Talk:Elon Musk

RfC: Should we use the officeholder infobox?

Should this page use Infobox officeholder with his position as head of DOGE at the top, or Infobox person with DOGE listed under occupations? Yeshivish613 (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Infobox officeholder but with a clarifying footnote (i.e. [1]) and "head" uncapitalized. That Musk is (a) a government employee, and, (b) the formal and functional leader of some sort-of agency is verified by multiple RS (e.g. [2], [3], etc.).
  We don't invoke Officeholder for any government employee and there is no guideline or MOS standard for when it is applied. However, in the case of the USG there are numerous incidences of this being introduced for posts all the way down to Level 5 on the Executive Schedule (see: Tracy Stone-Manning, Stefanie Tompkins, John Ingersoll, Roselyn Tso) with no objection. We don't know where "head" of the USDSTO ranks, however — based purely on RS reporting which presents his role as analogous to that of an éminence grise — it's clear that its day-to-day power is probably more substantial than that of the director of the Geological Survey or the deputy commissioner of Internal Revenue.
  If, in the future, we learn that he was actually just sorting the recycling in the EEOB we can always remove it. This is purely a style question so no errors will be introduced by applying it now, even if we later learn it is maybe excessive. Chetsford (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see the relevancy of comparing Level 5 Executive Schedule officials to Musk. No source I can find says Musk is under the Executive Schedule, or even being paid by the government for his work with DOGE.

  Also, if there is no issue with removing the officeholder infobox later, then there is also functionally no issue with leaving it as a person infobox in the first place. When even us WP editors are hesitant enough to describe Musk's "office" as "some sort-of agency", and the extent of government reach DOGE/Musk has is legally still under dispute, it's a good time to be extra cautious. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  "I don't see the relevancy of comparing Level 5 Executive Schedule officials to Musk." I'm happy to clarify it. Level 5 on the executive schedule are posts that generally have very limited and discrete power and we regularly invoke the officeholder template for them. Musk unambiguously holds greater power than the holders of Level 5 EX posts; it is the official view of 14 states that he possesses "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch" [4], a position reinforced by multiple RS.[5][6] It would, ergo, be beyond ridiculous for us to invoke Officeholder Template for the director of the Geological Survey, but not for a supervisory government employee who has "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch" . The matter of his compensation, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to my point and my mention of the EX5 is only for purposes of the preceding comparison. I apologize if that was somehow unclear. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification; I understand your point now. If the power legally holds up for DOGE, I would probably agree with you, but it still seems too early to tell. To pull a quote from the same source you provided, 14 states also agree that Mr. Musk does not occupy an office of the United States and has not had his nomination for an office confirmed by the Senate.[7]

  Also, I don't agree with your summary of that document being it is the official view of 14 states that he possesses "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch". Those states were careful to only say Musk has seemingly limitless and unchecked power (emphasis my own). In the whole document, they actually do not say "limitless" once without the word "seemingly" in front of it. And it does not make someone an officeholder, in my opinion, just because they "seemingly" hold more power than those who are actual officeholders. That's not to mention that that document also did not state Musk had "full power of the Executive Branch", but instead said There is no office of the United States, other than the President, with the full power of the Executive Branch, and the sweeping authority now vested in a single unelected and unconfirmed individual is antithetical to the nation’s entire constitutional structure. The whole document is an argument that this power does not legally, or constitutionally, exist. It's actually a good example for me of why I feel it's better to wait, when 14 states are still questioning if he holds a legal office. - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"this power does not legally, or constitutionally, exist" And yet, as per your statement below -- with regard to Qaddafi -- Officeholder can be invoked in even informal and uncodified leadership roles. But not here for some, increasingly elaborate, reason. Chetsford (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Really, your argument is Musk's position is similar to the dictator of Libya, Qaddafi, and that is why he should have an officeholder template? Yet my reasons are "increasingly elaborate"? - Whisperjanes (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Definitely add an infobox as the DOGE Director. Musk isn't working like J. Peter Grace. He had gutted USAID, CFPB, EPA, Education, and more to come. He is certainly wielding more influence than Samantha Power whose former position is gone. You have Senate-confirmed Agency heads at Musk's beck and call. He's getting the bang for the $290,000,000 he poured into Trump's campaign last year. Arbeiten8 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Good points. I actually made some similar ones at Is Elon Musk a principal official for purposes of the infobox?. Chetsford (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes - The coverage about him being the head of the DOGE department is extensive.[8] This page needs an infobox for that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if he gets all the coverage. ELON IS NOT AN OFFICER That is the fact. [9]https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5288988/doge-elon-musk-staff-trump Astropulse (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes per previous comments. Please note, however, that what I am proposing is to mention his current office in the infobox, whether it is the "officeholder" infobox or the "person" one. Psychloppos (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
• No As I understand it, it is used for public officials, not advisors. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Jamie Raskin would beg to differ. Even the president doesn't have the authority to abolish agencies created by Congress. Fast forward to 4:40 here. Arbeiten8 (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  Musk doesn't have the authority either, which is why there are so many lawsuits. It should come as no surprise that some people do things that they lack the authority to do. And Raskin didn't say or imply anything related to an RfC about infoboxes. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree, however, he is a public official. He's an employee of the government who heads an agency of government, housed in a government building, and staffed by government employees. Chetsford (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  DOGE isn't a government agency; it's a "temporary organization," which has a different definition in the U.S. Code. Musk is a special government employee, as are the other people employed with DOGE and over 1000 other people. Do you think that all government employees who head federal temporary organizations are public officials? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"DOGE isn't a government agency" No, I'm afraid you're incorrect. A government agency under the APA, is any "authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency" with the exception of a specific list of exemptions (e.g. Congress) of which TOs are not included. Chetsford (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Administrative Procedure Act? If so, the current USC notes "The provisions of this subchapter and chapter 7 of this title were originally enacted by act June 11, 1946, ch. 324, 60 Stat. 237, popularly known as the "Administrative Procedure Act". That Act was repealed as part of the general revision of this title by Pub. L. 89–554 and its provisions incorporated into this subchapter and chapter 7 hereof" (emphasis added). Looking at the current USC, it does use the phrase you quoted in both 5 USC §551 (which clearly states that that definition of "agency" is "For the purpose of this subchapter" — namely, Chapter 5 - Subchapter II) and 5 USC §701 (which clearly states that that definition of "agency" is "For the purpose of this chapter" — namely, Chapter 7). But temporary organizations are not mentioned in either Chapter 5 or Chapter 7, so the definition of "agency" you quoted doesn't apply. Temporary organizations are defined in Chapter 31. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think you may be confused. You cited the USC to establish that DOGE was a TO, which it is. But the APA is the only place -- AFAIK -- the term "government agency" is defined at all and, as you correctly noted (and perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my response to your comment), it only applies to that chapter. Ergo, the onus is yours to demonstrate why a TO "isn't a government agency" as you've contended. Chetsford (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

