Infowars cites thirteen references to claim it is a far-right website, with many of those being scholarly articles. Very few newspapers, if any, have independently made the association between Musk and oligarchy largely because scholars in this field often look at macropolitics with an examination of macroentities, i.e. institutions such as the banking sector. As for the statement in question, in what ways does Musk wield "considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse"? At a base level, many of the references included are not even dated to this year, and the ones that are do not make that connection, save for the Slate interview. Musk does not have influence over government policy—as the spending fight showed, industry—given that the Department of Government Efficiency has not even been formed, or public discourse—a concept I would find it difficult to qualify to begin with. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: If you consider for a moment the hundreds of thousands of articles and media attention given to Elon Musk, and then you consider the number of those sources that call him an oligarch, you simply cannot make a case for WP:DUE period, let alone in the lead. I'm actually very concerned we're considering this idea at all. As a reminder from the policy WP:NOTNEWS and its subsidiary WP:NOTGOSSIP, For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. I understand the motivation, seeing as some sources do present the label, but this opinion is WP:FRINGE and absolutely does not belong in this WP:BLP, which, by nature of the WP Policy, should err on the side of caution when presenting subjects with labels like this. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your reasoning. Just to clarify, however, the RfC proposed including a brief sentence explaining that prominent individuals have characterized him as an oligarch. It did not propose to "present" Musk with this label. Firecat93 (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — Elon has only recently obtained any form of political influence, and with someone who isn't even president yet! Under the current administration he was largely shunned (not even invited to the Whitehouse for an EV summit!!) So, WP:DUE and WP:TOOSOON. Not to mention the common understanding of the term "Oligarch" as someone having undue influence in countries where power is highly concentrated, would be a stretch in US politics.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  It wouldn't be a stretch in US politics honestly. Most industries and sectors have monopolies by a small number of corporations, and both of the two main political parties have a lot of the same corporate donors. Someone who almost got the government to shut down by using his wealth and influence to Veto a bill, when not even being in office or elected in any way, as Musk recently did, even before the Trump Administration has formed, is a clear sign of oligarchic use of power. Also, quite a few reliable sources state Musk to be a oligarch or similar to an oligarch, so it should definitely be added in the article EarthDude (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I think your facts of that situation are a little tainted. He didn't use his "wealth" to veto that bill. Himself and Vivek made people aware of the contents of the bill (1600 pages of it) and that it was trying to be pushed through congress at the last minute (not even giving senators a chance to read it) and congress itself killed the bill and replaced it with 116 page bill. That is not oligarchs abusing power, that my friend is democracy. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — Name-calling is weird. Do we need to mention that Pedro Pascal is called "the Internet daddy" in the lede of his article just because a crap ton of results from reliable sources pop up when we google it? No! BarntToust 02:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Oligarch is a word that describes, " a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence ." Describing Musk as an oligarch is not a form of name calling. Firecat93 (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not per most reliable dictionary definitions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

suppose we call every rich dude who speaks with Drumpf last an oligarch? Since the president is notorious for having being swayed by the last fellow whom he speaks with on any given subject. BarntToust 17:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust no, please read the discussion or the article Aberlin2 (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

In discussions such as these, I cannot help but notice a pattern. there are two sides. One side shares their thoughts, then the other side shares their thoughts. One side of the discussion cannot bear to let the opinions of the other just exist as they are and everyone on the other side has every particular of their two sentences of two cents bludgeoned. I don't understand why this helps any decisions to be made. Each side must have the merits of their arguments assessed by a closer. If one side's argument is garbage, a closer doesn't need the help of literally everyone in their Majesty's most Loyal Opposition in making this be known. BarntToust 22:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose — I don't think it adds to the readers knowledge of the subject to use the word oligarch. The word could be stretched to fit around Musk but at the risk of subverting the current meaning. If we use this for Musk we must surely also use it for Gates and Bloomberg (which we don't) and so many more. It does seem that one of the criteria that is being used here is the association with Trump. That's not a reason to label Musk an oligarch.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The characterization of oligarch must be done so for Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Blooomberg, and Judith Faulkner. Calling only the billionaires who supported Trump oligarchs ignores the Corporatism present in the Democrat party. Leftists are well aware of this fact and call it out, but through a Blue vs. Red lens, people who only call out Musk are doing so with the intention of steering people into the arms of Corporate Democrats instead of letting people learn of the bigger picture. When the pro-Democrats side refuses to accept criticism and only points it at the right, people become reformists and either call out partisanship behaviour OR they choose to go the anti-bi-partisanship route. Elibroftw (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, does not help readers, and is mentioned just once in the body, in the literal last paragraph. CMD (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose By my count, the lead is already at 565 words. The guideline on lead length suggests that a well-written lead is 250–400 words. That sets a high bar for adding information to the lead. If we had a 400-word paragraph in the article body on Musk's characterization as an oligarch, then adding this to the lead would be due weight. But adding a sentence to the lead about a perspective that otherwise only gets one sentence in the article is undue weight. In a lead that is already so long, if we can't write a substantial paragraph about a particular viewpoint, it probably doesn't belong in the lead. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  While policy says 400, lots of leads in featured articles have 700+ Kowal2701 (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the complexity of the subject and development of the article. There is no set policy on 400 words limit of the lead section. Onikaburgers (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC on family's wealth

Should we remove "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family"

Yes or No Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose EarthDude (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Support removal - the cited article is ambiguously sourced and contradicts facts in the more credible Isaacson biography. Because of the inadequate support, the statement appears biased and makes the entire article less credible. VRavenn (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Change: Remove the word wealthy as it suggests that they are notably wealthy. He is but they are not. Sushidude21! (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

For context, it's this part of the lead: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Musk was born in Pretoria..." Here's the previous discussion back in April-June and this was the new wording from June to November: [33] Tikaboo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. As noted, the topic was recently discussed at length, and the general language in use has been shown to be well sourced. QRep2020 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal of the WP:UNDUE emphasis on the family's wealth. While they were certainly not poor, the current wording strongly suggests that the Musk family was notably wealthy at the time of Elon's birth, which is not borne out by sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal (Summoned by bot) per Rosbif73 and for lack of WP:RS. If sufficient WP:RS can be provided that describes "the wealthy South African Musk family", then I would reconsider. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: it is treated as important context in most longer pieces, for example The Independent: "Mr Musk’s journey to such unimaginable wealth started from a position of financial privilege" and the NYT "Interviews with relatives and former classmates reveal an upbringing in elite, segregated white communities that were littered with anti-Black government propaganda, and detached from the atrocities that white political leaders inflicted on the Black majority." India Today "But he, by all means, was never poor. Neither was his family... But he did not acknowledge the part about his upbringing in a rich family." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Please provide links to the articles. I doubt I can read the NYT's article because of pay-wall. If you know of a free copy of the NYT article, I would look at it there. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find the articles from what I've provided. I would suggest the internet archive for accessing non-paywalled versions of the NYT Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, we have plenty of sources for this... The Musks were wealthy even for a white family and in Apartheid South Africa even the poorest white families were relatively wealthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's plenty of sources saying the family was wealthy when Elon was born in 1971? Can you provide them? The earliest I've seen them mentioned as wealthy is the mid 1980s. Tikaboo (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unless you're suggesting that the Musk family was of a different race prior to the 1980s they were at least relatively wealthy, South Africa was a racially segregated society in which whites occupied a position of economic and social privilege. This is what the sources say, they treat the fact that Musk being born white under an apartheid regime as important context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Nobody is disputing that the family was part of a privileged group within South African society at that time. But the current wording suggests that the family was notably wealthy at the time of Elon's birth, which is not borne out by sources. For that matter, it also implies that the family was itself a notable entity within that society, which again is not borne out by sources. In short, we are giving WP:UNDUE status to what was a relatively ordinary white family in that racially segregated society. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't say notably wealthy, it suggest that his family's position of privilage in the context of Musk's bio which is how the sources treat it. None of the sources say that they were a relatively ordinary white family, remember that his mother was already notable when Musk was born (and his dad was borderline notable)... Which means that the family was a notable entity entity within that society when he was born. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  One or two notable members does not make a family a notable entity in its own right, per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Kennedys or the Rothschilds have long been notable, the Musk family was not in 1971. And I maintain that the current wording unduly emphasises a state of wealth at the time of Elon's birth that is totally unsourced. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  This isn't an argument about whether the family was a notable entity in its own right (it literally does not matter either way). If you think we go beyond the sources that would be easy to demonstrate, and a BLP bio to boot so you would be required to remove it instantly without waiting for consensus... So apparently you either don't believe what you are saying or don't believe in following BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal from lead. This is covered sufficiently in the body and isn't notable enough to justify inclusion into the lead of the article. This isn't a source issue. MOS:LEADBIO says the lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person. Musk is notable for his career and work. The details about his early life are fine in the body. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sourced and relevant. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal from LEAD.JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal; we could always tweak the wording slightly, but his wealthy background is extremely well-sourced and treated as a major part of his biography in the sources, so it belongs in the lead. See eg. It's also worth pointing out that Musk's denials have themselves been discussed and dismissed in high-quality sources - see eg. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal per above comments, it's well sourced, and despite not being in the MOS:OPENPARABIO; it provides the necessary context as desired for the paragraph it is introducing in the lead, ie background. Additionally, this predominantly serves as a wikilink to the quasi-child article Musk family, as thus per WP:SUMMARY, this link is beneficial in the lead. So the only question should be based on how we include it, rather than whether it is due for inclusion. While we could be regurgitating more of that article into the body, it naturally makes more sense to summarise in this article body, and ideally link in the lead also for convenience. This is similar to Views of Elon Musk and Twitter under Elon Musk, that are also linked in the lead (noting that the views article summary here is awful and nowhere near a SUMMARY of the child article, but that's another topic). Finally, this is otherwise notable context in the lead as there is an entire standalone article that justifies the notability of the Musk family (re:linking child articles in lead sections), which he was born into. So on this basis, and setting aside the South African as a descriptor that I think we can all agree on, I don't believe there is a more notable description than "wealthy" at this point, per sources. CNC (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, the family someone was born into is important, and I think important enough to warrant a sentence fragment in a 5 paragraph lead. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose with qualifications, this aspect of his biography is sufficiently notable to include, however the wording as it currently stands does give the impression that the family itself is notable outside of its relationship to Elon, which I do not believe is the case. I would perhaps support a rewrite to something along the lines of "Born into a wealthy family in South Africa". Chaste Krassley (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal unless we can be more precise. So much of the argumentabove is of the how long is a piece of string kind ie in this context, highly relative. It appears to be established that compared to most black South Africans of the time, the Musks were extremely privileged, (as were most whites) but relative to a successful US physician/academic/politician or film actor, maybe much less so, maybe on a par?? Certainly they were not in the super-wealthy class of families which the present text somewhat implies. The father's profession itself or some more precise social-class term would be clearer than this very vague phrasing. Terms in the sources such as "a position of financial privilege" … "a comfortable childhood" … "The relative privilege of his upbringing" do equate to being far-from-poor, but they don't clearly equate to simple 'wealthy'. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with @Pincrete. I think the term has to be defined better, these descriptions are all relative. The evidence points much more toward a middle class upbringing. Elons mom had to work 5 jobs to support her kids He went to public/hybrid schools not private schools. Wealthy white kids went to private schools None of this points towards what is described in the article. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

