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)

  Wondering if recent events impact your view? Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  DO you refer to Elon Musk's Hitler salute at Trump's second inauguration? If not, do clarify what you intend? BarntToust 17:56, 22 January 2025 (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)

There have been some significant developments on DOGE since you made this comment. Maybe that changes your position? Czarking0 (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2025 (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)

Oppose removal. Why would his family have to be “notably wealthy”, whatever that means, for that to be an important factor in his life? The fact that his family is wealthy is why it was mentioned in the first place, and yes, it is important to know he started off rich rather than poor — if the latter was the case it’d be a rags to riches story, which would certainly have been mentioned. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Support removal from the lead. I agree with @Nemov's reasoning. Furthermore, given the debate, this is clearly something that needs more context than can easily be summarized in a sentence. I think the reader that wants to know about his upbringing will be better informed by the body. I also think the current wording is poor. Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 23 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)
• SupportOppose removal unless but it would be much better if we could 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) addendum having looked again at the sources, I've modified my vote.Pincrete (talk) 05:06, 26 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)
• Support removal —"wealthy" is a sneaky, easily misunderstood term. It is therefore MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Needs at least a rewrite. Most articles write "middle class", "working class" or some such. Many in the US now think "wealthy" is billionaires, for example... this might be because 8% of the US are already millionaires. I'm pretty sure whoever edits this wikipedia has an ever higher chance of being a millionaire already, for example. Are you "wealthy"? By US standards? By Haitian standards? Obviously the word "wealthy" is entirely inappropriate for the US today... much less for interpretations in other English-speaking countries today, much less for Africans in 1971. XavierItzm (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Middle class" and "working class" are horrendously outdated terms. They are also incredibly imprecise. Probably more so than the existing language. "Wealthy" is rarely hard to gauge within a given context, nor is it usually a particularly hard word to source. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 26 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)

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)

• Support per sources in nomination and overwhelming evidence above provided by Flipandflopped. We can put this in the final paragraph of the lede alongside the details of his other political beliefs. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support: it would be a POV violation to not include it at this point. The time for plausible deniability is over; as RSes have demonstrated, Musk is a consistent supporter of far-right causes. Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support: many sources listed, it goes in. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, because he is and it's well documented. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support for basically the same reasons CommunityNotesContributor gave above. It was pretty blatant even before the Nazi salute. Pikavangelist (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support since there are plenty of WP:RS as listed in the proposal. I browsed the Oppose arguments - most seem to claim that far-right politics is too vague, whereas in reality we have a full Wikipedia article on the topic with a fair number of scholarly sources. The question is not whether Wikipedia sees Musk as supporting the far right, it's whether Wikipedia sees reliable sources as seeing Musk as supporting the far right. Boud (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Support per CNC. Multiple RSs support this. We should be careful about the precise wording, but something to this effect is entirely justified by the available sources. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support per above WP:RS.

QalasQalas (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support With this [[38]], yes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 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)

  Exactly. It really doesn't make much sense to say he doesn't support the far right EarthDude (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Look at the word immediately after the one you bolded. What does it say? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:41, 22 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)

  It's getting very frosty, not convinced WP:UPHILLBATTLE applies anymore. CNC (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Certainly looks like an WP:AVALANCHE. TarnishedPath^talk 11:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Worth noting that the Views of Elon Musk article currently states in the lead "Following the COVID-19 pandemic, however, his views have also been described as becoming more right-wing and conservative over time, sometimes being described as far-right" [39]. The relevance being that if this child article was appropriately summarised in this article in order to adhere to editing guidelines (which it isn't), then this description would already be included in the body in a similar way. CNC (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:Elon Musk#Summarising child articles per editing guidelines

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

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,""[[40]] 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)

He visited Israel as part of a PR tour after explicitly endorsing blatant antisemitic conspiracy theories. [41], so this isn't the defense you think it is. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:35, 24 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)

are you not an extended-confirmed editor? Dflovett (talk) 13:00, 25 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)

Here's a somewhat ironic video of dedicated Musk critic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doing her own close parallel of a Eoman Salute. Anyone might think that these things may just sometimes happen. GregKaye 18:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Sky News Australia is unreliable, but if you can find a better source discussing allegations of antisemitism against AOC then by all means write about that on her page. – MW_(t•c) 21:16, 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)

Verifiability is great. The article section currently describing Elon Musk#Accusations of antisemitism seem to predominatly relate to Must's opposition to various effects of immigration and those who he had heard supported it.

Musk criticised George Soros who has been widely targeted as a supporter of net immigration but, as the section presents, there are views on both sides as to whether the attack was antisemitic.

Musk supported the view that jews were in support of high levels of immigration but condemned his own statements at the book deal summit.

At the same summit Bob Iger happened to be the person in attendance who commented about withdrawing adverts from X. In a context in which Musk has contempt for activities in Disney in relation to products such as those of Star Wars Musk fired back. I'd question whether the Jewish heritage of Robert Alan Iger had anything to do with it.

A verifiable focus of Musk is an anti immigration stance especially in relation to forms that affect a recipient nation's wester culture. There are many notable sources that confirm this. GregKaye 09:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, having the words would be helpful, because remember he referenced the white supremacist 14 words after the Nazi salutes.

I suspect most of his fans would want to cut the video off before then. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Musk's "Many pro Jewish messages" came as part of an apology tour after he agreed with a right-winger about a Jewish conspiracy theory and realized that it made him look really bad.

Don't let them manipulate you so easily. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:48, 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)

I would support changing this wording- to call him a politician does imply that he is either a candidate or holder of elected office, or engages in political activism in ways other than how he actually does. 42-BRT (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Calling Musk a "politician" in the lead goes against practically any other modern US official's biography on Wikipedia who has held a bureaucratic office instead of an elected office. Politician is typically reserved for people who campaign for elected positions and take elected office.

You seem to be citing the wording from the "Politician" article in your greentext, which highlights an image of Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig as politicians, but neither of whom are called politicians in their bio first sentence or lead. Do you have a reason to provide for thinking Musk's role as Administrator of the DOGE for all of two days is so politician-noteworthy that it makes him more of a politician than either of those two?