As I just quoted to you, the APA was repealed and its provisions incorporated, so I don't know why you're continuing to refer to the APA. The definition of "agency" in the USC applies to subchapter II of chapter 5 and to chapter 7. A temporary organization isn't an agency because it hasn't been defined as one. The US government doesn't consider it an agency. The EO doesn't consider it an agency. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm referring to it because, in your OP you stated that the TO doesn't meet the definition of "government agency" in the USC. But that was the only place in the USC that ever defined "government agency" in a way that would potentially be exclusionary to the TO. I'm really sorry, FactOrOpinion, I'm just not sure how I can be much clearer on this point to you. And, no, the EO says nowhere in it that DOGE isn't a "government agency". Did you mean to post a different link? Chetsford (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You're continuing to refer to an Act that's been repealed. As for "the EO says nowhere in it that DOGE isn't a 'government agency'," I didn't claim that it "says" that, I said it doesn't "consider" it one, as should be clear from the fact that it says “Agency” has the meaning given to it in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except that such term does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof. ... The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President. (emphasis added). So no, I didn't mean to post a different link. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• No White house has confirmed Elon is not a officer. This was discussed before and officeholder infobox was removed Astropulse (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5288988/doge-elon-musk-staff-trump

  As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commissioned officer Musk will file a confidential financial disclosure report, a White House official said on Friday Astropulse (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Infobox person. Musk is not an officeholder, he's a special government employee. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

No objection to your !vote, but just for factual clarification: Musk is, in fact, an officeholder. An officeholder is one who holds an office, which he unambiguously does. Astropulse's NPR reference seems to be a point of confusion for people who falsely believe that "Officeholder" is a synonym for "Officer of the United States", which it is not. Elon Musk is not a commissioned officer of the United States, but he is an officeholder. We have neither policy, guideline, nor MOS standard that reserves the Officeholder infobox for Officers of the United States. Chetsford (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

One could say that there is no such US office as "Director of Department of Government Efficiency", he is just employed to run DOGE. Therefore he can't be an officeholder of a nonexistent office. Yeshivish613 (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mention "officer" nor would I confuse the two terms, so that's irrelevant. I said that he's not an "officeholder." Special government employees are not officeholders. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

For purposes of WP, an officeholder is anyone who holds an office, whether it's created by a state authority or not. The decision as to whether or not to invoke the officeholder template is a matter of editor discretion based on our determination as to whether or not it would be beneficial to readers (see Alexei Navalny, etc.). So merely repeating, ad infinitum, that the CFR or the USC or the Dubuque Municipal Code won't allow us to call Musk an officeholder (which isn't true anyway, since "officeholder" - vs "officer" or "official" - is not a term used in U.S. law anywhere AFAIK) is a bit pointless. Chetsford (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

"So merely repeating, ad infinitum, that the CFR or the USC or the Dubuque Municipal Code won't allow us..." I said nothing about what editors are allowed to do, so claiming that I've done so — much less that I've done so "ad infinitum" — is a straw man. Of course editors are allowed to use the Infobox officeholder. I agree that "The decision as to whether or not to invoke the officeholder template is a matter of editor discretion." Editors clearly disagree about whether to do that, which is why there's an RfC, and the closer of this RfC will determine where the consensus lies. I don't see the point of continuing this exchange. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'm leaning towards Infobox person. I don't see the harm in waiting to see what the court says. And we don't need to pretend Musk's position is precedented, and make a decision as if we are a WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  Going off of recent reliable sources, it looks like many do not describe DOGE as a government "office", "department", or "agency" (excluding when writing out its full title). Instead, it's described as an "advisory body",[10], "team"[11][12], or "initiative".[13][14] No need for Wikipedia to jump the gun when reliable sources are hesitant or questioning themselves.
  Either way, I do not think of "officeholder" when I hear of a temporary "special government employee", that can legally only work a max of 130 days in a year, running a temporary organization - regardless of where that organization runs or does its work. And if we are looking for WP infobox precedent, this article mentions the "Grace Commission" as being a similar initiative to DOGE. The head of that commission, J. Peter Grace, does not have an officeholder template. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

We have never restricted the use of Officeholder to certain posts legally defined by the USG and I'm puzzled by editors who seem to be advancing the position that such a restriction is somehow the usual course of business.
In fact, it's even regularly used for non-parliamentary leaders in political parties (David Hogg, Alexei Navalny, C. E. Ruthenberg, etc.) and even private organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller, Peter G. Peterson, Robert Rubin, etc.). The idea that Officeholder is a sacred template that is invoked in only the most reverential cases for offices that originated under the Mayflower Compact is a ... unique ... one that seems to have come into existence for the first time in this article. Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If this is in reply to me, then I'm puzzled where you saw me stating that WP restricts officeholder templates to positions legally defined by the United States government. I have seen officeholder templates be used on articles other than those of government officials, but I did not bring up a list of them because they don't seem relevant to Musk's position as a hired government employee.