  The linked article does not say that all wealthy white kids went to private school, you're making that up. According to Elon's mom when they divorced in 1979 the family had "two homes, a yacht, a plane, five luxury cars, and a truck" which doesn't sound middle class at all even by American standards (I grew up in a wealthy area and having two homes, a plane, five luxury cars, and a truck put you in the upper tier even there). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not made up, the article says this was the legacy of apartheid. But please share where the Mom says those things, I would agree if that was their level of wealth that takes it out of the middle class category. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  The article doesn't say that all wealthy white kids went to private school, either now or under apartheid. The claim is from her book A Woman Makes a Plan: Advice for a Lifetime of Adventure, Beauty, and Success. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Two homes, a plane and five luxury cars in 1979 is reasonably wealthy by most people's standards, sure, but says nothing about their wealth in 1971 when Elon was born. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are forgetting the yacht and truck... And you're going in circles, remember you're arguing against reliable sources which say that the family was wealthy (at least in a relative sense) so you need to actually provide one which says otherwise. Quibbling that they don't give an exact amount of wealth for the day of Musk's birth but only a general description of that era for the family is bordering on tendentious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - I would not object to a hypothetical minor rewording or restructuring, but the information is both well sourced and relevant to the article, so this information should be kept in one form or another. (Don't take this !vote as arguing that we SHOULD reword it, just that I don't care about the specific wording as much as I care that the information is here) Fieari (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal wealthy is defined relative to the society/country one grows up in. It’s effectively a euphemism for social class, and this one word is very informative to the reader in summarising the early life section, and effectively says he had good opportunities available to him. I’m not opposed to changing it to something more obviously relative or something that captures what I’ve said better but I can’t think of anything except explicitly stating their class if sources agree. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal – Well-sourced in body of article and very relevant to understanding the rest of Musk's career. – MW_(t•c) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Refs

References

Discussion

Before we can even discuss whether this is worthy of inclusion in the lead, it needs to be sourced right? Are there any sources stating the Musk family was wealthy when Elon was born? Tikaboo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

yes here https://www.independent.co.uk/space/elon-musk-made-money-rich-b2212599.html "We were very wealthy. We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe," --FMSky (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

That's referring to the mid 1980s, Elon was born in 1971. Tikaboo (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/01/elon-musks-mom-worked-5-jobs-to-raise-3-kids-after-her-divorce.html I don’t think a mom working five jobs to support her family describes a wealthy upbringing. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

https://dailyinvestor.com/technology/42510/elon-musk-sets-record-straight-about-south-african-upbringing/ the wealthy upbringing narrative is debunked here. He went to public school in South Africa. Rich families send their kids to private schools in SA because of the difference in the quality of education between public and private. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the South African educational context... There were historically very few fully private schools in South Africa with most elite schools following a hybrid model where they received state funds, had boarding students, had selective admissions, were white only, and charged tuition. Musk went to such a hybrid school, Pretoria Boys High. These are not distinguishable from private schools in the American context and certainly indicated a relatively high standard of living for the Musks even among comparable white families. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I know this is a relative assessment and very open to interpretation, but he only transferred to that school after the bullying that nearly killed him at Bryanston High School, a state run public school, not a hybrid and certainly not for the wealthy. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Bryanston High School is also a hybrid, it charges tuition and has selective admissions... It is certainly for the wealthy, and whites only at that time in history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I am not denying what you say, you seem to have more knowledge of these things than me, but do you have evidence of these claims you are making? JamieBrown2011 (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is the tuition fee schedule for Bryanston High School[34] and for Pretoria Boys High [35]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.expatica.com/za/education/children-education/education-in-south-africa-803205/ Do you know that all public schools in South Africa are a hybrid system? Which means Bryanston and Pretoria Boys High are normal public schools, does it not?. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not what the linked article says, it says that schools are currently divided into five quintiles by catchment area income with the schools in the top two quintiles able to charge school fees. You're also overlooking the apartheid aspect of it, today these are integrated schools but then only students from privileged racial classes could apply. A school where admissions is directly racially determined is not a normal public school however else you want to cut the pie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

"Mr Musk’s journey to such unimaginable wealth started from a position of financial privilege, albeit one of emotional abuse." [[36]] Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Elon Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1971. His family was very well-off, and he had a comfortable childhood." [[37]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the sourcing, Slatersteven. Do you oppose the removal from the lead paragraph? QRep2020 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the above a rewrite would be better. Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Bias regarding Mr. Musk's views

The article states the following --> He has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation, affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments, and promoting conspiracy theories.

The statement is biased in that it avers his comments and actions actually are unscientific and misleading. In truth, Mr. Musk and millions of others do not agree with that perspective. It would not be biased to say the he has been criticized for alleged unscientific and misleading statements.

Here is Wikipedia's own policy on points of view.

Wikipedia's policy on a neutral point of view, articles must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias,

47.13.37.229 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should reflect what reliable sources have to say on a subject. The fact that "millions" disagree is not relevant. It would be relevant, however, if you can show that some some sources have been given undue weight. best wishes Flat Out (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't get it. How is antisemitism "unscientific"? What scientific claims does it make? Dimadick (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Well we would need to see examples, but one might be they are genetically inferior. But I agree general hatred of Jews is not science. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a good question, and agree with @Slatersteven's response. I wonder if the grammar of the sentence is a bit confusing? Is it supposed to mean.. "He has been criticized for: making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation; affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments; and promoting conspiracy theories."? I think whatever the meaning, a verb is needed before "COVID-19 misinformation", e.g. "spreading" DecFinney (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that adding "alleged" or some variation would keep this more in line with WP:BLP Big Thumpus (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and there's factually nothing scientific about this. The statement is already neutral EarthDude (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no bias in the statement. It says what he has been criticized for, and it is a fact that that criticism has been made. If anything, the statement is mild. In recent days, he has been criticized by numerous world leaders for his overt interference in other countries' political processes. Jeppiz (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

This language was the result of a previous Talk page discussion. If editors take issue with the language, please refer to the arguments therein first. QRep2020 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The bias in this article is unreal. It actually works as a hit piece. The purpose is to paint Mr. Musk in a negative light using emotionally loaded, and sensationalized verbiage. However some will not see that, as it is a reflection of their own subjective thoughts towards Musk. 2601:18C:8183:D410:8107:B7E4:99B9:A5C5 (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

People can claim anything is biased. Saying something is biased doesn't actually mean much at all. Especially on Wikipedia where arguments are centered around policies and guidelines, and not if you feel like something is "biased". Photos of Japan (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

People can claim anything is unbiased. Saying something is unbiased doesn't actually mean much at all. Especially on Wikipedia where arguments are centered around policies and guidelines, and not if you feel like something is "unbiased." See how that works? 2601:18C:8183:D410:8107:B7E4:99B9:A5C5 (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