Or for that matter, is Musk's taking of office just now more politician-noteworthy in terms of "a person who participates in policy-making processes, usually holding a position in government" than the likes of Jake Sullivan, Ben Bernanke, Antony Blinken, Susan Rice, Michael Flynn, Colin Powell, Tom Homan, Anthony Fauci, Bill Barr, Jeff Zients, Merrick Garland, Janet Yellen, Miguel Cardona, Stephen Miller, Susie Wiles, Julie Su, Ron Klain, Robert Lighthizer, David Axelrod, and Alejandro Mayorkas?

Musk's situation (business leader appointed to gov role for the first time) is far from unique, and articles for such people do not have "politician" ascribed in their lead descriptors either. Examples include: Gary Cohn, Steven Mnuchin, Maria Contreras-Sweet, and Jared Kushner

The only bureaucratic leaders I can find described as politicians in their biofirstsentence tend to have served as elected officials as well. Musk has not. Examples: Mike Pompeo, Tom Vilsack, Rick Perry, Sonny Perdue, Deb Haaland, Gina Raimondo, Pete Buttigieg, Marty Walsh, and Hillary Clinton. KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This is without noting the influence and notability Musk has in politics outside of his bureaucratic office. This is a special case that should be considered separately. A lot of the examples listed have titles which consider their role more accurately e.g. diplomat, economist, attorney. Considering over a third of the prose in this article is centred on his political activities and views, it would seem odd not to categorise him as a politician, which is clearly one of his most notable titles. Chalking it up to simply being a "political advisor", "figure", or otherwise does not take this into account; his notability in politics extends far beyond his role in DOGE, where it does not in any of the cases you have given. MB2437 06:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A influential and notable figure in politics outside of office? So a political figure then??

As I demonstrated in the last set of examples I gave, "politician" in Wikipedia is not for major national figures who generally have influence in politics. They refer to elected officials from big to small. Mayor Pete of literallywhere?, Indiana is called a politician right next to Hillary Clinton. (we can also use the example of his successor, James Mueller, if Mayor Pete is too prominent now).

Do you think Martin Luther King Jr. should be called a politician? KiharaNoukan (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, "political figure" means the same thing, it's just weaseling around calling him a politician. It's like calling a footballer a "football figure", or a barrister a "law figure". MB2437 18:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Funny you should mention "law figure", Merrick Garland, Antonin Scalia, and plenty of others are actually called "jurists" to reflect their broad place in the legal world. Wikipedia does use such broader terms when they are appropriate, as is the case in Musk's article.

You seem to understand the problem with having an incongruous term for Musk's article in an earlier comment, where you talk about "You'll have a task and a half ahead of you if that's your suggestion for all bureaucrat articles" in response to a suggestion of another untypical term. Why not the same for you? I just demonstrated, with a number of examples, how usage of "politician" for modern American officials is typically used in this website for people who are in elected office of all types. Will I be seeing you campaigning to remove the term politician from the articles of mayors and other local elected officials up and down Wikipedia any time soon because they're not prominent enough?

I also provided the examples of other people in Musk's situation who are not called politicians, both from the standard of being appointed as a bureaucrat and from the standard of having "notability and influence in politics outside of office". Will you be taking up the task and half ahead of you to put "politician" in the biofirstsentence of Martin Luther King Jr., Milton Friedman, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, and Charles Koch? KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

None of those guys have/had offices in the White House or a White House email account. Stick to the subject of this article, no whataboutisms. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

A. This is just wrong, Milton Friedman worked in the FDR admin and then more notably as economic advisor to Ronald Reagan, and by all accounts was a prominent figure in Reaganomics, which I imagine is at least somewhat more notable than the great accomplishments of DOGE and Musk's whitehouse.gov email account in its 3 days of existence.

B. Before interjecting yourself in the conversations, please consider reading the full conversation. I gave multiple examples of people who had similar bureaucratic appointments. MB2437 dismissed them by saying he was instead concerned about the "influence and notability" they have "outside of his bureaucratic office". He also mentions "A high degree of influence over American politics sees him qualify, in my eyes, without considering his political activities and campaigns elsewhere." Hence the examples I gave of people with a high degree of influence over American politics, yet are not labeled as politicians. KiharaNoukan (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC, can we mention Musks alleged nazi salute?