If I wanted not-so-close comparisons for precedence, I could bring up the other U.S. special government employees I could find (Huma Abedin, Scott Atlas), but they did not seem as similar as J. Peter Grace to Musk's own position. The reason I stated this seems unprecedented, is I really have had a hard time finding a comparable position in U.S. politics. - Whisperjanes (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Here is an analogy from Libya's Muammar Gaddafi who currently has an officeholder infobox for the tenure of "Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution" held by Muammar Gaddafi was not an official office or position explicitly defined in the Libyan Constitution, nor was it a formal part of the country's legal or governmental structure. Arbeiten8 (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting article. But (as far as I'm aware) officeholder templates are always used for the heads of countries, whether or not they were installed by a military coup. Gaddafi was the dictator and head of Libya, and Elon Musk is not the head of a country, so I don't think it's a great comparison to use. - Whisperjanes (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to clarify the above, since I seemed to confuse another editor. I think it's a good example to bring up and discuss, just not a great one to use as precedent for Musk's position. But I understand your point that Gaddafi can be used as an article example of someone who created his position name and took over a country illegally (although I'm majorly simplifying), but WP editors still added an officeholder template to the article.

But since it's up to us WP editors to choose how we apply this template across the board, I would like to see an actually-similar precedent on WP to Musk's position that has this template before applying it. And if enough do not exist to establish precedent one way or the other, then I do think it makes sense to weigh which reliable sources call Musk an officeholder, or call DOGE a public office, compared to the sources that say the alternative. I don't think there is an issue with waiting, but I do think there is an issue with stating something reliable sources do not. - Whisperjanes (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Would it make sense to say as a guideline that officeholder should be used when there is a WP article about the office, such as President of the United States, US Senator, and even Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution, but since there is no such recognised position as Director of DOGE (or whatever you want to call him), we can't say he is holding an office? Yeshivish613 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

There isn't a "White House Chief Strategist" office for Steve Bannon. Also, Musk is running DOGE. On 2-18-2028, Trump said that he picked Musk to run DOGE because "I couldn’t. I really tried hard. I couldn’t find anyone smarter." https://x.com/stillgray/status/1892125651580178866 Arbeiten8 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes – he does hold an office, RSs have commented on his holding this office, Clint Eastwood has such an infobox even though he is much better known for his acting. Thus Musk should too. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Person "office" he holds is ad hoc, no indication there will ever be a successor. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Fairly recent but reliably sourced news is indicating that Musk's actual position is Senior Adviser to the President and that he is technically a White House (and I would presume Executive Office of the President) employee. [15] Marquisate (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here's a source for that:

  Who’s in charge of DOGE? Not Elon Musk, White House says - POLITICO

  "Elon Musk is not the leader of DOGE — the mysterious Trump administration operation overseeing an effort to break and remake the federal bureaucracy. In fact, he’s not even technically part of it at all, the White House said in court papers Monday night." NME Frigate (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  This means, by the way, that the actual Administrator of USDS, as established in an executive order issued on Jan. 20, is unknown. Below is the relevant text of that order.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  Sec. 3.  DOGE Structure.  (a)  Reorganization and Renaming of the United States Digital Service.  The United States Digital Service is hereby publicly renamed as the United States DOGE Service (USDS) and shall be established in the Executive Office of the President.

  (b)  Establishment of a Temporary Organization.  There shall be a USDS Administrator established in the Executive Office of the President who shall report to the White House Chief of Staff. There is further established within USDS, in accordance with section 3161 of title 5, United States Code, a temporary organization known as “the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization”.  The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall be headed by the USDS Administrator and shall be dedicated to advancing the President’s 18-month DOGE agenda.  The U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall terminate on July 4, 2026. The termination of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization shall not be interpreted to imply the termination, attenuation, or amendment of any other authority or provision of this order. NME Frigate (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Not to mention that Donald Trump announced on November 12 that Musk would lead DOGE.

  They're all just a bunch of liars, but I'm sure we'll get these deck chairs arranged before the ship goes done. NME Frigate (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on this new information from NME Frigate and Marquisate, I'll probably change my !vote to No. I'm not ready to pull that trigger just yet as we privilege RS over official statements, and RS continue to describe him as "head" and using terms that give him the appearance of a supervisory officer. However, as a sworn declaration this is compelling and I imagine RS will calibrate their reporting on Musk within the next few days, accordingly. Chetsford (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

As a Senior Adviser to the President, Musk would be in role equivalent to that held by Anita Dunn in Joe Biden's presidency, so perhaps her article can be a model for this one?

Anita Dunn - Wikipedia NME Frigate (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Joshua Fisher is lying for the Administration gov.uscourts.dcd.277463.24.1.pdf to advance their agenda. Can we forget other liars like Rudy Giuliani, Mike Flynn, and countless others? There are oodles of reliable sources telling us that Musk isn't the equivalent of Steve Bannon in terms of deciding policy. Arbeiten8 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Judge Chutkan, who just ruled in that case (she ruled against issuing a temporary restraining order) felt it was necessary to remind the government that they have a duty to be truthful in their filings, although her comment was not directed specifically at that declaration. Here's the most relevant section of her order to this discussion:

"On January 20, 2025, President Trump established the “Department of Government Efficiency” and a subsidiary organization, U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization (collectively, “DOGE”), by Executive Order. Compl. ¶¶ 52–56, ECF No. 2; Exec. Order No. 14,158, 90 Fed. Reg. 8441 (Jan. 20, 2025). Elon Musk directs the work of DOGE personnel but is formally classified as a “special government employee.” Compl. ¶¶ 59–63; see also Decl. of Joshua Fisher ¶¶ 3–6, ECF No. 24-1 (classifying Musk as a “non-career Special Government Employee” and “Senior Advisor to the President”)."