All writings reflect their authors' biases, and Wikipedia is no exception. Asserting otherwise is misguided. Policies and guidelines are often overlooked to promote consensus. 2601:340:8200:800:51A0:6BE4:9EFC:7B03 (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I can agree there are issues of neutrality in places, I have a Talk discussion open on one such paragraph. I would like evidence for what supporter's consider to be his most positive characteristics/philosophies, and I think examples of evidence might help this discussion be more constructive. If you have any, please share. I agree with the sentiment of other responses - it doesn't matter what we think is biased or what view we have of Musk or guess that millions of people think, any statement needs a robust evidence source - I have been struggling to find that from the positive point of view. DecFinney (talk) 13:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Our job is easy. We don't look for a positive or negative view. We don't make such evaluations. We publish what reliable sources say. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The lead specifically says views are polarised. That means people have positive and negative views of Musk. Since the paragraph only lists criticisms, it is not neutral. It is good editorial practice to represent the range of views. In the kindest judgement this means editors have not come across sources that provide positive viewpoints. I am very happy to assume that, but in this age of algorithm control of search results, the assumption that the sources you come across can be representative does not seem reliable. I would say robust editing involves one to look for a range of resources that represent the apparent range of opinion. DecFinney (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We always look at a range of sources. But the sources must be reliable. If you look at unreliable sources, you can find many that say the Earth is flat. And 15-20% of millennials believe this. We are not going to add that possibility to satisfy those readers. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree the sources must be reliable. I requested robust evidence. I consider reliability to a component of robustness. DecFinney (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

You can request sources, but evidence is irrelevant because we don't do original research. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Elon_Musk_(Isaacson_book) covers Musk’s transformative first-principles engineering philosophy, hands-on leadership, and customer-focused innovation. It highlights his emphasis on speed, execution, and challenging the status quo, driving ambitious goals like Mars colonization and electric vehicles. Musk's frugality, resilience, relentless work ethic, autodidacticism and appetite for risk allow him to lead across industries. His provocative, direct communication style, creativity, and humor inspire and challenge his teams. 2601:340:8200:800:5821:DB76:CB45:FDA8 (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Most people (if not all of them) think that they alone are good judges of "neutrality". They are also frequently wrong. One single book by an author whose whole personal brand is "biographies of geniuses" does not constitute the a rebuttal to the mountains of less-biased sources that support how the article is currently written. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• If the highest-quality sources describe his statements as unscientific and misleading, then we have to reflect that statement. Inserting "alleged" or the like would be a violation of WP:WEASEL as well as violating WP:NPOV's requirement to treat unequivocal facts as facts. It's especially important here because many of his positions may be scientifically WP:FRINGE. The fact that some random people on the street might disagree doesn't change things - we decide truth based on the best available sources (which, especially for scientific matters, means ones by academic experts.) This is no different than our articles on, for instance, climate change or vaccines - plenty of people believe in fringe positions on those things, but our articles have to present the scientific consensus as fact. It is not editorial bias to do that - it is accurately summarizing the sources. In fact, it would be editorial bias to look at those sources and then say "well some people might not like this, so let's cram an 'alleged' in front of it that isn't in the sources." The editorial there is vital - it means that we cannot add bias ourselves. The flipside of that is that we're not permitted to censor or downplay a clear consensus among the sources simply because an editor believes it to be biased, since that would be another form of editorial bias on our parts. --Aquillion (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  See The Hill for example. We need a little more of the other side of the 'Polarisation' - or a little less of the negative side.

  "Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) offered praise for tech billionaire Elon Musk and his career on Thursday, while acknowledging they may not always see eye-to-eye on political issues.

  “I admire Mr. Musk. He’s been involved in very important parts of American society: AI, SpaceX and other kinds of things,” Fetterman told reporters on Capitol Hill in an interview Thursday.

  “Yes, he is on a different team, but that doesn’t make me an enemy,” he continued. “I don’t … [am not] automatically going to become a critic.”

  The Pennsylvania Democrat added, “It’s like, ‘Hey, he has made our economy and our nation better.’ And our politics are different, and I don’t agree with some of the things that he might say, but that doesn’t make him, like I said, an enemy.”" Lukewarmbeer (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

“Shadow Vice President” claims from media

Should we add that some Democrats and media outlets have called him a “shadow vice president” or “shadow vice president” under the Politics section? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:6533:6A3:6518:BBF1 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, we should not. WP:NOTNEWS Big Thumpus (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

NO, more Trivia. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

NO. Biased media scandalmongering JamieBrown2011 (talk) 10:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

It may (or may not) be notable that President-elect Donald Trump responded to these references on Dec. 22, when he said this about Musk: "But no, he's not gonna be president. That I can tell you. And I’m safe. You know why? He can’t be. He wasn’t born in this country." Or maybe that note, if it's worth mentioning anywhere, should go in the separate "Political activities of Elon Musk" article?

Anywhere, here's one story about Trump's comments:

Fact Check: Trump Is Right — Elon Musk Can't Be President. Here's Why NME Frigate (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry: "Anyway" not "Anywhere." NME Frigate (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's something to consider eventually, but we should wait and see if there's WP:SUSTAINED coverage, especially once Trump is actually in office. --Aquillion (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Improving neutrality of an introductory paragraph

In my opinion, the current state of paragraph beginning "Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure...." does not meet my expectations of neutrality. It claims he is polarising but proceeds to describe only criticisms of him.

Below I propose a new version of the paragraph which attempts to improve neutrality using evidence:

1. of his polarising effect,
2. that public opinion of him is in flux
3. of what, I think, people like about him, i.e. libertarianism.

I struggle to do point 3 full justice as it is not of my opinion, but I think it at least creates space for that to be made clear and robust in time.

Do people support such a change? Are there any corrections or suggested edits?

Proposed new version of the paragraph:

Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure. In a 2024 survey, about 40% of Americans had at least a somewhat favorable view of him, while about 50% had at least a somewhat unfavorable view. The public's impression of Musk has changed over time. For instance, after his purchase of Twitter, a lower proportion of people described him as an “innovator” or “visionary” compared to 8 months earlier. Meanwhile, a higher proportion described him as “impulsive”. He has been described as having a passion for free speech and free markets, building on the “tech libertarianism” philosophy. However, Musk has been criticized for making unscientific and misleading statements, including COVID-19 misinformation, affirming antisemitic and transphobic comments, and promoting conspiracy theories. His ownership of Twitter has been controversial because of large employee layoffs, an increase in posts containing hate speech, misinformation and disinformation on the service, and changes to service features, including verification. DecFinney (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

It just adds words to an already long article. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No, It would make the lead too long. Maybe, we can just add "In a 2024 survey, about 40% of Americans had at least a somewhat favorable view of him, while about 50% had at least a somewhat unfavorable view.", and not add the rest of what you're proposing. I feel like that would be a good balance EarthDude (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I accept the article and leader are long.

Only keeping the first sentence (i.e. on 2024 survey) does not add balance on its own because it only quantifies the existing first sentence of the paragraph. For balance, the third sentence (i.e. on free speech and markets) is most powerful because it states a key aspect of Musk that people may favour. The free speech and markets point is fundamental to understand his polarising position because it is why many may see the criticised points as necessary to achieve something they see as positive.

Therefore, I propose to drop the first sentences and add the survey references to citations on the existing first sentence of the paragraph as "polarizing" is not well evidenced. And I propose to instead keep the sentence "He has been described..."

If the edit needs to be a near-zero change in characters then further balance can be achieved by reducing the list of criticisms. The criticisms listed are repeating text on the "views of elon musk" and "twitter and elon musk" pages. Furthermore, both sentences relate to many of the same things (e.g. misinformation and hate speech).

It could become something like the following:

"However, Musk has been criticized for affirming hate speech, promoting conspiracy theories, and making misleading statements, including disseminating COVID-19 misinformation. His ownership of Twitter has been seen to promote these behaviours on the platform, and has also been controversial due to high employee layoffs and changes to service features, including verification." DecFinney (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This kind of sums up the problem, (arguably) his most well-regarded "achievement" (social, as opposed to technology) was the promotion of "free speech", which to many of either a dog whilst ort just a lack of common sense, as it is seen as enabling racism and fascism. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, though I don't see why it is a problem. His promotion of "free speech" seems key to the paragraph's focus on his polarising character, in that people have different opinions of the consequences of his approach to "free speech". So, whilst I'm happy to use the survey based approach (as proposed by @Entinator) instead of the politico link, I think the politico link and "free speech" point are more pertinent. If trying to limit new characters, I would choose something along those lines instead of survey results. DecFinney (talk) 14:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

He also stood against free speech while claiming to stand by it. For example, he cracked down and censored journalist accounts on Twitter. Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/12/16/1143330589/twitter-owner-elon-musk-suspends-the-accounts-of-several-high-profile-journalist EarthDude (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This. In practice, his actual stance towards "free speech" could be more accurately described as "any speech I don't personally object to". M!dgard (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The 'unscientific' comes from a lengthy Talk page discussion. Mentioning criticisms described by the article in a lead paragraph is perfectly acceptable. QRep2020 (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I only removed "unscientific" to reduce words more. It could stay in.

I am not suggesting criticisms should not be repeated in the lead. I am saying I consider it important that this paragraph is written neutrally, and should therefore at least have 1 sentence which states something that supporters may favour about Musk. I am proposing length reduction, not removal, of the list of criticisms in order to satisfy the comments here requesting no lengthening of the leader. There are still many more criticisms listed in the paragraph than there are positive points.