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

1. Yes
2. No
3. other text?

Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• C — The salute is already mentioned. There's no need to change the wording. Loytra (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  It keeps getting edit warred out. But I have to say, we give it too much pace with what we have. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, I still maintain my vote for C. I agree that perhaps previous edits have given the incident too much weight, so I think a couple of sentences such as "At the second inauguration of Donald Trump, Musk performed an action that was heavily criticized as bearing resemblance to a Nazi salute. However, Musk denied the accusation, pointing to examples of other political figures making similar gestures." would do nicely. Loytra (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've changed my mind, I think something similar to what is written at the current revision of the 'Nazi salute' page (under the section 'Elon Musk at the 2025 Donald Trump presidential inauguration') would be best. I think my previous version runs the risk of downplaying the event. Loytra (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• A is all we need. Note, Im oppose any whataboutism edits, we go by what RS say, so unless RS makes an accusation we can't (per wp:blp). Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)A or C — Widely covered in reliable sources, even if there is a range of views about what he meant by it (which is covered in the article). I'm yet see any convincing reasoning, in above sections, about why this can't be covered. We shouldn't tailor content to save Musk's feelings, or because some think it would save use from disingenuous and unsubstantiated accusations of bias on Xitter. How much coverage, will depend on how long the coverage continues, but probably less than current but more than just a paragraph. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• B JamieBrown2011 (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  @JamieBrown2011, do you have a policy based reason here, keeping in mind that RFCs are not votes. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would say Wikipedia:NOTNEWS The question to ask ourselves is is this ambiguous gesture going to be enduring in nature, or is it simply an attempt to cast a slur against someone who's political views leftism media disagree with? Somewhat of the same nature as Trump being called "Hitler" a few days before the election. Even though it is covered in RS, the average reader is fully aware it is simply the dirty tactics of politics. JamieBrown2011 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with "leftism". I identify as a conservative, politically on the right. That does not mean I like nazis or nazi salutes, nor the far-right. You might want to look into people such as Winston Churchill or Charles de Gaulle, both of whom were staunch conservatives and right-wing leaders, yet forcefully combated fascists. Jeppiz (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• A We should be careful here. There is a 'guilt by association' attatached to the media interpretation of such things and we to avoid 'joining the fray'. For example The RS we have in the pic simply says "Several users on X, the social medial platform he owns, have likened the gesture to a Nazi salute". That is too weak to be used. A better scource (which we have in the text) is our 601 for example. I think we should row back on our very extensice coverage of the gesture and it's interpretation - but we should mention it.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment (invited by the bot) Covering or repeating something that his political opponents have invented is not about covering the topic of the article. But if covered it should be treated as such. Probably should include wording like "without basis". North8000 (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C The topic is widely references in reliable sources, and likely to be raised in the future. But because of WP:BLP considerations we must give more elaboration to Musk's position. Vegan416 (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A per Slatersteven. Serial (speculates here) 16:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Because of WP:NPOV I would suggest to change the title of the RfC to the more neutral "Can we mention the accusations of Nazi salute made against Musk?" Vegan416 (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C I'm not in favor of, or opposed to, including the photo. However, if the photo is included, Wikipedia:NPOV requires that it also include this collage of photographs that Elon Musk retweeted, which shows several prominent Democrats in a very similar pose. Including just the text that Musk wrote is not enough. It has to also include that exact image that Musk retweeted. Fair is fair. Wikipedia:NPOV must be obeyed, especially in the case of Wikipedia:Living persons.
  https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881746484229763524
  A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I do go back to my first post in a thread about this, we can't judge based on a snap shot picture, we can about a video. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Actually Musk reposted a video of AOC doing a similar gesture https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1881924748717982070, of course a more reliable source needs to be found for this video. Vegan416 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  And there is the problem, she does not swing her arm straight once from the heart, she is in fact waving it about. so yes, we would, need RS saying this was a nazi salute, not Musk saying it. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  The wikipedia article Nazi salute doesn't say anything about starting the salute "from the heart". Vegan416 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the AOC link. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  My proposed addition:

  File:Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, ELizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris with arm in the air.jpg Musk's tweet also included a retweet of a tweet by Libs of TikTok, which showed this collage of photographs of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris holding their arm in a similar position.]] A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Really not sure that all of four of those photos are in the public domain...
  Regardless, I don't think still images really cut it in this scenario. Musk didn't simply raise his arm, he made a very defined, forceful gesture that has even been "embraced by white supremacists" as a Nazi salute. Loytra (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I think ideally we'd want a video clip covering the entire gesture, freely licensed if possible, but I think we can argue it meets Contextual significance/Minimal usage of NFCC if not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Obviously these aren't all in the public domain (most seem to be from campaign events, not federal government photographers). Please don't upload images with incorrect licenses like this. Second this is a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV which is about representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. (emphasis added) and explicitly not about WP:FALSEBALANCE by including every fallacious argument made by Libs of Tiktok. We already include his rebuttal (and the rebuttal of others) cited to reliable sources, but we should not be making arguments unsupported by reliable sources. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks again for your comments on this, both here and on my talk page. I tried to delete the image, but even though I removed hundreds of characters of text from the page, the image is still there. Maybe someone who knows how to properly remove it could do so. I already posted a message on the image's talk page. I apologize for having created the image in the first place. Thanks for your help and advice. A Plumbing I Will Go (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Is there a reason this is an RFC? Also as far as I can tell Musk has not denied anything. Citing (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because we have edit waring and at least two other discussions, this is about centralizing it, and coming to a consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• B While this edit meets the 'widely covered' standard in reliable sources, that is by mere default because of the subject and news cycle. Either we include everything that is 'widely covered' on notable figure or we raise the bar to subjects are 'widely covered' AND are encyclopedic content. This particular item is more mainstream tabloid pop news, than encyclopedic content. --Wiki Comic Relief (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A is all we need. It has received condemnation in 7 continents. He was pursing his face and it was an entirely planned thing. Its not same as those image gestures of folk waving to the crowd, in a natural happy movement. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A Musk's salute got tons of WP:RS and is encyclopedic in consideration of the topic of Musk's perceived anti-semitism. Video of those Democrats shows that they are making other gestures, not Nazi salutes. That's why there's no RS about them doing Nazi salutes, just Elon's whataboutism tweet.[42] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  However it is also disputed that Musk made a Nazi salute. Vegan416 (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes and we include his denial, as we should. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  But version A only mention his denial, and not the hate & antisemitism watchdogs which seem to accept his version. We should mention them as well. Vegan416 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  The current version does not say that he denied it. In fact, it specifically says that he did not do so, cited to [43] - do you have a source for his denial? Because I'm not seeing it currently. --Aquillion (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• B Absolutely not. Please stop trying to add stuff like this every time there's a headline. WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENT Big Thumpus (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A Absolutely, obviously relevant. This was Musk's first public speech after the administration in which he serves took office. It has been widely covered in WP:RS media, not just in the US but around the world. Furthermore, this coverage is not just mentioning it in passing, but entire articles dedicated to discussing it. Also, can I remind those citing WP:NOTNEWS that that policy does not say major news should not be covered. Those voting 'no' by merely mentioning NOTNEWS might want to read up on what that policy actually says. Jeppiz (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A- Yes There has been extensive coverage in mainstream media including Associated Press, The New York Times, BBC News and other leading news services. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, to A, B, or C? Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've added A to my "Yes", thanks for catching the omission. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Given the comment, and the fact that the question is "Can we mention Musks nazi salute", I'd say it is unambiguous that it is an A. Jeppiz (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• A/C (whichever is "include it in the article"). Widespread sustained independent coverage in reliable sources of a notable individual that has generated international response. This has not been the case with various other individuals in snapshots posted above, which is why we don't mention it in, for example, the Laura Ingraham article (and frankly the whole argument smacks of whataboutism). Citing (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Question: Am I missing something? It IS already in the article --FMSky (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I said above, the problem is (was, and maybe again) it was being edit warred out, and there was (and is) an ongoing argument about if we should include it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Its notable enough to be included, its just imo the length thats a problem -FMSky (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hence A, one line of text. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  The .gif image is probably also undue --FMSky (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  A would not reduce anything to one line of text, it would only be consensus that the line of text is acceptable for inclusion as quoted. If anything it would indirectly imply that elaborating on this would be acceptable in order to provide further context. Did you mean to imply that A would be only that line of text? If so, this RfC is malformed, and it's too late to change it now after !votes have already been made. Editors are also voting A in favour of reducing the coverage, as well as to include broader context, which is an obvious contradiction here for anyone paying attention. I appreciate your efforts in trying to find post-edit-war consensus, however consensus from this RfC would only provide more disagreement over interpretation than any form of agreement between editors. I'll respectfully wait for your reply before !voting here. CNC (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I took it as read that A meant only that as C says "other text", so it seemed obvious to me that A meant only that text (and only that text). Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  "So, can we say" does not make it obvious I'm afraid, at least not to !voters so far based on my interpretation of the discussion. Other editors can correct me if I'm wrong here... CNC (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I otherwise read "other text" option as a different form of wording, rather than "more text" or context, if that helps to explain the confusion at least from my end. CNC (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Query for Jeppiz, Wellington Bay, Athoremmes, EF5, RodRabelo7, Autarch: you all believe the content should be reduced to the proposed single sentence, per intended meaning of voting A referenced above? Excuse the ping, but clarity would be useful here from a sample of A voters. CNC (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I don't care how it's formatted, as long as it's no longer than four sentences and mentions the nazi salute, in whole. E_F⁵ 19:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, I just mean you voted for it to be no longer than the proposed sentence per intended meaning of voting A. If that's what you meant, then all good. Thanks for reply. CNC (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, then the wording of this RfC sucks. E_F⁵ 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I had thought "other text" meant something other than A rather than anything in addition to A. I've changed my comment to A or C due to your clarification. I think the incident merits mention. While we should be cognizant not to give it WP:Undue Weight there should be as much text as necessary to cover the issue fairly and as comprehensively as needed. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  [[[User:CommunityNotesContributor|CNC]], I agree with EF5 that it is poorly worded RFC. My view is that the incident and the widespread criticism should be included. I did not intend to comment on the exact wording. Jeppiz (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes Athoremmes (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, this RFC is entirely too confusing. The article's coverage of the act and its impact is perfectly appropriate at the moment - which option conveys that? QRep2020 (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's supposed to be Option C "Other text", but I don't see it either. Other than what? The proposed text? The current text? The text per diff when RfC was started? It's too vague and misleading. CNC (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment whether this thing is mentioned or not, the current article gives it way too much WP:PROPORTION. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree. WP:RECENTISM strikes again. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I tried to cut it down per WP:BOLD. Let's see how long that lasts. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I approve of the state of the article left by Muboshgu's edits. QRep2020 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• B This is too WP:RECENT and Wikipedia is WP:NOTTHENEWS. Frankly, this RFC is premature and there's no support in policy to justify inclusion of a controversial news item of the day story in a WP:BLP. I hope the closing editor discounts the votes not citing any policy and those hand waving WP:RECENTISM away for a something that happened less than 3 days ago. Nemov (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C, or A as a distant second if that's the only version we can get consensus to include; we should mention it in some form, though it's going to require workshopping - the key sentence currently in the article is a good starting point, though. While it obviously needs attribution the double-distancing of the "received criticism... for what some called" in this specific proposal isn't ideal. Also, by my reading it is not actually true that Musk has denied it, as the AP points out [44] and the article currently says. But either way coverage is sufficiently overwhelming and broad to justify some sort of mention, especially given the politicians calling for him to be banned from multiple countries - if it does vanish from the news tomorrow we can always remove it, but at this point the trajectory of coverage and the broad international reaction makes it impossible to justify complete omission. Recentism doesn't mean we automatically ignore everything that has happened recently; there's a level of coverage and impact for events that necessitates that our articles reflect them. And nobody opposed to inclusion has really made a more detailed rationale for why this doesn't meet that standard, or even engaged with the amount of coverage it has gotten at all. EDIT: This prompted me to write an essay, WP:CRYRECENTISM - though I should add that none of this means that I feel that the current amount of text in the article is necessarily proportionate; I just think that it ought to be included in some form. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  (Extended discussion in response moved to below.)

• B as WP:RECENTISM. Even if this were some sort of Freudian slip or dog whistle it is ultimately an awkward, ambiguous hand gesture that you can't say much about other than that it generated controversy. If it acquires enduring coverage then I'd support reintroducing it later, but for now I think it is mostly just distracting from much more serious and substantial things that are going on. Photos of Japan (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A Yes, absolutely, it is quite a relevant controversy, which attracted significant traction from prominent organisations and etc. Athoremmes (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A - per above. E_F⁵ 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A as per above --RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A as per above. Autarch (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• A. Well-covered and not just by fringe American media. We shouldn't say in Wikivoice that Musk intended to make a Nazi salute (ultimately only Musk can speak for himself), but describing what the gesture was and the reactions to it are perfectly fine. However, what I would suggest is spinning out a Elon Musk and politics article given that this article is already nearly 14k words and WP:SIZERULE gives 15k words as when it should definitely be split and 9k as when it probably should be. Then we could reduce the amount of coverage here while still covering it appropriately.-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is already Views of Elon Musk and Political activities of Elon Musk. The issue in this article is the complete inability to adhere to summary style editing guidelines for summarising child articles. CNC (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Fair enough. My concern was that the current split isn't really conducive to content like this which isn't a view (it's an action with a mostly undisputed similarity to a Nazi salute but a disputed motive) and isn't really a political activity either (besides being at an inauguration). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  I see your point. I already removed it from the Views article based on discussion there, so can see that argument being used at Political activities as well. However now there is Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy, which looks like it's here to say based on the AfD, then I'll stick to my point of child article summaries, noting that a significantly larger summary is now entirely appropriate. I think if we just stuck to editing guidelines and policy, we wouldn't need this RfC. CNC (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Relevant discussion at

