Talk:Elon Musk

RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

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

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

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

• Support I support this course of action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Firecat93 Support

reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Foonix0 Hi, thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Slatersteven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ElijahPepe

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

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

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

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

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

@Big Thumpus: "...very interesting that the "oligarch" rhetoric ramped up as soon as Musk aligned himself with Trump's campaign...". I'm not at all surprised, unfortunately. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

It actually started when he inserted himself into politics using his wealth to gain political power. Onikaburgers (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Big Thumpus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Yep. We should add that he's been called an oligarch, and there's quite a few reliable sources to back that up, but it shouldn't be added in the lead. Maybe adding it in the public perception section would be better? Given recent events with Musk and the Treasury, I change my mind. The mention of him being an oligarch absolutely needs to go in the lead. What he has done is basically coup the Treasury simply with the money and influence he has. This is a 100% oligarch behavior, nothing else. EarthDude (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

  @Dream Focus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose - Musk has only been a government official for a few weeks, it's too early to include this kind of characterization in the header (but this should potentially be considered seriously at a later date). RickStrate2029 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Oligarch doesn't need to be a government official at all. Also there are notable sources characterizing him as an oligarch now. Onikaburgers (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Strongly Support - Since Trump has been sworn in he has been wielding power similar to that wielded by russian oligarchs Pikachubob3 (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Strong oppose, per Slatersteven. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support. There is no serious argument against this description. It has been widely adopted by reliable sources. He is obviously an oligarch. The term was used by the President in his farewell address as well. We routinely describe Russian oligarchs in this way, even oligarchs with far less sway and wealth. I notice that most of this discussion took place a while ago, before he started running around unilaterally 'shutting down' huge government agencies that have existed for over 60 years and doing all sorts of really bizarre stuff[33]. As I wrote below: The term "businessman" does not adequately capture his role or the way his business interests are entangled with government power. He is also not a typical government official. Unlike a typical businessman or government official in America, he runs around "shutting down" government agencies, wielding influence in a way that goes beyond market competition or private enterprise or what government officials normally do. The term "oligarch" has long been used for figures whose wealth grants them direct sway over state functions, and it is a more accurate label for Musk's position and actions. The term "oligarch," or "tech oligarch,"[34] has now become a common way[35] to describe Musk in RS. In his farewell address, President Biden warned of this "oligarchy [that] is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedom."[36] The word oligarch covers both his wealth and the way he wields political influence. We have routinely described Russian oligarchs in this way, even oligarchs with far less sway and wealth than Musk. --Tataral (talk) 04:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NPOV. Fact of the matter is that the only ones calling him an "Oligarch" are on the left. CViB (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

  Not true. The term is widely used by media and commentators across the mainstream political spectrum. That it isn't used by the far right, by white supremacists, and by conspiracy theorists is really irrelevant. --Tataral (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support Many earlier commentors here appeared to advocate taking a "wait and see" or an "it's too early to tell" in their oppositon to this designation, well, we've seen. There is no reasonable argument to be made that the richest man in the world, who now has unfettered accesss to US Governmental systems, and is taking actions that are blatantly counter to US law and norms without opposition and with the explicit endorsement of the President isn't an ologarch. Any assertion that he isn't is simply irrational and in bad faith. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Support per A. S. Catania. My guess is that the RfC was conducted now, the support would be overwhelming.

Due to his considerable influence over American government policy, politics, media, industry, and public discourse, some academics and politicians have characterized Musk as an American oligarch. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion has been dragging on for a long time, but the facts on the ground have changed significantly since most of the discussion took place. Back in December, there was vague talk about Musk getting some kind of role, but now the situation is different[37][38]
• Closing the discussion isn't about counting votes. It's about weighing arguments, assessing sources, and recognizing when new developments invalidate older objections. It's also about recognizing what are valid arguments. There are plenty of sources that describe Musk as an oligarch, but the volume has increased significantly recently. By any accepted definition, he is an oligarch, and the objections appear to be rooted in a belief that the United States should be treated differently from other countries (Russian oligarchs, Ukrainian oligarchs etc.). Those are not valid objections. --Tataral (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  You've really said your piece more than once already. Give it a rest please. Big Thumpus (talk) 13:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  The same could be said to you. I would kindly ask you to refrain from these sorts of nonproductive comments. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support as n numerous reliable sources appear to support the description. Zaathras (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Timbo's Rule 14. Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't. (March 2012) Carrite (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC on family's wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support removal from the lead. I agree with @Nemov's reasoning. Furthermore, given the debate, this is clearly something that needs more context than can easily be summarized in a sentence. I think the reader that wants to know about his upbringing will be better informed by the body. I also think the current wording is poor. Czarking0 (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