New draft of paragraph:

"Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure.[1][2] He has been described as having a passion for free speech and free markets, building on the “tech libertarianism” philosophy. However, he has been criticized for affirming hate speech, promoting conspiracy theories, and making unscientific and misleading statements, including disseminating COVID-19 misinformation. His ownership of Twitter has been seen to promote these behaviours on the platform, and has also been controversial due to high employee layoffs and changes to service features, including verification." DecFinney (talk) 07:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree putting the stats in is interesting, but could also be placed in the section about his public perception. It would be good to contrast what he is criticized for with what he is praised for in a single sentence. You say "free speech and markets" is what you believe people like. It would be more relevant to state what the 40% actually agree with. "Innovator" and "visionary" seem to be direct citations of positive perceptions, the source you have for those probably provides more concrete statements. Entinator (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Better to have a new section like 'Musk in the opinion polls' or something. I'm not a lover of polls becoming central to an article. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Um... this is Wikipedia. Neutrality on political figures is not our strong suit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Add the pronunciation of "X Æ A-Xii" (one of his child's name)

I cannot edit the article, as I rarely contribute to the English Wikipedia. Could someone with editing permissions please add this sentence to the 'Relationships and children' section (before 'They have received criticism for choosing a name perceived to be impractical and difficult to pronounce.'):

According to Grimes, the name is pronounced [ˈɛkseɪaɪ] (the letter 'X', followed by 'A' and 'I'), while Musk states it is pronounced [ˈɛksˈæʃeɪˈtwɛlv] (the letter 'X', 'Æ' pronounced as 'Ash', followed by 'A-12' as 'A twelve').

Here is my source: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/elon-musk-child-name-grimes-pronounce-x-b2469396.html

Thanks Renardeau.arctique (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

We need to describe the Musk that exists today

It's absurd that we still describe him in the first sentence only as a "businessman known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc." That is not what he is best known for today. His political meddling (now also in Europe), his far-right politics, and his promotion of conspiracy theories are what he is best known for today. "A polarizing figure" doesn't adequately summarize how he is viewed today. He has openly promoted fascist and even neo-Nazi politics. We need to have something about far-right politics and conspiracy theories in the first section. --Tataral (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, he has only been known for that for (what?) a year. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Closer to two. In any event, he is described by many as the effective co-president or shadow president[38] of the United States. He tries to topple governments, supports far-right neo-Nazi parties and politicians in Germany and the United Kingdom, etc., etc. His past life as a businessman known for Tesla is trivial in comparison to the role he now plays in world politics. --Tataral (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

And he is a lot older than 4, thus this is really recent thing, and when (and if) he actually topples a government this might change. He is still only a businessman, one who happens to own a social media company used to amplify his voice. Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That is not how he is perceived today, and it is not the standard that Wikipedia follows. --Tataral (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

He has not openly promoted fascist or neo-Nazi policies... Some people appear to be living in alternative realities. Ergzay (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You're right, you are apparently living in an alternate reality where he didn't use his ownership of twitter to spread the conspiracy theory that jews are encouraging immigration to exterminate whites, and where he didn't support the far-right AfD party in germany, and where he didn't make a nazi salute twice at Trump's inauguration.

This is why editing the article to come across as "neutral" to his fans is a losing proposition. It is impossible to accurately describe reality while appeasing those who are ideologically opposed to acknowledging it. (See also: the talk page for "Evolution".) plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have had my say, it is now time for others. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Following the creation of the presidential commission Department of Government Efficiency which is likely to be in the next couple of days since the inauguration of Donald Trump today, I think it would be prudent to describe musk as "is a businessman and political figure known for his key roles in the space company SpaceX and the automotive company Tesla, Inc and since 2025 has served as the Commissioner for the Department of Government Efficiency, under the Second Trump Administration.

I feel that this change should only go into place following the creation of this department by executive order. Side note that the title for the head of this department is likely to be Commissioner/ Co-Commissioner or Chairman/ Co-Chairman but title could change. Knowledgework69 (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That's pretty reasonable. Far better than the attacking far-left dribble bias promoted by the original poster of this discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

as of 20 January 2025 the department of government efficiency has been established by executive order, under the authoirty of the 47th president of the united states. with elon musk being appointed as sole leader of said organisation due to the resignation of Vivek Ramaswamy in order for him to run for governor of the state of Ohio.

Pursuant to this executive order Elon Musk is now a member of the Federal government of the United States as such it should be mentioned in his preamble, in line with other government officials as of this date Elon Musk holds the position of The Administrator of The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. as such I shall be including my pre mentioned edit, with the correction of his title into Musk's preamble.

@Fyunck(click) @Slatersteven @Tataral Knowledgework69 (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Controversial Salute

I understand User:PickleG13 has previously attempted to install this development, quickly erased by User:Slatersteven.

Why is this the case? It is evidently proving to be a significant story, reported by numerous trusted mainstream press outlets. There is no established consensus on The Jerusalem Post, either, but it is suitable given the context of antisemitism. Hauntbug (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Because it really is speculation, and may this is a BLP, not a new paper. Slatersteven (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggest snow: here the links The Guardian The Jerusalem Post QalasQalas (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Independent

PBS Newshour QRep2020 (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Now the New York Times is reporting on it.

The New York Times "Mr. Musk twice extended his arm out with his palm facing down, drawing comparisons to the Nazi salute." Marincyclist (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The video literally shows that his palm is facing upward in the second one. They're literally lying. Ergzay (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You are mistaken, or lying. Palm is clearly down in both "salutes". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you bend your arm backwards when you raise your arm to thank someone? I certainly never do. My hand is "facing upwards" even though it's technically still facing with some angle toward the ground.

I'm really getting tired of these disingenuous arguments. These arguments are emotionally manipulative to make it look like the guy's a Nazi. Ergzay (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I presented you video of Musk doing the salute twice with palm down both times. It is not disingenuous or emotionally manipulative to WP:SPADE. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

He was not doing a salute. He was thanking the crowd with a "throwing heart" motion. Ergzay (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

As stated earlier, this interpretation is your WP:OR. Multiple RS are comparing his gesture to a nazi salute. Marincyclist (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, it is very obviously a Nazi salute, and he did it twice, so it isn't like it was an "accident". RSs are reporting he did the salute, so he did. E_F⁵ 13:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting that you'd accuse anyone else of being "disingenuous" given that you have been presented with obvious evidence, multiple times, that you are being untruthful in your defense of Musk. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stay on topic and focus on content, not contributors. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not evidence of anything. He was literally throwing his heart out to the crowd. People who believe this stuff need to put down their foggles. Ergzay (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

you need to look up the word literally 71.168.184.112 (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

He did it twice. It's very clear at least one of it is an attempt at a nazi salute. You don't wave to people like that. Anyone who has seen the accounts he interacts with, boost and defend on twitter (openly fascist ones and mazis), would understand exactly what he is doing. Someone on Bluesky theorised he attempted to do a mix of wave/nazi salute with plausible deniability, but was overly enthusiastic and made it an obvious salute instead. Of course some media will pretend otherwise. But enough reliable sources call is for what it is. Let's call a spade a spade.Squeezdakat (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If you actually watch the video he says "My heart goes out to you" and brings his hand to his heart and then out to the crowd. This section should not even be added to Wikipedia when it was clearly taken out of context. If this is to be included, we should include this type of entry into most there politicians who have accidentally imaged a nazi salute when they have waved or interacted with a crowd. There is photos and videos of notable figures who do not have whole Wikipedia sections who have made this gesture: Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris, and more.

This needs to be removed. TimeToFixThis (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

He happened to touch his shoulder, then send his arm out in a 45 degree angle above his head. These two movements, in conjunction, have a name. That name is the Sieg Heil. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Slatersteven that this is speculation, but I do think we should open a wider Talk Page discussion about this because I believe that is exactly the point. Many of Musk's statements that are alleged to be antisemitic could be argued to reflect wider conspiracy theories, rather than deeply held anti-Jewish sentiment. However, they make major news and are the subject of discussion. If we should take a day or two to see how this settles into the news cycle, I definitely accept that, but even the concept of a Nazi salute in American public life is a major deal. It is a controversy, and if it is to be labeled a Roman salute in further defense, that adds to the fascism controversy as well. PickleG13 (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that a "nazi salute" could just be waving at someone, a picture is a snapshot. Slatersteven (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn’t merely an embarrassing freeze-frame, Elon beat his chest and stretched the arm to indicate unambiguously a salute. There is now widespread political commentary, of journalists criticising it. I agree that we should wait as the story develops, however, it will certainly be notable as an allegation against Elon’s involvement in far-right ideology. Hauntbug (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is precisely an embaressing freeze-frame. He was in the middle of thanking the crowd and grabbed his heart and "threw it" out to the crowd in front and then did the same to the crowd behind him. Try it. Put your right hand over your heart in a clenched fist then fling your arm out to the right springing open your hand. You end up in exactly the position he's in with your hand out stretched, fingers spread and your hand tilted slightly upward from your arm. This whole thing is internet drama that violates basic BLP page quality standards. Ergzay (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

grabbed his heart and "threw it" out to the crowd is your WP:OR. I would never do what he did because it looks like a Nazi salute. We need to give this enough time to see how RS cover it, beyond the immediate "apparent fascist salute" headlines. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's ADL saying it isn't a Nazi salute. https://x.com/ADL/status/1881474892022919403 Ergzay (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let’s Call the ADL What It Is: an Ally of Fascists | The Nation – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The only reason that article got written is because of the unpopularity of Israel's war with Hamas and ADL's support of israel, not because they've suddenly become antisemitic themselves. Ergzay (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The article was written because the ADL has taken an odd stance around Trump-related Naziism recently. I put their excuse of Musk in that bucket. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump isn't Nazi and dosen't support nazis... If you mean hate groups like proud boys, ADL does not defend them. Ergzay (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean all white nationalists he refuses to condemn, from David Duke down to the Proud Boys. ADL is oddly silent, or making excuses. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"Refusing to condemn" is a purity test that's generally inappropriate to use. You shouldn't use the "you're either for them or against them" type arguments. Ergzay (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Let's try to stay on topic here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

On the one hand, we have an opinion piece written in a fringe left wing publication by a rival advocacy group generally bashing the ADL on an unrelated topic. On the other hand, here's how well established RS (The New York Times) refer to their specific comments on this salute.