  → Talk:Elon Musk#Summarising child articles per editing guidelines

• B At best it seems like an awkward and energetic hand gesture from a man known for being awkward and energetic. There's no context before or after the gesture that point to it being a Nazi salute. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS. Wiki is also WP:NOTPEOPLEMAGAZINE, and this smells somewhat of WP:RECENTISM and tabloid material. Reliable sources and wide coverage aren't enough with someone like Musk, who is wildly famous and wildly controversial. He could have farted during his speech (speaking of smells) and there likely would have been wide coverage by reliable sources. Even Ben Shapiro, who doesn't shy away from calling out antisemitism, wasn't bothered by it. Kerdooskistalk 20:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Malformed RfC. It's become clear there is a distinct variation interpretating what these options imply from multiple editors, as documented in this discussion. It's therefore highly likely that !votes have become malformed, will continue to be malformed, and therefore determining the consensus by a closure will be very difficult to achieve without confirmation of what each !vote is explicitly voting for. I recommend a procedural close, in order to re-create an RfC that is clear and concise, not ambiguous and misleading. CNC (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C – We should leave the text as is. Really not sure what the purpose of this RFC is. – MW_(t•c) 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C, but if not C then A. The nazi salute is a significant event considering the already extensive content describing evidence of his views on Jewish people (i.e. antisemitism). The opinion of individual Wikipedia editors as to whether it is or is not a nazi salute, including mine, are irrelevant —- all that matters is that some sources have interpreted it as a nazi salute, and still more have published stories saying it was a possible nazi salute, including both the New York Times and the Washington Post, which is to be honest, a slam-dunk for it being notable. C because we should use “interpreted”, not “perceived” —- different people don’t see different things, and words matter. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• A - Yes. I think it is notable and well-covered and not recentism. The only part I feel is debatable is the amount of text and image to use on the topic. At this moment, I feel like its inclusion is raising concerns that Wikipedia editors are slanted, and so that should be considered. We want to be held to a higher standard, no? I edited quite a bit on the Rob Ford article and we had to deal with this quite a bit on a smaller scale. At the moment, I feel like the salute should be limited to a paragraph at most. And I don't suggest this as a fan of the guy. I think he does espouse very right-wing views and a salute is consistent with that, especially with his involvement with Germany. However, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to counter his views, just a place to document them in a suitable amount of content and detail. It's a tough call, but I think Wiki wisdom does exist. Alaney2k (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• B - no For reference I was accused of being too biased against Tesla based on my comments at the TslaQ article. No, the guy didn't do a Nazi solute and the fact that people tried to turn a nothing into a thing doesn't reflect on him as a person. It tells us nothing about Musk himself. I would much rather the article talk about his involvement with the Hothi defamation lawsuit (this reflects on his true person)[45] vs some freeze frame of a video where he is gesticulating that his heart goes out to the people in the audience. This has no place in a serious encyclopedic BLP. Springee (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• A/B. What is in the article now is far too detailed for this event. This shouldn't have it's own headline, which is currently the case. If it's to be there, a sentence is a more reasonable length. Yes, it's in the news. Musk is in the news all the time. Everything he does which is picked up by the media can't have it's own section in the biography. /Julle (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• A. Well covered in WP:RS. As we get more comments from historians of fascism and political scientists who study current US politics, C the statement should become less vague ("some") and should instead state the degree of consensus of viewpoints among historians of fascism and political scientists who study current US politics, e.g. "wide consensus" or "disputed" or "minority" view the event as a pair of Nazi salutes. That will only be known in a few weeks' or months' time. Boud (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• C/A whichever of these means the detail of the current text remains roughly as-is. This is heavily covered by a wide swath of reliable sources, so its inclusion, with this level of detail, is more than warranted. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• C/A per above. Current text is fine, includes his response and the response of groups defending and condemning him. Only fair to include with the amount of attention this has received. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• A/C, not seeing any valid arguments against it being due and significant coverage is overwhelming... What I do see is NOTNEWS and RECENTISM being abused by people who have apparently never read what they're linking to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can you explain how you feel WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT are being misinterpreted? Big Thumpus (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  In this context neither can be used to oppose inclusion. That they are misinterpreted vs anything else is AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes and I'm asking why you don't think they can be used to oppose inclusion Big Thumpus (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because nothing in the text of either of them opposes inclusion in such a context as this. If you disagree then you can of course provide the parts which you feel are relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

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

  • Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.

It's difficult to argue that this RFC which was opened within hours of this event doesn't fall into that exact scenario. Also, it's ridiculous that you attempt to argue others who have cited this haven't read it. In ten or twenty years will this addition still appear relevant? I'm not sure it'll be relevant in six weeks with how the news cycle works these days. Nemov (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Err, its difficult to say this even makes up a significant portion of this article. Slatersteven (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

If every single news story about a high-profile person were included, this article would never end. This individual is making headlines every day for one thing or another. How many more RFCs will this article generate, and how long will it get before someone trims it down? Nemov (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

While I can't estimate how long this article get's before being trimming, to provide a specific timeframe, I do intend to start enforcing editing guidelines after 23 February 2025 if there is no opposition. CNC (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

True, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this makes up a significant part of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to say my latest criticism to this RfC is that it was unknowingly started prior to the standalone article being split off, meaning the editing guidelines to assess the quantity of content to summarise has since completely changed. Until the AfD has been closed, it's impossible for anyone to accurately judge (based on such guidelines) how much coverage this event should include in the article. But of course everyone is welcome to speculate and !vote their opinion in the meantime, even if it seems pointless to me. CNC (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nemov: WP:RECENT says "Just wait and see... Above all else, editors should avoid getting into edit wars or contentious deletion discussions when trying to deal with recentism." Basically the one thing you can guarantee about an editor citing recentism in an edit war or contentious deletion discussion is that they have not read the whole thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Discussion (salute)

(Extended discussion below moved from comment above.)