And this part of the order hints at how this could play out:

"That said, Plaintiffs raise a colorable Appointments Clause claim with serious implications. Musk has not been nominated by the President nor confirmed by the U.S. Senate, as constitutionally required for officers who exercise “significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States.” United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 594 U.S. 1, 12 (2021) (citation omitted); Compl. ¶ 64; TRO Mot. Hr’g Tr. 29:07–22 (Feb. 17, 2025), ECF No. 27. Bypassing this “significant structural safeguard[] of the constitutional scheme,” Edmond v. United States, 520 U.S. 651, 659 (1997), Musk has rapidly taken steps to fundamentally reshape the Executive Branch, see Compl. ¶¶ 66–76; Pls.’ Reply at 1–3, ECF No. 21. Even Defendants concede there is no apparent “source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power” to take some of the actions challenged here. See Defs.’ Notice at 2. Accepting Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, Defendants’ actions are thus precisely the “Executive abuses” that the Appointments Clause seeks to prevent. Edmond, 520 U.S. at 659. But even a strong merits argument cannot secure a temporary restraining order at this juncture."

source: gov.uscourts.dcd.277463.29.0_3.pdf

And here's a story on the ruling: Judge Chutkan rejects call from Democratic AGs for temporary restraining order blocking DOGE’s access to federal data | CNN Politics NME Frigate (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

After having seen the MAGA pressure against John D. Bates, Chutkan is caving. A super-agency such as DOGE would need to be created by Congress with an Act. Article II, Section 2 gives the President the power to "appoint... all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law." However, Congress must first establish the office or department by law. It is Chutkan's opinion that there is no harm; she is sidestepping the Constitutionality of the existence of DOGE along with its sweeping powers. Arbeiten8 (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's too soon to say. Many observers said following last week's hearing that the plaintiffs didn't make a strong case for a temporary restraining order. Their next step would be to file for a preliminary injunction. In the long run, the states have a reasonable chance at prevailing, but boy will there be a huge mess to clean up by then. NME Frigate (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

FYI, after repeatedly declining to identify the DOGE Administrator when asked by a judge in court and by reporters in the White House briefing room, the White House today said that the person with that title is Amy Gleason, previously understood to be a "top Musk advisor."

White House names Amy Gleason the administrator for Musk's DOGE program | Reuters NME Frigate (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Gleason told a reporter earlier today that she's on vacation in Mexico. NME Frigate (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it true that now the White House is saying he is not head of DOGE? Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. An obscure White House peon obfuscated thus as a political strategy to calm critics after 10,000 employees of USAID got fired, Consumer Bureau is in shambles, etc. ... Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky and Mike Lee can't get into Fort Knox, but Elon Musk will. Arbeiten8 (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• Infobox officeholder but with a clarifying footnote per Chetsford. Perhaps is not a de jure officeholder, but for the purposes of conveying the most relevant information, he is a mirror image to a typical officeholder de facto. Using that infobox with a footnote clarification seems like the most rational solution and follows the spirit of the Wikipedia. Flip^andFlopped ツ 22:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but they're also refusing to say who is leading DOGE, while Donald Trump himself seemingly is not in charge of it, given that he said today that he was unaware that Musk's team was working in the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration, which presents conflict of interest problems for Musk (or would in any normal administration). NME Frigate (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"I am pleased to announce that the Great Elon Musk [...] will lead the Department of Government Efficiency," Trump said in December 2024. "Contradictory statements about Musk make it unclear who runs DOGE" Arbeiten8 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk .... will personally review who got hired at DOGE. Arbeiten8 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• He's not officially head of DOGE, so no shouldn't be listed.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
• Per [[16]], no, whatever Trump says, legally is is not hard of Dodge. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• Infobox officeholder, but only with the "Senior Advisor to the President" position.

Musk serves as a Senior Advisor to the President as a Special government employee and is employed by the White House Office, according to a declaration from Joshua Fisher, the Director of the Office of Administration. [17] This is very similar to Anita Dunn, who also served as Senior Advisor to the President as a Special Government Employee,[18] and her Wikipedia page uses the Infobox officeholder template.

As for his position in DOGE, I am not sure if it should be listed, as it is an informal position, and he is not even formally employed by DOGE. [19] I suggest listing his position in DOGE only in the "Occupation" section of the infobox. Max1298 (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• No. Musk doesn't hold the office. Cortador (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Opening paragraph and linking child articles

Should the sentence "His political activities and views have made him a polarizing figure." be added to the end of the opening paragraph to further establish context for notability, and to include links to child articles earlier in lead? RFCBEFORE: here and here. Edit: corrected the wikilinks as shown in diff.

Yes/No. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, the above is based on current lead wording.[20] CNC (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes (as proposer) in order to also allow easier navigation for the reader to child articles, now that is article is a high level summary of such articles. In order to compare the child articles currently referenced in opening paragraph with those proposed in the sentence above, in order of word count as a rough guide of their due nature (even though this isn't an exact science for due weight it's a good ball park estimate):
  • Twitter under Elon Musk, ~8,500 words Y
  • Views of Elon Musk, ~6,700 words N
  • Business career of Elon Musk, ~4,000 words Y
  • Political activities of Elon Musk, ~3,700 words N
  • Public image of Elon Musk, ~1,500 words N
  • Wealth of Elon Musk, 900 words Y