The Anti-Defamation League, which has tangled with Mr. Musk in the past, later said on X that Mr. Musk had “made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm” and that it was “not a Nazi salute.” The organization added that “all sides should give one another a bit of grace.”

So NYT not only highlights their explanation of the issue, it notes that the ADL is no fan of Musk and implies that it might be expected to be even less charitable to him. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Former ADL chief Abe Foxman blasts group for muted response to Trump’s MSG rally | The Times of Israel – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League Ergzay (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Closed June 2024, before they didnt respond to Trump's Nazi rally. Probably out of date. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to open another one then, but point stands it's a reliable source as considered by Wikipedia. Ergzay (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I might have to. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't the Nazi salute fall under antisemitism anyway (WP:ADLAS)? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It does lol — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 07:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Saying that Elon Musk isn't a fascist on a platform he runs and has a history of censoring criticism on is hardly evidence. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In 2022, the leader of the ADL also favorably compared Elon Musk to Henry Ford, apparently unaware that Ford was notoriously antisemitic. The organization's response to Musk's gesture yesterday should certainly be noted, but so should criticism of their response.

(For whatever it's worth, today the ADL condemned Donald Trump's decision to pardon some 1,500 participants in the Jan. 6th insurrection, saying that move "undermines accountability and risks reinvigorating violent extremists".)

Musk himself responded to the ADL's tweet encouraging "grace" with the message "Thanks guys" followed by the laughing while crying emoji. Is he laughing at the ADL? Is he laughing at the whole sitaution? Does he just like to play games with public opinion? (If so, why doesn't he pay someone to boost his score?) Is he like the Kitchen brothers in Fargo silently gesturing that their shoe size is eleven? Is he like people egregiously making the "OK" sign after it emerged that some extremists used it to signify "white power"? Many of those copycats just liked being subversive and edgy.

And is there any connection between the gesture and what he said next? ("It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured.") I've seen suggestions that he's referencing the "fourteen words" with that statement, but I think without the prior gesticulation, that remark would be seen as entirely anodyne. NME Frigate (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Some members of the ADL's own staff have pointed out that lately the organization seems to be more interested in supporting the state of Israel than actually opposing antisemitism in the general case. Forgetting their own organization's opposition of Ford's Dearborn Independent seems on-brand for the new leadership. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting something which is so very clear. No, his palm was not facing upwards, that's just untrue. No, it was not a throwing hearts sign. It was very clearly a sieg heil. Elon even did it twice. EarthDude (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's even worse in the video. :) E_F⁵ 13:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Those on the far-right are characterizing this as a Nazi salute and celebrating it. Marincyclist (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Confirmation bias at play. Ergzay (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It is very obviously a nazi salute to anyone with eyes. He even did it twice (once to the crowd, once to the leader) just like the nazis did. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: What Elon Musk did is not a Nazi salute or Roman salute. you can easily locate images and videos of left and right wing politicians doing the same thing. This is a case of people seeing what they want to see. [[39]]. currently from what I can see no reliable sources are actually saying he was doing a Roman salute. The articles that are saying he was are either opinion pieces, or are considered unreliable by Wikipedia.

From Politico "The Anti-Defamation League notably defended the billionaire in a post on X, “It seems that [Musk] made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute, but again, we appreciate that people are on edge.” [[40]]Zyxrq (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is sensitive time. Look at all the democrat leaders doing the same "salute" [https://x.com/WholeMarsBlog/status/1881481026536632582] JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The difference is that those images are pictures of people waving, while we have video evidence of Musk touching his shoulder and launching his arm out over his head at a 45 degree angle. There is a name for this, and it is called a Seig Heil. drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Nah, not the random WP:TWITTER post as a source bruh — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 07:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is original research. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

All of them are freeze frames while we have a video of Musk very clearly making the salute. I am willing to bet all of those are moments captured while waving or pointing. Can you produce a video of any of them actually making the salute?

Despite what a popular meme image on twitter might tell you, nazi salute is not solely identified by the angle of the arm. Squeezdakat (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is the Anti-Defemation League reliable in this matter considering they consider 'Free Palestine' to be anti semitic? It's clear they act to further Israel's interest and are willing to defend Musk, who is a zionist. Squeezdakat (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Is Musk a zionist or is he a nazi? Or are you claiming he's both? Words have meaning. Ergzay (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Those are not mutually exclusive. Are you aware that a significant faction of right-wing Christian fundamentalists, for example, support the Zionist cause because they think it will bring about the Second Coming? Or that there are anti-Semites who support a Jewish homeland so that they Jewish people are in the homeland, as opposed to other places? 136.55.168.45 (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

As the other person said, they are not mutually exclusive terms. Musk promotes fascists, including nazis, and is also a zionist. Squeezdakat (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

---

FWIW, Elon Musk, the man who performed the action himself, doesn't think its a "nazi/far-right/fascist" salute.

Top level he's made denying it:

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881536518206218445

Tweet's he's replied to/reposted agreeing with the statements/denying it:

https://x.com/kimbal/status/1881536140572045472

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881536708388528348

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/1881539485071994939

https://x.com/Thompsonklay/status/1881539657974136847

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881543856199700727

https://x.com/stillgray/status/1881511383600447817

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881534446639501320

https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1881525932248477720

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881526554100203739

https://x.com/GadSaad/status/1881513315299668386

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881520368235765866

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881520634343387474

https://x.com/AdamCollettX/status/1881492336305471755

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881512076344217868

https://x.com/ADL/status/1881474892022919403

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881510804006269080

Ergzay (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:MANDY applies. Of course he'll deny what we saw with our lying eyes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

He's not denying he made the motion. So that's irrelevant. Ergzay (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is mincing words to the point of disrespect. He’s denying the meaning of the motion and significance of the act. 136.55.168.45 (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it's worth re-emphasizing that Musk doesn't actually deny in any of those tweets that his gesture was a Nazi salute. Not once.

In fact, in one of them, he supports another Twitter user's argument that no one should ever be compared to a Nazi because "it didn't work, it's not working now, it's tired, boring, and old material".

That is, in effect, a call to let even undeniable Nazis say what they like without being criticized as Nazis. NME Frigate (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have now seen the video, and yes it looks to me like a Nazi salute, arm straight out. So it seems to me that if RS say it is (and I think it is) we can say he has ben accused of it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If you think Elon Musk is a nazi you'll believe it's a nazi salute. This is just a rorschach test if anything. Ergzay (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Odd as my OP doubts it based upon a picture, but it has changed now I have seen the video. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is not a wave. And read wp:agf.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. I fully believe you think what you are saying and that you are convinced it's a nazi salute. Ergzay (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No, as you do not know what I think about musk. Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ergzay is mistaken in believing this is a Rorschach test: I didn't think Musk was an actual nazi (I'm not from the US and I don't care about Musk), then I watched the clip and was instantly convinced. No-one makes this gesture with their arm and hand extended like this, unless it's a nazi salute. M!dgard (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Addendum: I'm referring to the first salute. The second salute looks like a regular greeting. It is possible that the second one was meant to "correct" accidental behaviour. This happens often in human psychology. Ergzay is making it hard to keep assuming their good faith by arguing against rather clear evidence. M!dgard (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The first "salute" (it wasn't a salute) has his hand bent upward from his arm. It's not parallel with his arm. That's not a salute it's a "throwing your heart out to the crowd". BTW I'll add he's continuing to laugh about people who actually think it was a nazi salute on twitter with plenty of memes about it. Ergzay (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a convenient way to both side a very obvious gesture. Fact is it's a fast straight thrust of the right arm at a particular angle amd withdrawal, with no actual waving. Yeah you can find pics of Obama holding his arm at the same angle. But he was waving then. But the action at that situation makes it undeniable. You don't need to even know Elon Musk to understand this. (edit, added a sentence) Squeezdakat (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No you do need to know Elon Musk. He's has autism spectrum disorder and he went on stage in an extremely excitable state and was gesturing wildly throughout his whole speech. I've again removed it and will continue to remove it. Ergzay (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

A bit off-topic here, but that is zero excuse to go throwing up fascist symbols. I have ADHD and probably have undiagnosed autism, yet I don't go around seig-hieling and blaming it on my mental state. "He has autism" is zero excuse. E_F⁵ 17:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't say it's an excuse to throw up fascist symbols. I'm saying he didn't make a fascist symbol. He threw up his arm thanking the crowd. Not everyone is hyper aware of trying to avoid the slightest hint of making any arm motion that makes you look strange. (I'm personally frankly extremely tired that people throwing their arms in strange directions gets you automatically marked as some kind of nazi. It's intellectually dishonest to continue this type of nonsense.) The media of course loves it because they get free clicks. This whole arm thing got more media attention than the inauguration itself. Ergzay (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

He pumped his right hand to his heart, and then reached up with his right hand, palm up. The second time was the same thing, but he wasn't biting his lip. It was 100% a fascist (or Roman, at that) salute, and I'm not arguing over what my eyes see. George Orwell once said "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.", and the media agrees that it was questionable at best. E_F⁵ 17:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

He's right hand dominant so anyone would thank people with their right hand so the right hand thing is irrelevant. He grabbed his fist to his heart to throw his heart out to the crowd in the front right and then again to those behind him. When he reached out to the right, the palm at a higher angle than the rest of his arm as if in a wave, and then the same thing to the audience behind him similarly palm at a higher angle than his arm. It was not a "fasicst" or "Roman" salute. It wasn't a salute at all. Ergzay (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We need to stay focused just on what the sources say, @Ergzay, and to avoid OR. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think if we abandon all reason and blindly copy paste the interpretation of sources even when they're in a state of mass delusion we are not doing our jobs as editors. Ergzay (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

We follow RS. We don't accuse them of "mass delusion" if we don't personally agree with them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not about personal agreement. This is about what is obvious from primary sources that anyone can see that doesn't have predispositions to see everything as nazi. Ergzay (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

anyone can see that doesn't have predispositions to see everything as nazi. Are you talking about sources or editors? We surely don't use sources that see everything as Nazi. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Elon Musk has never been diagnosed with autism.

