Jump to content

Talk:Elon Musk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article candidateElon Musk is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleElon Musk has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 4, 2021Good article nomineeListed
July 24, 2021Peer reviewNot reviewed
August 23, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 1, 2022Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 15, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Elon Musk lost $16.3 billion in a single day, the largest in the history of the Bloomberg Billionaires Index?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Person "office" he holds is ad hoc, no indication there will ever be a successor. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Gleason told a reporter earlier today that she's on vacation in Mexico. NME Frigate (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
  • 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. FlipandFlopped ツ 22:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Musk .... will personally review who got hired at DOGE. Arbeiten8 (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 Done Some1 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still says "and acquired its citizenship via his mother." - Rooiratel (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: [21]. 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)[reply]

See FAQ. Slatersteven (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If his citizenship is revoked we can mention it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Panamitsu Shouldn't it be US since "UK" is also used in the article? Inpops (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is "U.K." ever used? I'm not sure if I've ever seen that before. ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've seen an article spell it like that, but per MOS:US it should be either US and UK, or U.S. and U.K. I would personally go for US/UK, since that is default for articles that don't have American or Canadian English. Inpops (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The chainsaw image encapsulates him well. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Public image section is probably the better location for the chainsaw image... Some1 (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Probably. Is there a freely-licensed picture you have in mind? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Musk in 2022
The thumbnail on the right here seems like a really good one. — Goszei (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I see what you mean. Although it is a great picture. BootsED (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Done Lova Falk (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can assume the typical reader can pronounce "Reeve" and "Musk", and that they won't take a partial IPA as being the whole name. All we need to spell with IPA is "Elon" (which could be EE-lon or EH-lon to the unfamiliar). — Goszei (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political Party

How come there isn't anything in his infobox regarding his political party/former political affiliation? As I see it it wouldn't be too hard to go to an official Texas government website to figure out what his official party registration is. And should it come out as Republican perhaps below the "political party" section could be a "Previous political affiliations" section with Independent next to it, as there are secondary sources where Musk said that he was a registered independent. CY223 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, are there any sources that show he's a member of the Republican Party? — Czello (music) 08:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I presume a source regarding his current political affiliation would be some sort of voter registration search site. Although I'm not certain if such a website exists at least within Texas. CY223 (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gesture NPOV

Elon has recently stated that the gesture was obviously positively intended and viewed the comparison (to nazi hand motions) as ridiculous and absurd, this should be reflected in the article-- @Slatersteven has reverted. Elon's denial is not adequately characterized right now--the article states "but did not explicitly deny the claims". SmolBrane (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do put his opinion, we do mt need more. Slatersteven (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The gap between sources' statements and his are not accurately portrayed. SmolBrane (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't deny it at the time. He's denied it now. For NPOV, we have to include both. It's like how we cover Trump's evolving statements on Charlottesville. But we don't include Musk "threatening" to sue. We'll include any lawsuit he ever does file. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying 'he has since denied it' is a decent start, but it isn't really reflective of his substantive rebuttal, including his substantive rebuttal (what I had added, as opposed to the 'ridiculous' and 'absurd' characterizations, although those could be used too) would be a neutral context for this biography. I am sure editors want this biography to be regarded neutrally and well-representing of what sources said and what Elon has said in response. This ensures the encyclopedia is taken seriously colloquially. Additionally, Elon is choosing to engage in long-form dialog with unconventional sources(JRE) so we may have to humor such engagement. Wiki follows, yeah? SmolBrane (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

recreational use of hallucinogenic mushrooms

Some editors, I presume, Mr. Musk's employes, continuosly revert edits about Mr. Musk's drug use to "'other drugs recreationally".

As a licensed therapist, I'm telling you that you don't use hallucinogenic mushrooms (as well as the other banned substances) RECREATIONALLY. Any therapist, physician or other medical professional in his right mind would never prescribe such a wild mix of banned substances to his or her patient.

Besides, Mr. Musk commenting on his alleged drug use, didn't say words like "recreationally." Regards, ВоенТех (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lets focus on the content not the editor, that doesn't appear to be "trivia" although I'm not crazy about the wording Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is really, so he does Drugs. Slatersteven (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not trivia... Trivia is the names of all sixty of someone's horses, the number of tiles on a roof, or the President's favorite flavor of licorice. There seems to be more substance here, these are not for the most part sources that report on trivia after all. I don't think more than LSD, cocaine, ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms are due based on the coverage but those may well be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly not "trivia", and I have restored this sourced info. Also, "wild mix"? The list is an average week's consumption in my salad days. Carlstak (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic partner?

So what are the standards for a domestic partner to be included in the infobox? Like, why did we add Grimes if they aren't married? Also, shouldn't we add Shivon Zilis? Lililolol (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Oxford English Dictionary defines a domestic partner as "a person who is living with another in a close personal and sexual relationship." Does Zilis meet that definition? ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By all accounts yes. The sources (on her article at least) say they live together in Texas. That confirms the domestic aspect of domestic partner. Trillfendi (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page 414 of Isaacson's biography says that (for their first set of children) "At least once a week, [Musk] would stay at Zilis's house". I'm not sure if that counts as "domestic", or if it's changed since then, but it may help us. However I am leaning on the side of including Zilis in the infobox. ―Panamitsu (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon name pronunciation

Hello,

I would like to add an audio for the IPA of Elon's name. ⓘ

Thank you Flame, not lame 💔 (Don't talk to me.) 01:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elon_Musk&oldid=1278446867"