At present I believe there is a clear imbalance of child article linking in the opening paragraph that I consider to be gatekeeping. I also think this fits better with summary style guidelines, and while it's not explicitly a guideline to link relevant/notable child articles in the opening paragraph, it's good practice to do so when convenient and possible to do so. Based on view count also, which is correlated to notability, there are far more views for the Views article, with Business career being as popular as Political activities and Public image. At present, there are in fact 10x more views for the Views article than there are for business career which speaks volumes. So I'm in disagreement with others that believe the most notable aspect of Musk is his business career, (whereas the Wealth article quite clearly is for example). So it'd be nice to give the reader "what they want", rather than having to scroll down to find the article they are likely looking for. Musk family, Legal affairs of Elon Musk, and Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, are otherwise referenced in the second paragraph, and I think are well suited there given the context of notability not being quite as significant. CNC (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, although there's definitely room to tweak the wording. At this point his controversial politics are clearly his primary source of notability and are not being given enough focus in the lead; one mention of DOGE in a list is plainly insufficient. This is a reasonable start if we want to cram it into a single sentence. --Aquillion (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• No. In my opinion, the proposed sentence steps a little too far into synthesis. Alternatively, it could mention his declining approval ratings. It could also emphasize the controversial acts of DOGE. Dw31415 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment The links should be adjusted to accord with MOS:LINKCLARITY. The way the links are currently formatted in the current lead is better: His political activities and views have made him a polarizing figure. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for noticing, I misplaced the links per the diff I was referencing. I've corrected that now, as doesn't appear to change this discussion aside from your comment, and this timestamp serves as the timestamp for that edit. CNC (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

No as per @Dw31415. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No, although not on the grounds of SYNTH. I would argue that it (and any other opinions on him) would not be DUE. There are more polarizing figures than Musk (e.g. Erdogan, Putin, possibly Fauci) that don't have it in the opening paragraph. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

• No per SYNTH and undue weight for the first paragraph. His emergence as a political figure is worth the mention it already has (his presence as an advisor to the president)~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 21:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would suggest the word "controversial" instead of "polarizing" since it's a more common and understandable word. Doesn't seem like SYNTH to me, it's the reality. Illegally 15:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes. [./Https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php%3Ftitle=MOS:OPEN&redirect=no MOS: OPEN] speaks of the opening paragarph to establishing the context in which the topic is being considered. The DOGE of which Musk is "in charge", in its creation and subsequent actions has been the subject of significant controvesy including protests and ongoing Lawsuits. In terms of Musk's significant out-lier role in Trump's election and the everyday and apparently far-reaching impact (as opposed to mere recency), of DOGE, a resounding yes. Rigorousmortal (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Dutch connection is tenuous.

The Forbes article that is sited to claim that Elon Musk is of Pennsylvania Dutch descent does not provide any reference to where in his ancestry there is any evidence of anyone from Pennsylvania Dutch descent. So I went digging on various ancestry sites. It looks like the claim stems from Musk's maternal great great grandfather - Jeremiah Haldeman (1846-1925). He is the closest relative of Musk's to have any connection to Pennsylvania, being from Fayette, PA. Jeremiah's parents seem to both be of Pennsylvanian descent in Somerset, PA and likely the Lower Susquehanna Valley before that. So there is some likelihood of Pennsylvania Dutch descent, though that would amount to 1/16 of Elon's ancestry (also, Jeremiah's mother's provenance is not 100% certain).

Jeremiah's wife, Rowena Coats (Powers) Haldeman (1849 - 1944), is of Upstate New York stock (she and both of her parents are from Upstate New York, with their known parents from New England). Their son (and Elon's namesake) John Elon Haldeman (1871 - 1909) married Almeda Jane (Norman) Wilson (1877 - 1948), who was herself the descendant of English settlers (paternal grandparents) and Upstate New Yorkers/early New England colonists of English provenance. So John Elon Haldeman and Almeda Jane (Norman) Wilson's son, Joshua Norman Haldeman D.C. (1902 - 1974) (Elon's maternal grandfather, who was well known), was 3/4 Yankee English and only 1/4 Pennsylvania Dutch.

Musk's maternal grandmother Winnifred Josephine (Fletcher) Haldeman (1914 - 2012), on the other hand, was born in Canada to 2 English immigrants. That makes Musk's mother 1/8 Pennsylvania Dutch (at best), and 7/8 English (1/2 Canadian/English and 3/8 Yankee English). This is despite the last name "Haldeman" coming from the Pennsylvania branch.

Musk's South African lineage is always portrayed as English South African, but that's only partially correct. His paternal grandmother Cora Amelia (Robinson) Musk (1923 - 2011) was from England and his paternal grandfather Walter Henry James Musk (1917 - 1986) was half English (on his father Harry Musk (bef. 1863 - 1917)'s side). But Walter Henry James Musk's mother Lucy Frances (Champion) Evans (1880 - 1945) was half Afrikaner on her mother Jacoba Louisa (Theron) Champion (abt. 1856 - 1931)'s side. So Elon's father Errol Musk is 1/8 Afrikaner and 7/8 English. This is all much better documented than the portion of Musk's mother's ancestry in Pennsylvania.

So Elon is at most 1/16 Pennsylvania Dutch, while being 1/16 Afrikaner, 3/16 Yankee/New Englander, 1/4 Canadian and overwhelmingly English (7/8 in all forms). Pennsylvania Dutch is the least well documented of those. So it seems that the author of the Forbes article accepted that the family name Haldeman was Pennsylvania Dutch and therefore ran with the idea that Pennsylvania Dutch was a significant source of Musk's heritage, when it is marginal at best. To make this section stronger, I would change the wording from "He is of British and Pennsylvania Dutch ancestry." to "He is of predominantly English ancestry with roots in both the American and Cape Colonies." Syost87 (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I value your digging here. I question if his ancestry is really notable at all? Why not just say where he was born, where he grew up, where his parents were born, where they grew up, and his relationship to them. If he had some special relationship to his grandparents or cultural events passed down that had a biographical impact on his life then those are worth mentioning but his ancestry as a whole does not seem notable enough to be presented? Czarking0 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Add citations to the infobox

Musk is a Senior Advisor to the President as a Special government employee, similar to Anita Dunn, who also served as Senior Advisor to the President as a Special government employee, according to a declaration from Joshua Fisher, the director of the Office of Administration.