2. Even if he had, compulsive fascist hand gestures are not a recognized symptom of autism.

It is clear that you are just throwing every disingenuous argument you can think of at the wall in the hopes one will stick. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it might be reasonable for this article to note that some people defending Elon Musk from accusations that his gesture was a Nazi salute are explaining what he did as deriving from his autism. Here are four news articles that mention it:

1. "Aaron Astor, a history professor at Maryville College in Tennessee, posted: “This is a socially awkward autistic man’s wave to the crowd where he says ‘my heart goes out to you.’” (Musk has previously disclosed that he has Asperger’s syndrome, also known as autism spectrum disorder.) Newsweek opinion editor Batya Ungar-Sargon offered a similar explanation, adding: “We don’t need to invent outrage.”" source: Elon Musk Comments on Nazi-Like Salute Controversy | TIME

2. "Andrea Stroppa, a confidant of Musk who has connected him with far-right Italian PM Giorgia Meloni, was reported by Italian media to have posted the clip of Musk with the caption: "Roman Empire is back starting from Roman salute". ... Stroppa later deleted his post, Italian media said. He later posted that "that gesture, which some mistook for a Nazi salute, is simply Elon, who has autism, expressing his feelings by saying, 'I want to give my heart to you'"." source: Elon Musk responds to backlash over gesture at Donald Trump rally

3. "Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the ADL's reaction, saying on X: "Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity." Another historian, Aaron Astor, also rebuffed accusations of Musk's Nazi emulation. "I have criticized Elon Musk many times for letting neo-Nazis pollute this platform," he wrote on X, adding: "But this gesture is not a Nazi salute." "This is a socially awkward autistic man's wave to the crowd where he says 'my heart goes out to you.'" In 2021, Musk announced he had been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a form of autism." source: Musk repeatedly makes gesture likened to 'Nazi salute' at Trump rally

4. "Holocaust deniers and openly self-identified Neo-Nazis were thrilled to see the tech mogul and DOGE Head DOGE-er appear to acknowledge them. Far-right political commentator Evan Kilgore tweeted a clip of the moment Monday, writing, “Holy crap...Did @elonmusk just Heil Hitler at the Trump Inauguration Rally in Washington D.C...This is incredible.” He added two fire emojis for good measure, and followed up in another tweet: “We are so back,” appending a—wait for it—saluting emoji. Oh. In his replies, Kilgore repeatedly insisted that “it’s a joke” and that “we all know that wasn’t his intention.” Do…we? Also on Monday, he tweeted, “Elon Musk is autistic. He was excited. We all know his intentions weren't to make a Sieg Heil. It looked much more like a Roman Salute. Can we all have a sense of humor for 5 seconds?” (Incidentally, Musk first opened up about his neurodivergence on Saturday Night Live in 2021.)" source: Elon Musk Sure Isn’t Denying That His Inaugural Gesture Was a Nazi Salute | Vanity Fair NME Frigate (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I am autistic too. Autism doesn't make you do the Seig Heil. Elon did the salute because he is a nazi, or atleast is sympathetic to the cause. Squeezdakat (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sources

His Nazi salute needs to be covered together with his broader involvement in far-right politics and his promotion of the far right more broadly. --Tataral (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. If this was a one-off without all of the other accusations of far-right/Nazi sympathy/support, it could be written off as "throwing hearts at the crowd" more easily. We can't say definitively that it was meant as a Nazi salute, as we can't read his mind, but the WP:WEIGHT is pretty hefty on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The video was edited by people in Europe to make it look like that when it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.146.30.38 (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

section break

I re-inserted text about the salute, trying to keep the wording as neutral as possible. BLP doesn't really apply here as there are dozens (if not hundreds, at this point) of reliable sources discussing it. There's a lot of discussion here about personal interpretations but I'm trying to reflect the sources. These are some sources that might have useful context (quotes from historians, reactions from relevant parties like politicians and ADL, far right reactions, etc):

• Musk responds to backlash over gesture at Trump rally (BBC)
• Neo-Nazis Love the Nazi-Like Salutes Elon Musk Made at Trump's Inauguration (Wired)
• Did He Actually Do That? (The Atlantic)
• Elon Musk appears to make back-to-back fascist salutes at inauguration rally (The Guardian)

Hopefully we can use this as a starting point. Citing (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

BLP absolutely applies here as Musk is obviously alive and the claim is potential slander/libel. Just because a couple of media repeat the claim doesn't make it less so. That the most prominent organisation opposing anti-semitism points out that this wasn't a Nazi salute - and it wasn't - should be indicative. That some however seem to think that "Nazi salute" and "salute" are synonyms is telling. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

As if the fact that le monde has now canceled Twitter, as have the Spanish government, this is at least as important as he gobbing of creating reactions. Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

ADL isn't the authority in anti-semitism or nazis. For Instance 'most prominent organisation opposing anti-semitism' doesn't seem to know the difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Anybody with an eye can watch the video and understand what it is. Watch the video of his salutes - both of them if you haven't yet and please stop engaging in bad faith - It's not just a couple of media sources - that's blatantly false. Squeezdakat (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

And the "difference between anti-semitism and anti-zionism" - a distinction largely without difference - is relevant to a supposed Nazi salute how? (The Nazis were antisemites, not antizionists.) I have seen the video multiple times. Heck, I've even seen it live. And while the first instance by itself is a bit iffy, the second and what he said after that make the matter clear ... to anybody who does not look for such things. Str1977 ^(talk) 18:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

To claim that "anti-semitism vs anti-zionism" is a "distinction without difference" is exactly the same as claiming "opposing the chinese government is the same as being racist against chinese people". It is asinine, and highlights why the ADL cannot be treated as the definitive source on what does or does not constitute anti-semitism. There is a reason many outspoken jews are anti-zionist, and it's not because they're "self-hating". plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's relevant because Musk is a zionist. This is a case of ADL resorting to obfuscating the narrative around a blatently obvious anti-semitic Nazi salute In defence of a zionist. Several people have called it out as such. Al Jazeera AOC

Also, the difference between anti-semitism - hatred of an ethnicity and anti-zionism - opposition to a colonial ethnic cleansing and settlement project is clear unless you want to willfully defend the latter using the former. (edit - grammar)Squeezdakat (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

BLP applies, but does not prevent us from including what the sources say about the salutes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, so we can't say he did give a Nazi salute, only that he has been widely accused of having done so. Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Right. That is BLP compliant, backed up by pretty much every single source, except the ADL. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No we can't say he's been accused of making a Nazi salute, because he wasn't making one. Ergzay (talk) 17:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That makes no sense. He could have lost both arms and his head and it would still be true that "he's been accused of making a Nazi salute". That he also did it and we saw him do it also makes the allegations quite true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Again it wasn't a Nazi salute or a salute of any kind. The angles were wrong and the associated dialogue in context shows he was thanking the crowd. Ergzay (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Turn your logic on. He could have scratched his butt with his big toe, and it would still be true that "he's been accused of making a Nazi salute". We document what RS say, not what we believe he did. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant that removing this content under BLP doesn't make sense given the widespread coverage in independent reliable sources. Obviously Musk is still covered in general under BLP. Citing (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. It's clearly slander/libel. And I'll quote Elon Musk himself referring to this page in relation to this exact situation. https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881752812276891674 "Since legacy media propaganda is considered a “valid” source by Wikipedia, it naturally simply becomes an extension of legacy media propaganda!" Ergzay (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So what, we go by what RS say, not Musky. Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Ergzay: I'd ask that you reinstate my edit as this is the second time you've blanked someone else's text on this topic and (as I've demonstrated) the topic has significant independent coverage from major reliable sources. That content is under discussion does not mean it should not be present at all. Citing (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I will not, and any attempts to add it will be reverted as it's full of misinformation. Ergzay (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What about In his speech during the second Trump inauguration, Musk twice extended his right arm towards the crowd in an upward angle. The gesture was compared to a Nazi salute or fascist salute. Musk denied any meaning behind the gesture. is "misinformation"? Continue to revert its addition and you'll end up reported to WP:ANEW. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's more acceptable as it includes his denial. I would also include ADL. Ergzay (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This is literally the exact text you're deleting! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

My apologies... The text I thought I was reverting was the original version that was on the page. I've added the ADL statement. Ergzay (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe the ADL statement is due for inclusion. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