For context, it's this part of the lead: "A member of the wealthy South African Musk family, Musk was born in Pretoria..." Here's the previous discussion back in April-June and this was the new wording from June to November: [39] Tikaboo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal. As noted, the topic was recently discussed at length, and the general language in use has been shown to be well sourced. QRep2020 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal of the WP:UNDUE emphasis on the family's wealth. While they were certainly not poor, the current wording strongly suggests that the Musk family was notably wealthy at the time of Elon's birth, which is not borne out by sources. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Per the reason given in Mrfoogles opposition to removal, the fact that the family were far from poor at the time of Elon's birth and through his childhood is relevant to this article. There's no suggestion that the family's wealth was notable. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support removal (Summoned by bot) per Rosbif73 and for lack of WP:RS. If sufficient WP:RS can be provided that describes "the wealthy South African Musk family", then I would reconsider. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose, the family someone was born into is important, and I think important enough to warrant a sentence fragment in a 5 paragraph lead. Photos of Japan (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose with qualifications, this aspect of his biography is sufficiently notable to include, however the wording as it currently stands does give the impression that the family itself is notable outside of its relationship to Elon, which I do not believe is the case. I would perhaps support a rewrite to something along the lines of "Born into a wealthy family in South Africa". Chaste Krassley (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
• SupportOppose removal unless but it would be much better if we could be more precise. So much of the argumentabove is of the how long is a piece of string kind ie in this context, highly relative. It appears to be established that compared to most black South Africans of the time, the Musks were extremely privileged, (as were most whites) but relative to a successful US physician/academic/politician or film actor, maybe much less so, maybe on a par?? Certainly they were not in the super-wealthy class of families which the present text somewhat implies. The father's profession itself or some more precise social-class term would be clearer than this very vague phrasing. Terms in the sources such as "a position of financial privilege" … "a comfortable childhood" … "The relative privilege of his upbringing" do equate to being far-from-poor, but they don't clearly equate to simple 'wealthy'. Pincrete (talk) 09:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC) addendum having looked again at the sources, I've modified my vote.Pincrete (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose removal - I would not object to a hypothetical minor rewording or restructuring, but the information is both well sourced and relevant to the article, so this information should be kept in one form or another. (Don't take this !vote as arguing that we SHOULD reword it, just that I don't care about the specific wording as much as I care that the information is here) Fieari (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal wealthy is defined relative to the society/country one grows up in. It’s effectively a euphemism for social class, and this one word is very informative to the reader in summarising the early life section, and effectively says he had good opportunities available to him. I’m not opposed to changing it to something more obviously relative or something that captures what I’ve said better but I can’t think of anything except explicitly stating their class if sources agree. Kowal2701 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose removal – Well-sourced in body of article and very relevant to understanding the rest of Musk's career. – MW_(t•c) 01:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support removal —"wealthy" is a sneaky, easily misunderstood term. It is therefore MOS:CONTROVERSIAL. Needs at least a rewrite. Most articles write "middle class", "working class" or some such. Many in the US now think "wealthy" is billionaires, for example... this might be because 8% of the US are already millionaires. I'm pretty sure whoever edits this wikipedia has an ever higher chance of being a millionaire already, for example. Are you "wealthy"? By US standards? By Haitian standards? Obviously the word "wealthy" is entirely inappropriate for the US today... much less for interpretations in other English-speaking countries today, much less for Africans in 1971. XavierItzm (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Middle class" and "working class" are horrendously outdated terms. They are also incredibly imprecise. Probably more so than the existing language. "Wealthy" is rarely hard to gauge within a given context, nor is it usually a particularly hard word to source. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal, taken narrowly about the characterisation, although there is a case for editing this reference so that it doesn't go beyond the sources. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove or modify as without clarification it suggests that his family was independently known for their wealth, like the Rockefeller family, which is not the case. Noting that his family was relatively well off for South African standards is fine but it should be better written. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:22, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Refs

References

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the tuition fee schedule for Bryanston High School[40] and for Pretoria Boys High [41]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

I wouldn't entirely trust Errol's word (he's the one who said "We were very wealthy. We had so much money at times we couldn't even close our safe"). Isaacson's book shows several instances of him lying and Isaacson does not seem to believe him that much. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"Mr Musk’s journey to such unimaginable wealth started from a position of financial privilege, albeit one of emotional abuse." [[42]] Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Elon Musk was born in Pretoria, South Africa, in 1971. His family was very well-off, and he had a comfortable childhood." [[43]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Elon - Director of the U.S. DOGE ??

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

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

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

He is not primarily known as a businessman. It is not his main role. He is primarily known as an oligarch who combines private wealth with political meddling and now state power, in what is described as a coup or power grab that has made him a principal figure of the current regime in the United States, and also a main target of protests. Apart from that, his exact formal title is of secondary importance; his political meddling started before he held that title, so we don't need it in the infobox. --Tataral (talk) 11:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

He is 53, he has only held political office for a little under a month. No he is still known mainly for his business. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

his political meddling has been going on for years before he took political office, though. - avxktty ^(talk) 14:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

And Donald Trump was in his 70s when he became president and had been a public figure known for business and entertainment for decades. But the thing is, governing a country has far greater impact than anything you do in private business, including owning 13% of Tesla. Now, business and entertainment are only briefly mentioned in Donald Trump's lead section to make room for what is most important—the impact he has on the country and world as president. This is a holistic decision based not only on the time that has passed, but also weighted against what has the greater impact.