However, there is no citation (at least I could not find any) in this article. I request that the following two citations be added to the infobox: Elon Musk isn't actually in charge of DOGE, White House says and Musk is not an employee of DOGE and 'has no actual or formal authority,' White House says. Max1298 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Donald Trump today put it this way: "Elon is, to me, a patriot. So, you know, you could call him an employee, you could call him a consultant, you could call him whatever you want. But he’s a patriot, I mean took at the kind of things."

source: Trump on Musk’s title: ‘Call him whatever you want’ NME Frigate (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. The discussion is about Musk’s official role and the need to add citations. Could you explain how this is relevant? Max1298 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe the point NME Frigate was trying to make is a counter that Musk doesn't really have a specific title, with the article they provided backing their point of Musk's title to be more so non-existent and whatever Trump sees it as. So in the sense, it's "relevant" because Trump claims that he doesn't really care for any sort of official title for Musk.

I disagree with the point made by NME Frigate after reading through both your and NME Frigate's provided articles. I believe that it's quite clear that Musk is indeed a "senior advisor to the president." Trump's view of Musk's title is irrelevant to the reality (similar to how North and South Korea don't acknowledge each other as countries, yet they're countries nonetheless), and more so just his personal perception of Musk and his title. Randoze (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

My point was that Donald Trump and his administration are being strangely coy about Elon Musk's position and, at least as of yesterday, they had repeatedly declined to even say who holds the position of administrator of DOGE. I do think it's relevant to an article about Elon Musk that the government for which he works has made different and sometimes conflicting statements about what his job title is. I agree with you that, in light of Joshua Fisher's declaration to the court, Musk should be called "Senior Advisor to the President" in an infobox. For now.

That said, I'm not sure your Korean analogy holds. If we set aside the question of whether or not Donald Trump is even the president (the Supreme Court never addressed the fact that a majority of both houses of Congress voted that Trump had committed insurrection, which would make him ineligible to be president, and surely someone's going to litigate that point eventually, but it hasn't happened yet), then Elon Musk, in his official capacity, works, directly or indirectly, for Donald Trump.

But neither North Korea nor South Korea is in charge of the other. The federal government of South Korea could change the name of Seoul. The federal government of North Korea could change the name of Pyongyang. But if either country renamed the other's capital, no one would treat it as official.

However, if Joshua Fisher, who works for the Department of Justice which ultimately reports to Donald Trump, says that Elon Musk's title is "Senior Advisor to the President," and then Donald Trump says the next day, "No it's not," we have a problem. Trump didn't quite say that in the article I cited, though. What's really going on is that they want to break the law without admitting to it. NME Frigate (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I will apologize for my misinterpretation for your original claim NME Frigate, and I'd agree that my analogy does not hold surface with regards to your actual claim now. It was originally unclear at the beginning to what you meant but it makes sense now. I do not think I have the expertise in this moment to comment further.

Apologies again, Randoze (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the citation for Elon having 13 children reliable, or actually saying he has a 13th child?

A MAGA influencer is claiming that she birthed Elon's kid, but the citation given is just her claims. It's scantily titled "Elon breaks silence", but it's him, at its most generous, appearing to deny the claims.

I lean on it being fine as this is going into WP:NOR territory, but is there at least any better citation for this, or is that as good as it gets for this story? Or erhaps an asterisk saying that he has not acknowledged this child like he has the others? TheRealOj32 (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say that it is unreliable unless Musk has confirmed that it is true because it is possible that she's telling a fib. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

First, I can't find a single photo or video of Ashley St. Clair together with Elon Musk. Secondly, Musk has publicly acknowledged & sent love emojis for his 11th & 12th children Elon Musk on X: "@shivon 🥰" / X On the other hand, Musk's response to St. Clair's 2nd illegitimate baby has been one of scorn and disdain. There are millions of women (and men) who want to be with a millionaire--let alone a billionaire. This claim doesn't pass muster yet. Arbeiten8 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't buy it either, just wasn't sure if the source itself is reliable/actually saying what it is being presumed to say. In my opinion we should put it back down to 12, I change my mind on an asterisk unless this is something that actually sticks around as a persistent, notable accusation (WP:RECENCY for now) TheRealOj32 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and as someone noted in the "Musk family" article), St. Clair has now filed a lawsuit (1) seeking sole custody of the child and (2) asking for Musk to acknowledge his paternity. As evidence to support her suit, St. Clair attached images of text messages allegedly between her and Musk in which he admits to being the father and says, "I want to knock you up again." NME Frigate (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

All media reporting on St. Clair's claim treats it as a "she said / he said" situation, with the he in this case saying nothing at all.

Here for example is People on Feb. 14 and Feb. 17:

Elon Musk Welcomed 13th Child 5 Months Ago, Author Ashley St. Clair Says

Ashley St. Clair 'Focusing' on Her 2 Children After Saying She Had Elon Musk's Baby (Exclusive)

However, even considered as a report on St. Clair's claim, remember that Wikipedia's list of reliable/perennial sources says that "There is consensus that People magazine can be a reliable source in biographies of living persons, but the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source."

St. Clair said in her Feb. 14 tweet that she was going public to get ahead of "tabloid" reporting on her relationship with Musk. And her spokesperson tweeted that St. Clair and Musk "have been privately working towards the creation of an agreement about raising their child for some time," but "a tabloid reporter, who repeatedly ambushed Ashley and her family, made it impossible to complete that process confidentially."