ADL is the foremost center for in the US for determining anti-Jewish sentiment. We use ADL elsewhere in the article. Ergzay (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that ADL is a yellow source when it comes to antisemitism. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a misread. It's a yellow source with regards to antisemitism when Israel/Palestine are involved. "There is consensus that outside of the topic of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the ADL is a generally reliable source, including for topics related to hate groups and extremism in the U.S." Ergzay (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you made a a mistype, as it's WP:MREL for anti-semitism when Israel and Zionism are not involved per WP:ADLAS, as you quoted. Anything to do with IPA and it's WP:GUNREL. It otherwise seems due for inclusion with necessary attribution. CNC (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah okay missed that, in that case as long as we name ADL when sourcing them it seems fine. ADL was citied in a bunch of other sources, including the NYT source so it should be fine to keep. Ergzay (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ADLAS, the ADL is a yellow source with antisemitism, excluding Israel and Palestine, and can roughly be taken as reliable. It mentioned it is a case-by-case basis. I feel like it could be phrased somewhere in the article as "the ADL disputes this notion". The green wording for ADL could definitely be clearer though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Am I going to be the first one to link to WP:EXCEPTIONAL in this discussion? It's possible that the richest man in the world is a secret nazi based on orthopedic choices but I think we need more than this. SmolBrane (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is suggesting for the article to say that Elon is a "secret Nazi". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I was being a bit whimsical, apologies. The sourcing is inadequate to extrapolate so much charged intent from a brief clip with no talking. Nazi or nazi adjacent is exceptional. SmolBrane (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Obviously this belongs in the article, as it has been widely covered in detail by reliable sources all around the world. We should not say Musk performed a nazi salute as that call is not for us to make. What is a fact, though, is that his raised arm has become a noticeable incident, with many sources comparing it to a nazi salute (and others don't). We are here to report on notable events, not making our personal guesses on what he meant or didn't mean. Jeppiz (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit war warriors

Could all edit warriors please stop edit warring now, this is getting ridiculous. @RodRabelo7, @Zyxrq, @Ergzay, @EF5, @Muboshgu.

I'm aware some of you, the worst offenders, have been warned on your talk page, and others have only engaged in one or two reverts or removal or content (as part of this war), but you all need to stop now. Contributing to a multi-party edit war is still edit warring, regardless of whether you revert once or reach your WP:3RR max, and you are disrupting the article and the discussion above for everyone else. CNC (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

What? I don't believe I was engaging in a edit war I was just replacing a source with one that was actually reliable. I only reverted one thing. Zyxrq (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But yes it does seem like an edit war was possibly starting, thank you for trying to avoid one. Zyxrq (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC) comment edited Zyxrq (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I didn't engage in any edit wars and, in fact, didn't even know one was happening until I saw this page once again on my Watchlist. My first edit here was done while I was reading the article trying to find a mention to the Nazi salute by Musk. Sorry for the misclick though. Thanks, RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

CNC, I'm not an "edit war warrior"; not everyone who reverts the addition of X as a source likes to edit war. I've made two reverts, neither of which were related. E_F⁵ 18:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@EF5 You deleted my comment from this talk page. Please restore it. Ergzay (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Restored it myself manually... Ergzay (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, there was an edit conflict. Nothing malicious. :) E_F⁵ 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor Stop throwing accusations around. My most recent edit was not "edit warring". I was restoring @Zyxrq's correct edit replacing a source with a better source. I reverted @RodRabelo7's "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" edit because he has personal issues with the ADL apparently. Ergzay (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have personal issues with ADL? What?! Why? RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@RodRabelo7 You said it in your own edit. I'll quote your own edit "LMAO, this is as trustworthy as Fox News" Ergzay (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

With respect I think he was referring to the fact the source was linking to a (X) Tweet, which is why I replaced the source with the one from politico. Though after I replaced it he did say "cannot see the pertinence of this" when reverting my edit. Zyxrq (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The source was still ADL. It doesn't matter if its hosted on X, but yes moving to a secondary instead of a primary source is better. If his issue was X then his comment doesn't really make sense as its the official press account of said organization. Ergzay (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

fair enough. Zyxrq (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not going to waste my time with you, only to clarify that I posted this 1 minute after the revert you are describing, thus is unrelated. You are referenced here for the six reverts you made on this page within 24 hours. CNC (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Six reverts that are largely disconnected from each other... But sure let's handle this through normal processes. You weren't even involved in the editing. Ergzay (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have not edited the article a single time, and have sent only three(I think) messages on here. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

References

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

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. TarnishedPath^talk 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. Flip^andFlopped ツ 23:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose - Absolutely not! Far-right and far-left are in the eye of the beholder. Heck in the Bay Area Bernie Sanders is middle of the road. Plus a lot of the contention is whether it should be in the lead, not just anywhere. It could say that "Elon Musk has often been a supporter of conservative political parties and ideals." That's a more neutral and understood sentence. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Fyunck(click) i like the attempt at neutrality here but the views of elon musk wiki page says he support obama, Clinton and biden. so a time aspect or acknowledgement of past democrat support would be needed to be neutral. DecFinney (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only party he's supported that Wikipedia itself describes as "far-right" has been the AfD. Reform UK is only listed as "right-wing populism". Fdl of Italy is also described as "right-wing". I think a single data point does not make a trend line. Ergzay (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Musk supports Tommy Robinson who is a far-right figure in the UK. Marincyclist (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  The statement that is being discussed is "supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes" Ergzay (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  The statement says "supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes". The way you only highlighted parties is extremely disingenuous EarthDude (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  He did not support Robinson's politics though but pushed for his release under the (mistaken) idea that TR was a political prisoner. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sigh... "Support" means you agree with the entire wording of the statement. There are clear issues with the statement given its clear he's not plurally in support of far-right political parties. Ergzay (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wholly incorrect. Hungary's Fidesz, the Brazilian Liberal Party, Brothers of Italy, the Dutch Party for Freedom, and Argentina's La Libertad Avanza are all described by our own wiki as right-wing to far-right. Musk has supported all of them (either explicitly, or via support of the party leader, which is functionally the same thing). If you disagree that these are "far-right political parties", take it up on the talk page of the respective party and seek consensus to change that characterization instead of having a discussion page war on this one. Flip^andFlopped ツ 23:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - WP:WEASEL using the term "far" right or "far" left are clearly used as a form of slur against someone's character. Much better to use the more neutral term "conservative parties" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieBrown2011 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is indeed a weasel-like slur. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

Discussion

• Comment — I'm dissatisfied with the quantity of sources here; in order for me to support this, I would need a greater number of sources, preferably academic. The fifth source from Oliver Darcy is an analysis and effectively constitutes an opinion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Academic sources don't just appear overnight. While they are always preferable, we should go with the very best sources at the time. TarnishedPath^talk 10:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  While I see your point here, that's not the list of sources, that's just the proposed list of sources that would be used for such a description. There are plenty more both within the article and elsewhere. We don't require academic sources for a political description, when there is a diversity of sources and near-consensus by some of our best new-org RS. It would be helpful for someone to produce a table of sources that back up this statement, not that it's required for consensus either it seems. CNC (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Depends where it is placed. Throwing in the 1st lead paragraph would be undue --FMSky (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Agree. Put it in the Politics section if anything. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment We seem to be at 23-6 in support after 1 day. Does this qualify for snowball? BootsED (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I wouldn't say so, but there is consensus. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025

On January 20th, 2025 Elon Musk displayed the Nazi salute twice during the United States presidential inauguration telling the world he is a Nazi. 72.69.140.186 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not done for now: Being discussed further up the page at § Controversial Salute. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Musk's role in DOGE

I’m confused about what Musk will lead and what his title will be. Will he head the entire "United States DOGE Service" (formerly the United States Digital Service) or just the "Department of Government Efficiency" (the "U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization", a temporary organization within the United States DOGE Service)?

And what will his title be?

• The Executive Order establishing DOGE only mentions a "USDS Administrator."

• The hiring freeze Executive Order mentions an "Administrator of the United States DOGE Service."

• The merit Executive Order mentions an "Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency."

Max1298 (talk) 13:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry

There is most likely no Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry. Elon Musk's paternal grandmother had Dutch ancestors (Dutch Free Burghers). Dutch relates to the Netherlands where the majority of white settlers in SA came from. Pennsylvania Dutch on the other hand relates to the German speaking religious group (Dutch here means Deutsch/German) who live mainly in Pennsylvannia and a few other places in the US and Canada. They came from Germany and Switzerland. 2A02:810B:1609:9800:A1DD:B1F9:C50E:1532 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Both could be true, free Dutch through South Africa on the paternal side and Pennsylvania Dutch/Deutsch through America on the maternal side. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Number of children

The article in two instances gives the number of Elon Musk's children as either "12" (infobox) or as "at least 12". However, if one goes through the number of his relationships and the offspring stemming from each, I count three with Justine Wilson (one deceaed plus the twins), three with Grimes (though one by "surrogacy") and three Shivon Zilis.

Searching through the archive, I have found [41] that the article used to say ""Musk met his first wife, Canadian author Justine Wilson, while attending Queen's University. They married in 2000 and separated in 2008.[288] Their first child, son Nevada Alexander Musk,[289] died of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) at the age of 10 weeks.[290][291] They share custody of their five surviving children, all sons.[292][293][294]". So they had an additional three children, which indeed brings the number up to twelve. But these children should be mentioned in the article as well. This used to be sourced information that should be restored, with the sources given (in the archive these are only numbers).