• There is no way to accurately judge the long term impact of an event that happened 24 hours ago, even a week ago. One particular sector of the media rushing to characterize a particular event a certain way does not automatically qualify the evnet as encyclopedia material. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The reaction was broad and international, as the article says; it was not "one particular sector of the media." It also has coverage across the political spectrum - the fact that different sources interpreted it in different ways does not change that; it demonstrates that even Musk's supporters considered this a big enough deal to cover it. And we're required to look at the sources to determine long-term significance - that is how WP:DUE weight is assessed. They are, currently, treating it as something significant enough that it seems hard to justify the lack of long-term impact (including eg. politicians in multiple nations calling for Musk to be banned from them.) Is your assertion that we could never cover anything recent at all? Should we omit Trump's inauguration entirely, on account of it being recent? What level or type of sourcing would be necessary to convince you that this should be included? In fact, by crying "RECENTISM", you're inherently trying to judge the long-term impact of a recent event - this is intrinsic to the essay, which runs on the WP:10YEARTEST. --Aquillion (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Is your assertion that we could never cover anything recent at all? Should we omit Trump's inauguration entirely, on account of it being recent? This is a very unserious straw-man. We live in a 24/7 news cycle where anything[46] can be covered by reliable sources and be reported internationally. Our job is to parse through all this fog and include information that is central to this biography. If you cannot tell the difference between covering an inauguration and some sensational news about a gesture after 72 hours then perhaps your not the right person to be writing about "crying recentism." Nemov (talk) 19:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It was, of course, a rhetorical point; but it seems to have gotten the message across? The person I was replying to argued that there is no way to accurately judge the long term impact of an event that happened 24 hours ago, which is what prompted that point; yet that one rhetorical point focusing on the problems with that statement was enough to make you concede that yes, of course our job is to do exactly that when you admit that we must parse through all this fog and include information that is central to this biography. You're still not quite right - biographies obviously don't just contain central points (we're not putting this in the lead!) - but it's closer to policy. At that point the only bone of contention left is whether we think it is sufficiently relevant to his biography and, more to the point, whether the sources support that contention. I feel that the breadth of international coverage (including focuses on potential long-term consequences, such as politicians pushing to ban him from specific countries over it) illustrates that it does, and I don't feel that you or anyone else has really articulated an answer to that, but at the very least considering the obvious fact that some recent stuff does have to be included has moved us past the "nobody is capable of judging if a recent event is important" silliness. --Aquillion (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Its even now part of his dispute with Britain [[47]]. Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

"Roman salute"

In my view https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1270968955 is highly misleading. It changes "Fascist salute" to "Roman salute". The reader might hence believe it is a gesture used by Ancient Rome, which as far as we know, it is not - rather than one used by the Italian Fascists.

The edit summary does not make a lot of sense. The Nazis were small-f fascists but not big-f Fascists (the Italian political movement). The word was capitalised in the article.

I'm not going to just jump in and do it but I suggest this be reverted. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What do the sources that are used to verify this claim use as terminology here? If it fails WP:V it should simply be reverted per WP:BLPREMOVE, or otherwise sources need to be added to include that claim. CNC (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The first source we use for it calls it a Nazi salute. Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Just checked as well. Haaretz and BBC reference Roman salute, whereas Forbes describes a Nazi salute. Looks like an accurate edit based on the current sourcing, ie referencing both Roman or Nazi salute. CNC (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

BBC: "The Roman salute was widely used in Italy by Benito Mussolini's Fascist Party, before later being adopted by Adolf Hitler in Germany."

Haaretz: "Tech billionaire Elon Musk, speaking at a Trump celebration rally at Washington's Capital One Arena, appeared to conclude his remarks with a 'Roman salute,' a fascist gesture most commonly associated with Nazi Germany, where it was performed alongside the phrase 'Heil Hitler.'"

These are the only sources that mention the "Roman salute", and they both describe it as Fascist. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

BBC describe it as both even, or at least the interpretation or it... CNC (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the word "Roman" in the BBC article anywhere (ETA: there are two BBC articles, hence the confusion); it says "Several users on X, the social medial platform he owns, have likened the gesture to a Nazi salute".

However, this seems a little beside the point. When Haaretz writes "a "Roman salute," a fascist gesture most commonly associated with Nazi Germany", the reader is not led to believe that the gesture is mainly associated with Ancient Rome. The current wording here does. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually the beeb does mention it, as an attributed statement to one of his staff. And we link to our article about it, we do expect readers to check other articles, not be spoon fed by us. Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

_Do_ we? I don't expect, when reading a WP article, to click through every link just in case the title is misleading me (and then presumably to have to click through every link on those pages, etc...)

Alternatively we could add a parenthetical note - something like "Nazi salute or Roman salute (a similar gesture associated with the Italian Fascist political movement)"? Pinkbeast (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

An {{efn}} based note would be useful here I believe, good idea. CNC (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Let's see if that sticks. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I had fixed this in accordance to the sources (they both mention Fascism, and I agree that "Roman" is misleading)[48]. Since this article is in 1RR, I've reverted myself. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The article for Roman Salute clearly mentions that there is no evidence this salute was used by Ancient Romans. I think the article should state the obvious that he intentionally gave a Fascist/Nazi salute to the crowd, not once, but twice. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Accuratelibrarian I did so yesterday, but was reverted today. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Accuratelibrarian, serious question, if you were in Musk's position, being on the brink of potentially leading a government department and wanting to support the beginnings of an eletoral term, would you "intentionally g[i]ve a Fascist/Nazi salute"? GregKaye 18:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM, your speculative question is irrelevant here. CNC (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't do original research here. We go with what reliable sources say. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Musk gave what fits the widespread description of a fascist salute. Whether this was intentional is a matter of speculation but the fact that he actually did it is not. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I cannot understand how can you possible give an unintentional Nazi salute, that's clearly not an involuntary response to a stimulus. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

And as I mentioned before, he did it twice. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 03:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:List of controversies involving Elon Musk

Musk is constantly involved in controversies that people tend to forget after two weeks. What I believe is happening is this article is being 'clogged' up with these controversies, but because they make international news I don't think they should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. So I've decided that it may be a better idea to list them in a new article aobut Elon Musk controversies.