The tabloid apparently was not the New York Post, since St. Clair seems to have decided to get ahead of that unnamed outlet by giving the Post an exclusive. The Post reported on St. Clair and Musk's alleged relationship at least three times, on Feb. 15, Feb. 17, and Feb. 19. That reporting says that St. Clair, who then worked for the Babylon Bee, interviewed Musk for the Bee at X's headquarters in May 2023, that the two repeatedly replied to each other's tweets with posts the article describes as "flirty" (lots of people have noted that much on their own since St. Clair's announcement on Feb. 14). The Post says that St. Clair didn't provide them with proof of Musk's fatherhood, but that "texts viewed by The Post between St. Clair and Jared Birchall, Musk’s money manager, appear to show that she complied with the billionaire’s wish to be left off the birth certificate to preserve privacy, security and confidentiality." The article also says St. Clair told them she informed Musk's people before she tweeted the news on Friday. Here are those articles:

Exclusive | Ashley St. Clair, who claims to have had Musk's 13th child, reveals life of secrecy

Exclusive | Ashley St. Clair feels 'jilted and terrified' because Elon Musk refused to protect her, pal says

Ashley St. Clair told Elon Musk to 'go to horny jail' in flirty X exchange

However, Wikipedia's source list says "There is consensus the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting, especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including examples of outright fabrication." (The Post before 1976 is considered more reliable.) My sense is that the Post skews conservative, so when it reports critically on conservatives, it might be more accurate, but I don't see any point fighting this consensus.

That said, if St. Clair really did visit Musk last May, there are probably other sources to confirm at least that much of the story.

To my knowledge, Musk has neither confirmed nor denied St. Clair's claim publicly. He hasn't responded to media inquiries on this story. His only comment on the matter was a one-word reply to provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos tweeting "Ashleigh St. Clair plotted for HALF A DECADE to ensnare Elon Musk" with a screenshot of a St. Clair tweet about Musk from 2020. Musk replied "Whoa" to Yiannopoulos. That's not a denial. (For example, it could be that Musk and St. Clair did have a child but Musk didn't realize, if Yiannopoulos's interpretation is correct, that St. Clair had been pursuing him for years.)

The gossipy outlet Jezebel tried to summarize the known facts on Feb. 17:

Here’s My Best Attempt to Explain the Elon Musk/Ashley St. Clair Baby Drama - Jezebel

But Wikipedia says: "There is no consensus on the reliability of Jezebel. Most editors believe that Jezebel is biased or opinionated, and that its claims should be attributed. Jezebel should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons."

And yet: Wikipedia's article titled "Musk family" does note St. Clair's claim, with citation to USA Today and The Independent:

Ashley St. Clair says Elon Musk is the father of baby she had in 2024 (USA Today)

Elon Musk breaks silence after MAGA influencer Ashley St Clair claims he’s fathered 13th child | The Independent

(The phrase "breaks silence" in the latter headline is misleading. There's no comment from Musk beyond the aforementioned "whoa.")

Based on everything above, I think including the claim in that Wikipedia article but not yet in this one makes sense.

But I do want to note that there seems to be something like a pattern. Last July, in a story that is not cited in either this "Elon Musk" article or the "Musk family" article, the Wall Street Journal reported that Musk "had sex with an employee [at SpaceX] and a former intern, and asked a woman at his company to have his babies." And that activity dates back to at least 2013, long before he fathered children by his Neuralink employee Shivon Zilis Here's the link:

Exclusive | Elon Musk’s Boundary-Blurring Relationships With Women at SpaceX - WSJ

And just yesterday, the singer Grimes, who is known to be the mother of three of Musk's children, publicly implored him on Twitter to return her texts or calls about an issue concerning the health of one of those children. Here are some mainstream articles:

Grimes calls on Elon Musk to respond over child’s ‘medical crisis’ | The Independent

Grimes Begs Elon Musk to Help With Their Child's 'Medical Crisis'

While Elon Musk Was Chainsawing at CPAC, Grimes Publicly Begged Him for Help With Their Child’s Medical Emergency | Vanity Fair

And of course, the use of the chainsaw wasn't the only aspect of Musk's behavior at CPAC that was being discussed. NME Frigate (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo in the introduction section of the article - "Musk was born to an affluent South African family in Pretoria before immigrating to Canada, acquiring Canandian citizenship via his mother." 〜〜〜 Shallov (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done Some1 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

It still says "and acquired its citizenship via his mother." - Rooiratel (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE

I could be wrong, but isn't DOGE "officially" not lead by Elon? Wouldn't that mean his job isn't Administrator of DOGE? We all know he is, but Wikipedia needs concrete fact. Axolitl (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

See RFC about office holder. Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

oh ok thanks! Axolitl (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

World hunger controversy

@User:Some1 moved material I added covering Musk's feud with the World Food Program over philanthropy and world hunger to the Musk Foundation child article. I think the material belongs in both articles, as this was not only an incident which involved the Musk Foundation, but also a public feud that Musk himself engaged in, making it notable on his biographical page. What do others think? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

One line, no more. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is what you added:

In one instance, after Musk challenged World Food Programme director David Beasley to draft a plan to use money of Musk's that Beasley said could contribute to ending world hunger, Musk instead donated the $6 billion in question to his own foundation even after Beasley's plan showed that the money could feed 42 million people for a year.