However, there is no justification to go beyond the 12 and speculate about "at least 12", if there is even as little as the claim that additional children exist. Note that both instances are sourced with a single article (https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2024-elon-musk-population-collapse-baby-push/), which expressly only mentions the children with Grimes and Shivon Zilis. That's too little to speculate about additional children. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I just realised that I have not seen that the article speaks of twins and triplets. So the three additional children were included after all. Still, the arguments against speaking of "at least" stands. Hence I have removed these words. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025 (2)

Elon Musk uttered the words 'my heart goes out to you' after his 'supposed' Nazi salute. The article is clearly trying to mislead the reader. No serious news organisation is suggesting it was a Nazi salute. Only Wokepedia. Chrisyking (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

No news source? Are you sure about that? drdr150 Yell at me Spy on me 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Rejected As the instructions above clearly say: This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".. Cullen328 (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  But he is right. It should absolutely have proper context and not be left hanging with conjectured bias. @Chrisyking: needs to write exactly what should be said and where it should be placed in the article. Only then can a request be granted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There are MANY news sources describing it as a NAZI salute. Please specify what changes you want to make. Sushidude21! (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk Gif

File:Elon Musk salute.gif If we are going to have something like this I suggest it should be a video which includes audio saying the quote he made directly after making the Gesture ""My heart goes out to you. It is thanks to you that the future of civilization is assured,""[[42]] I think we should do this to give context and to allow the readers to come to their own conclusion. Zyxrq (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

To begin with, it's ridiculous this made it into Wikipedia. This is no longer an ecyclopaedia but a propaganda board. 31.205.2.78 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I uploaded it as a gif to make the fair-use case stronger (non-free content should generally be short and low-quality). I think it's enough to have in the caption that he said "My heart goes out to you" after making the gesture. Since the video is copyrighted, we need to explain how any parts of it we use couldn't just be replaced by text. – MW_(t•c) 23:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a muckraking smear to suggest that the socially awkward Musk was making a anti semitic salute. When I type "Musk visit to" into a search engine, the first auto complete option given is "... Israel". Please can Wikipedia editors not lose their minds. Musk describes himself as "aspirational;y Jewish. .." Let's research aeound issues and not fall for stilted media propaganda. GregKaye 23:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Please stick to making suggestions for the article and refrain from using this talk page for general discussion. – MW_(t•c) 00:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a fair enough argument. I added the caption "My heart goes out to you" after I made/started this discussion about the gif. I'm happy as it is now. I do have one more thing I would like to bring up on the talk page of the image itself. Thank you. Zyxrq (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm also happy with the caption as it stands. – MW_(t•c) 00:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The section "Accusations of antisemitism" is biased. A section on Musk's views in regard to Jewish people could be more balanced so as to present a variety of content. GregKaye 00:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Start a separate thread or fix it yourself then. – MW_(t•c) 00:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Zyxrq suggested above that the content should be replaced by "a video which includes audio". I say that it should just be removed.Comments by that anti-defamation league (whose very purpose is to combat anti-Semitism) have supported Musk and might otherwise be included. As also reported in media hey said:

This is a delicate moment. It’s a new day and yet so many are on edge. Our politics are inflamed, and social media only adds to the anxiety.
It seems that @elonmusk made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute, but again, we appreciate that people are on edge. In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath. This is a new beginning. Let’s hope for healing and work toward unity in the months and years ahead.
There should be a way to present content with a Neutral point of view GregKaye 01:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You should have made it more clear in your first comment that you specifically think the gif should be removed. Regardless, I pretty firmly disagree. Including the gif allows readers to make up their own mind as to whether or not Musk was doing a Nazi salute. If you believe it's only an "awkward gesture", then you should want it included so that readers can see for themselves. – MW_(t•c) 01:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Please do not tell me what I should want. A silent rendering of an event in a context that at no point mentioned jews, in regard to a figure who has widely supported jews, is biased. Anyone who was not simply out to smear Musk should want it removed, imo. GregKaye 01:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We go by reliable sources. We do not make our own evaluations or do our own research. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Can someone direct me to the articles where ["reliable sources"] expressed outrage over [liberal gesticulations like these]?" Perhaps a question that I hope might be raised in reflection of balance. GregKaye 02:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

A good example of why X is not a reliable source. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a difference between still photos and video. Full videos of those Democrats making those gestures are on social media and are clearly not Nazi salutes. Libs of TikTok attempting WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That's why we're including a gif and not a still image. Regardless of your personal opinion, the gesture was widely commented on and should therefore be included in the article. – MW_(t•c) 04:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Placement of reference to Musk.s inauguration gesture in a section such as on views on immigration

Musk clearly has strong and varied views. While many religions may be regarded as supremacist and arguably the monotheistic religions particularly so, as mentioned Musk has regularly made positive statements about Jews and Judaism. In contrast to this he seems to me to be relatively sceptical in regard to, for instance, Islam, Perhaps this may be evident in his X references to topics including those related to Tommy Robinson.

Perhaps there is a possibility that, despite Musk's many pro Jewish references, he is an antisemite, He has proven to have been dishonest certainly in the issue of gaming as referenced by the likes of Quin and Asmagold. However, it seems to me a stretch that he may be integrally anti Jewish while making all his pro Jewish references.

Looking at the event, Musk's topic at the time was civilisation. Among other of the topics that Musk supports are what seems to be a defence against an Orwellian type take over against free speech and an opposition to a communist / socialist related economic regression of a type perceived in locations such as Venezuela. However it is also possible to interpret that Musk is also opposed to what he might see as negative changes that might occur away from traditional forms of American culture.

While I still think it would be more encyclopaedic to present the event, if it needs to be presented, in video form, I also tbink it would be appropriate to present it in reference to a broader topic of culture or, as Musk referenced, civilisation. GregKaye 04:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter whether or not Musk is an antisemite in his heart. What matters is how reliable sources and notable figures have described his words and actions. If you can find sources presenting this "in reference to a broader topic of culture or... civilisation" then please add them.

Regarding a potential video of the speech, Wikipedia has strict guidelines about using copyrighted content. The gist of it is that every piece of non-free content used must be completely necessary to provide an adequate overview of the subject being discussed, as well as serve a purpose that could not be served by text alone. This means that copyrighted videos should be uploaded without audio unless the audio is absolutely necessary to make a point. It would be difficult to argue that the audio of Musk's speech is necessary when his relevant comments can simply be transcribed. However, if you think you have a case, you can upload the video through Wikipedia:File upload wizard. – MW_(t•c) 05:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

1RR & ECP

In case anyone hasn't noticed, this article is now under WP:1RR and WP:ECP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. QRep2020 (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Political figure"?

Why is he described as a "political figure" as opposed to a "politician"? A politician is a person who participates in policy-making processes, usually holding a position in government. MB2437 01:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Should he be called a "powerful unelected federal bureaucrat?" soibangla (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll have a task and a half ahead of you if that's your suggestion for all bureaucrat articles. MB2437 02:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

To give you a serious answer, he does not hold "hold a position in government". The "DOGE" is not a real government department and so the administrator thereof is not a "politician". He is effectively an unelected, unappointed politically opinionated person with a high degree of influence over American politics, so "political figure" is the more accurate descriptor. Flip^andFlopped ツ 03:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Usually holding a position in government does not mean always. I'd argue "political figure" means the same thing, it's just weaseling around calling him a "politician". A high degree of influence over American politics sees him qualify, in my eyes, without considering his political activities and campaigns elsewhere. His notability as a politician is beyond question. MB2437 03:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Ableism/Discrimination in Article

Did you all forget that Elon musk has autism? He has expressed this publicly. Sometimes atoms happen or actions/words come out in ways they (autistic people) don’t mean. Please do not mention this “nazi salute” in the article. Pointing this out is really just an insult to the autistic community, is ableist, and discriminatory. I guarantee that most people perceiving this as a “Nazi salute” aren’t even Jewish/are atheists looking to defame someone simply because they disagree with him and are upset that their candidate fairly, securely lost the election and wasn’t the one being inaugurated yesterday. “””Not to mention, using Nazism/Adolf Hitler as some silly political insult because YOU’RE mad that your political party/candidate lost and didn’t take control of the presidency and congress is disgusting and downplays the real horrific situation that occurred, a permanent stain and disgrace on world history, as well as the millions of lives lost.””” Shame on those in control of editing this article. Did you all forget that Elon musk has autism? He has expressed this publicly. Sometimes atoms happen or actions/words come out in ways they (autistic people) don’t mean. Please do not mention this “nazi salute” in the article. Pointing this out is really just an insult to the autistic community, is ableist, and discriminatory. I guarantee that most people perceiving this as a “Nazi salute” aren’t even Jewish/are atheists looking to defame someone simply because they disagree with him and are upset that their candidate fairly, securely lost the election and wasn’t the one being inaugurated yesterday. “””Not to mention, using Nazism/Adolf Hitler as some silly political insult because YOU’RE mad that your political party/candidate lost and didn’t take control of the presidency and congress is disgusting and downplays the real horrific situation that occurred, a permanent stain and disgrace on world history, as well as the millions of lives lost.””” Shame on those in control of editing this article. CavDan24 (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Fellow autist. I find it more ableist to act like autists are above criticism. Ilovededue (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@CavDan24 We go on what reliable sources say, not the opinion of one person. If you find one that states that the gesture was a result of his autism, thats a different story. GiftedWithThought (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)