I've copied a couple of controversies from this article to Draft:List of controversies involving Elon Musk as a proof of concept. Any thoughts? ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be a WP:POVFORK. It would be the first biography in Category:Lists of controversies. A better strategy might be to re-organize and clean up the writing in this article generally. It's repetitive and bloated with some items appearing in multiple sections. Citing (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

oppose I agree with @Citing Czarking0 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I also oppose such a fork. The list article sounds like a good idea for minor contentions, but not for the purpose of removing all "controversies" from the main article. QRep2020 (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes minor contentions is what I meant, not all of these controversies. I have not proposed removing the major ones such as the "funding secured" or "pedo guy" tweets for example. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool, I'll take a look. QRep2020 (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

LOL.... this is just a Musk hate-fest. This is why students of mine and the teachers I know will not allow anything from Wikipedia political bios to be used. It's like a tabloid here right next to the article of the boy who ate his own foot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What you do in your career (i.e. students) or what your opinion is on Musk, is irrelevant here. If you would like to participate in a discussion, please stay on topic, as this is WP:NOTFORUM --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Summarising child articles per editing guidelines

Feels embarrassing to have to raise this discussion, but given how contentious changes to this article are, it's seems highly likely that enforcing editing guidelines per procedural policy would be controversial or otherwise end in a dispute. So here's the topic...

This is about the section Personal actions, views, and social media usage, the child articles Views of Elon Musk and Political activities of Elon Musk, and summary style guidelines that state: "Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article. (...) The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it, or alternatively, an excerpt of it. "

At present, a 36% of this article (that is also WP:TOOBIG at 14,000+ words) is the section in question (5,100 words as of writing). Quite obviously, 5,000+ words is not a summary style of two child articles here. Unless I'm missing something, the entire section is merely a shortened duplicate of the child articles, there isn't anything there that isn't covered in broader detail in the child articles.

I therefore propose enforcing editing guidelines and having appropriate summaries for these child articles, which realistically would be a few paragraphs per summary (subject to discussion). The Views of Elon Musk article already has a reasonable lead that could be expanded upon, whereas the political activities would need summarising afresh it seems. The only counter-argument for adherence would be WP:IAR, but I fail to see how this would apply. For anyone motivated to work on this problem, then please let me know below.

Note that this also concerns the recent RfC, given that by default a summary style would only realistically be summarising a sentence, if that. (Striked as with Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy, the summary would now be based on this article instead, edited: 14:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)) This is in no way intended to override or undermine any consensus in that RfC, instead I'd argue that editing guidelines takes precedence over this, and thus the RfC in itself is somewhat unintentionally misguided, as well as misplaced (is more relevant to the Views article).

Appreciate your thoughts on this, especially if I've missed something, hence the topic also. Ideally we can avoid chicken and egg based arguments based on views, as obviously there are much less views to the child articles because they serve little to no benefit to the reader at present. If there were only summaries of those child articles in this article, there would naturally be a higher view count.

Thanks for reading, CNC (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In principle seems fair, in pracitce thre will be disputes over what we remove. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure will be! Just like any lead or child article summary, there is also a dispute to be had. We managed to achieve this aim this at Israel–Hamas war (95% complete at least), so I don't doubt it'd be possible here. Maybe working in a sandbox for such summaries before implementing would make sense, if there is interest in working collaboratively. There are a few skilled editors I can think of pinging who might be willing to help, who also have experience in successfully implementing bold summarising. CNC (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

With respect to just the "Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy" child page: I think that we should start by deciding whether or not that article should exist of not. My reasoning is that:

• If the child article stays, then the actual discussion of what to say on the topic should happen there and this page should just summarize the child article.
• If the child article gets deleted, then the discussion of the topic would need to happen on this page.

Harimau777 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There is already an AfD for this, so that discussion will determine whether it remains the article remains or not. You're otherwise right, if kept that will determine the level of summary required. If deleted, then I guess the RfC will cover this. CNC (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

He straight up made a nazi salute. Disagree if you want, but I know what I saw. Both of my grandfathers were in WWII one drove tanks and one was infantry. Among other things I have seen a nazi salute in my life. Mostly it revolved around hate or the hate of. Most prescient is that it needs to be identified early. Or hey, don't go to the doctor, I'm sure it's not cancer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustCopewithit (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Think you got the wrong topic. This isn't specifically about the Nazi salute. But I will strike part of my original comment as Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy now exists, so therefore the summary would be different by default. CNC (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Alleged Nazi salute at 2025 inauguration rally"

I suggest changing this title as "2025 Inauguration Rally gesture controversy" and also cover [49] Forbes article about the Israeli president defending him. BarakHussan (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Netanyahu is certainly not a reliable source for this, he's a far-right politician defending another far-right political figure. Neither do we need to have a huge list of people defending the nazi salute along with a huge list of people condemning the nazi salute. we can just describe what Musk did using reliable sources about the event itself. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering even WP:RS sources are referring to it as a gesture instead of calling it a straight up nazi salute (barring CBC and the Guardian) points to it being more constructive to refer to it as a gesture controversy. [50]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musks-hand-gesture-during-trump-inauguration-festivities-draws-scrutiny-2025-01-21/ [51]https://apnews.com/video/elon-musks-straight-arm-gesture-during-trumps-inauguration-rally-embraced-by-right-wing-extremists-31aeafd4c34f424693db13b81191eb37 [52]https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-01-21/musk-says-gestures-at-trump-inauguration-werent-nazi-salutes [53]https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/20/us/politics/elon-musk-hand-gesture-speech.html [54]https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/01/21/elon-musk-salute-trump-inauguration/ [55]https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryroeloffs/2025/01/23/anti-defamation-league-condemns-elon-musk-holocaust-jokes-after-defending-awkward-gesture/ [56]https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/elon-musks-hand-gesture-during-trump-inauguration-festivities-draws-scrutiny/ BarakHussan (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Benjamin Netanyahu chairs a coalition government that includes openly far-right extremists and racist parties (so described in most reliable sources). Moreover, his government relies on the US government, per WP:MANDY, of course he is going to defend it. That doesn't matter much. Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that "2025 Inauguration Rally gesture controversy" is completely appropriate and is constructive. This is also in line with reliable sources. Zyxrq (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This can also apply to the Elon Musk's arm gesture page if its not deleted. I also want to point out "Nazi salute" is not used in the articles title and we should keep the titles congruent with each other. Zyxrq (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Muboshgu because you reverted my edit I'm adding you to this conversation, we should change it to Something like Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy or what ever new name is chosen for the page just to keep the two articles title congruent. Zyxrq (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

To say ether Nazi, or Roman salute independent from each other is a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in my opinion. Especially when reliable sources are generally referring to it as a gesture. Zyxrq (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m redirecting this conversation to Talk:Elon Musk straight-arm gesture controversy. Zyxrq (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

DOGE in Lead

The lead currently has two sentences on DOGE. I think this is WP:UNDUE especially given that it is WP:TOOSOON to say what DOGE really is.