Are there any additional sources covering this controversy besides the "truthout.org" source[21]? If not, then that incident is WP:UNDUE/non-noteworthy and shouldn't be included in this parent article. Another option would be to summarize the Musk Foundation#Criticism section in a sentence or two and incorporate it into this article, rather than singling out or giving undue weight to the "World hunger controversy". Some1 (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the NYT article cited in the preceding sentence comes to the same conclusion as Truthout. CNN, NPR, ABC and others covered the controversy at least up to the point where the WFP chief presented the plan. I can add more robust sourcing to any future version. I also agree that summarizing the criticism section would make sense, though I think the world hunger controversy is one of the more criticized and notable incidents regarding the foundation so I think it merits a mention in any summary. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Canadian citizenship

I think this would be a controversial add without discussion and I am so not in the mood for that right now, so I'm just going to mention something that's gaining traction in Canadian news right now and others are free to discuss if it's WP:DUE in the international affairs section. Basically, there's a petition with 34,000 signatures to revoke Musk's Canadian citizenship. It's not some random petition, it's actually on an official government website: [22]. If such a petition gets at least 500 signatures, it can be presented to the House of Commons. They aren't planning to reopen until late March and so far none of the mainstream sources reporting on this (like this one) actually state whether the petition can accomplish its goals. My personal stance leans on omitting this for now because it's somewhat of a breaking news situation. But as I said above, this should probably be discussed here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The FAQ does not really address this. If this is included, it definitely shouldn't be in the lead. I mentioned the international affairs section (although I see now that it's actually "international relations"). But the only thing mentioned about Canadian citizenship in the FAQs is the lead and nothing about the possible revocation of it. I'm inclined to wait and see if this petition could actually do anything before inclusion (just because something will probably be presented in front of the House of Commons doesn't mean they'll actually do it or even have the power to). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

This now has over 120,000 signatures. At a certain point it'll merit inclusion based purely on the amount of support, but I don't think we're there yet (120,000 is only about one or two ridings' worth of people). Cremastra (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The petition is now covered by reliable sources: 1 2 3 4. I don't see anything in the FAQ regarding this. Cortador (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that these four sources increase the notability of the petition. (I'm back here after a long absence, please correct me if I am wrong.) Lova Falk (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about this article but I reckon there's a higher chance that people would agree on including it in the Public image of Elon Musk article. ―Panamitsu (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If his citizenship is revoked we can mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As I said, I think if enough people sign it and it gets a lot of coverage in RS it'll merit a mention. There's no reason to draw the line at actual revocation, which is a long way from a petition. (It now as over 170,000 signatures). Cremastra (talk) 13:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think so too. Coverage by RS is the deciding factor here, not whether or not the petition is actually successful. That said, this going into the Public image of Elon Musk article as per suggestion above is worth discussing. Cortador (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It may have a place there, but it really tells us nothing about him, until it changes his status. Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There have been 3319 recent petitions for the current parliament. Mr Angus (who is not in government) gets publicity for a jarring idea, but the sources might be moving to another novelty soon. Should not be added at this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

How many other petitions there are or whoever started it isn't relevant. Coverage of this petition by RS is. Cortador (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC), also, his citizenship is going To be revoked probably.

It doesn't matter if the MPs in government or not. The fact that Angus sits with the NDP is irrelevent to the coverage given. We decide by RS coverage, not by "changes to status" or an objection to the party affiliation of the MP who agreed to sponsor it. Cremastra (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, if you look at the list, the Musk petition is the one with the third most signatures. Cremastra (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The OP decided to mention the petition was on an "official government website" as if that's significant, I showed what I believe is a reason to think it's not, if you want to complain about lack of relevance address your complaint to the OP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the OP pointed out that it's a house of commons petition to show, as she said, that it's not something from a random crank. The number of petitions is irrelevent. What matters is that it is sponsored by an MP, not Dave from Haliburton. Cremastra (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Does this article use U.S. or US?

I see both U.S. and US in this article so we should change one of them to the other for consistency. The lead is all U.S. so I assume that's what we are using so I have changed "US" to "U.S." It might pay to take a look at MOS:US. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Should a more recent picture be used for Elon Musk?

The current picture is 7 years old. Should a more recent image of Elon Musk be used for the infobox? BootsED (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The chainsaw image encapsulates him well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

It was just removed with with comment: an image of elon musk wielding a chainsaw is irrelevant to DOGE. Seems perfect for that section, although fits in general considering X. And it appears to be his own pick. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The Public image section is probably the better location for the chainsaw image... Some1 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

He was holding the chainsaw explicitly because it symbolized his (supposed) efforts to cut government waste. NME Frigate (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably. Is there a freely-licensed picture you have in mind? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

My review of Commons turned up File:Speaker Johnson and Elon Musk 2024 (cropped).jpg, which is a good candidate for quality and recentness. He looks haggard in options like File:Elon Musk in 2023 (cropped).jpg or File:Elon Musk - March 28, 2024 (cropped).jpg, and all the new 2025 pictures seem to have him wearing a MAGA hat or sunglasses, which makes them un-usable. — Goszei (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Some of those images appeared in the infobox image RfC: Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_20#RfC:_Infobox_image, which occurred five months ago. Some1 (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally support File:Elon Musk Colorado 2022 (cropped).jpg out of all the options presented thus far. — Goszei (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The Gallery page for Elon Musk on the Commons also uses this exact image as its most recent selected photo of Musk, so I'd agree that this is a good candidate. BootsED (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure about it, but there's also this one that could be cropped. Maybe it's too much of a "hero-pose" but it's good quality. BootsED (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I also found this image from 2022 as well. It is also high-quality and Musk could be cropped out. BootsED (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk in 2022

The thumbnail on the right here seems like a really good one. — Goszei (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the one to the right looks good imo. Could someone make the WP:BOLD edit and replace the current lead image with that one. Some1 (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Although it is a great picture. BootsED (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

IPA transcription

Posting this on behalf of Xsgzjmxs, who wrote on their talk page:

I would be grateful if the following issue could be addressed: On the Elon Musk page, the first sentence reads:

"Elon Reeve Musk (/ˈiːlɒn mʌsk/; born June 28, 1971) is..."

Here, the full name and the IPA transcription do not correspond to each other, which may lead to the mistaken impression that "/ˈiːlɒn mʌsk/" represents the full pronunciation of "Elon Reeve Musk". However, since both the article and its discussion page are protected, I am unable to fix the issue myself or raise it on the discussion page.
I would be very grateful if this issue could be properly addressed—either by correcting the IPA transcription or by raising the matter on the discussion page.

GoingBatty (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)