• Since January 2025, he is currently serving as Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency, under the second Donald Trump presidential administration.
• In January 2025, he was appointed as Administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency.

I propose that the first sentence is removed. The second sentence is a good summary of what has happened. The first sentence is poorly worded. Also its placement at the beginning does not have as good a context as the second sentence.

I would remove myself but I am staying far way from WP:1RR and I have one in the last 24 hours Czarking0 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree with removing the first and retaining the second. — Czello ^(music) 17:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Mentioning Grimes in Nazi Salute Section

I think the Grimes reference is WP:UNDUE for this section. Lot's of people have opinions about this but his ex-gf is not a particularly notable opinion. The source is not really reliable in the light of WP:NOTGOSSIP. Again I would revert this but I am not doing more than 1RR in 24 hr. Czarking0 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Elon's racist nazi jokes and the Anti-Defamation League's new response

This sentence in the wikipedia section needs to be updated ("The ADL stated that Musk did not make a Nazi salute, but "made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm".) The ADL has now reversed their decision because Elon Musk double downed today with disgusting jokes such as “Don’t say Hess to Nazi accusations!” he wrote in a post on X that also included the line “Some people will Goebbels anything down!” as well as the baffling non-sequitur “His pronouns would’ve been He/Himmler!”. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/adl-elon-musk-nazi-jokes-1235244824/

>The World War II wordplay was evidently a bridge too far for Greenblatt after the ADL had gone to bat for Musk in a statement on the inauguration salute that was widely seen as an abdication of the nonprofit’s exact purpose. “We’ve said it hundreds of times before and we will say it again: the Holocaust was a singularly evil event, and it is inappropriate and offensive to make light of it,” he wrote in a post on X that quoted Musk’s, telling the world’s richest man that “the Holocaust is not a joke.” The ADL itself quote Greenblatt’s post and added, “Making inappropriate and highly offensive jokes that trivialize the Holocaust only serve to minimize the evil and inhumanity of Nazi crimes, denigrate the suffering of both victims and survivors and insult the memory of the six million Jews murdered in the Shoah.” Summerfell1978 (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The ADL didn't reverse anything, but their second statement is already mentioned. Is there something specific you're asking for? Citing (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Citing. Here are additional sources. Czarking0 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What do you all think about stating the "puns" in the paragraph? Saying they were puns is letting him off the hook easily. I think the "puns" should be listed so the reader knows how serious his action was to earn him an entire section on his wikipedia page about this. Especially considering social media and well known commentators are trying to downplay his actions and words as misunderstandings or jokes. The sentence in question, can we add the "puns" he said on twitter? ("Musk posted a series of puns about Nazis on Twitter") Summerfell1978 (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Considering both the WP:RSPS sources I added here put the full text of the tweets in their article I am sympathetic to the idea of adding them to the article. However, I also think considerations for due weight in the context of this biography should be made. I am unsure on that point. Czarking0 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

References

What is doge.gov?

Two possibilities:

1. Department of Government Efficiency, and

2. United States DOGE Service. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Department of Government Efficiency is the name of the page. Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated image?

Elon in 2018 does not represent Elon now. I suggest we change it to a more recent picture that is more related to what he's doing now. Clayton Odom Jr. (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have one that is free to use? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Preferably one of him doing his iconic "arm gesture". AcademicPerfection (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Why, does he do it a lot? Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It's pretty much what he's known for. AcademicPerfection (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

No its not, he was well known before this. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the wording in the Salute segment

The wording in the second para of the salute segment should not over or under emphasis Musk's response to the claims. At one point it had said "Musk strongly denied" and that changed to "dismissed but did not deny", and now apparently has changed to not say dismissed but just give a single quote. I added sources which elaborate on the nature of his response and made it clear that the quoted tweet isn't the only response as in fact he has made a series of tweets on it, even now. I may have typoed in my edit summary and called him Trump, Freudian slip I guess lol. Basically per the sources Musk's response has been to dismiss the claims in a derisive manner, claiming they are politicized in nature. 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

HAs he actually said it wasn't a fascist salute, just one quote will do. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

He hasn't. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article Concerns

Hello all. This page appears to fail a few good article criteria, including stability and using summary style. I can't fully comment on whether it meets Criterion 4: "Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each." without giving it a full review, which it deserves, given it was ~5000 words when awarded good article status, and is now ~15000. It's fundamentally a different article to what was reviewed for good article status. I'd like to hear other editors thoughts before putting this up for good article review. Pinging @HAL333: and @QRep2020:, who I understand initially took the article to GA. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but efforts are underway to quasi-fork some of the newer material and stabilize derivative articles that could repo some of the excess. I would recommend returning to this idea in 90 days and, even then, the official guidance is to "prioritize bringing an article up to standard above delisting." Let's not reflect the volatility that seems to surround the subject. QRep2020 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Childhood and family

This article lists Musk's ancestry as being part "Pennsylvania Dutch" (which is the American mispronunciation of "Deutsch" or German), while the separate article in Wikipedia "Musk Family" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musk_family) instead lists it as Dutch Free Burghers, who were the Dutch Boers who settled in South Africa.

I believe that this article is incorrect - that his heritage is Dutch and not German; nor did any of his ancestors live in Amish Lancaster County, PA, or any other area associated with the "Pennsylvania Dutch" - and therefore the attribution in the "Musk Family" article is the correct one: Dutch Free Burghers. Eagle in NYC (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)