Elon Musk already wields unprecedented power, does unprecedented things, and Democratic lawmakers are already protesting that nobody elected Musk. With this kind of impact on the country, it doesn't matter that he has only held a formal government role since this year. Plus, he meddled in the election and in other ways for around two years before that. --Tataral (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

no i think what elon did as a business man far exceeds what he did with trump in recent days.

its too much of a reach to say unprecedented power, does unprecedented things etc... he is just doing controversial things. and after few months DOGE will cease to exist. elon will get back to silicon valley and continue with his business Astropulse (talk) 02:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Not really. He's largely known for his politics now EarthDude (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:RECENT Astropulse (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

He's been known for his politics for the past couple of years. This is not WP:RECENT EarthDude (talk) 05:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

what politics ? commenting on twitter and talking doesn't mean he is involved in politics. every successful business leader has some involvement with political leader's. that doesn't mean elon is a political leader or political person. he gonna run for a public office. never done that. Astropulse (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

he was directly responsible for buying twitter and turning it far to the right. this has had very significant effects on politics and the spread of information online. i do not think it is really a question whether he has had a major influence in right wing politics for the past few years. - avxktty ^(talk) 20:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

He does not have a "political office" -- he is a special advisor to the president.

We should not refer to Ckg (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It's actually normal for Wikipedia articles on people holding government office to list that office first in their biographical information box.

And since we're talking about Musk's current job, I'll just note this new article here:

The many ways Elon Musk’s DOGE is breaking the law, explained by a law professor | Vox NME Frigate (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

He doesn't really hold political office though, so this is probably the wrong infobox. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not a political office* but it is a government office. See for comparison the article on Ivanka Trump. The first two things listed are the White House positions she held in 2017-21: positions to which she was appointed, just like Musk.

• He's obviously a highly political figure, but the newly created position itself is nominally apolitical. NME Frigate (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ivanka Trump was also a senior advisor though, correct? Meaning she held an appointed position within the White House Office. I'm guessing the officeholder infobox is used moreso for that reason, since all the Senior Advisors I've seen on Wikipedia use this infobox.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Musk was appointed, but instead is considered a "Special Government Employee".[44] The only two other special government employees I know to compare to (listed on the Special Government employee article) do not have office holder infoboxes either: Huma Abedin and Scott Atlas. They aren't the best comparisons, but since the legality of DOGE and Musk's position is being questioned in court, I feel like the article shouldn't jump the gun either. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, in infoboxes, governance and involvement in it takes precedence of business affairs EarthDude (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Elon Musk#Remove office holder template in infobox

@Avxktty@EarthDude@Kolya Butternut@NME Frigate@Slatersteven@Tataral Astropulse (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Why are you pinging those editors specifically may I ask? CNC (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

because its related conv. and pinging involved editors Astropulse (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Salute RFC

I'm just circling back to this this discussion that was WP:SNOW closed[45] on February 3rd after 12 days. Is there another discussion that superseded this, because it was closed without weighing the arguments by an inexperienced editor, but maybe I'm missing something. Nemov (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It looked like the close was clear support consensus, but the rationale was poor. CNC (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Without properly weighing the votes I'm not sure it reaches that threshold, but it's certainly not a SNOW close. It probably shouldn't have been closed at all. Nemov (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemov: it was closed too quickly. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Guninvalid, why did you make this decision? The rationale was poor. JacktheBrown (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello! In short, I noticed that the majority of arguments were in favor of keeping, so I focused mostly on the arguments in favor of removing. Discarding trivial arguments and non-arguments, I felt that the reject arguments had been addressed by those in favor of keeping. I'm not going to reread it right now because I have to be awake in 6 hours, but that was my thought process. Thinking back on it now though, I think calling it WP:SNOW was probably uncalled for. Honestly, the very fact that this discussion is taking place tells me it probably wasn't really WP:SNOW. guninvalid (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Update: I am apparently very bad at sleeping, so I went through and briefly scrolled through the RfC mostly to make sure that I hadn't confused it with a different Elon Musk RfC that I also closed as WP:SNOW. I think I recognize why I felt this RfC was SNOW, and I think I agree with my former self that it was actually SNOW. You're free to disagree of course, but SNOW is ultimately more of a judgement call, and in my judgement, it looked like SNOW. But of course, that might be my inexperience showing. guninvalid (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That's a much better rationale, thanks for closing those RfCs. The salute one I expected to end up under scrutiny based on it's contentious nature. I personally wouldn't have described it as SNOW for this reason alone, more like an extreme WP:UPHILLBATTLE, but that doesn't change the outcome here either. Generally I think it's best to avoid closing as SNOW unless there is very little doubt, as it is only a part of the process, and instead elaborate on the rationale for consensus. CNC (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid I'd recommend reverting the close and let someone more experienced close it who will weigh the policy arguments. Nemov (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Guninvalid: I feel sorry for you, sleeping well and at least 7 hours a night is important. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to ressurect an RfC from the archives if it's not going to change the overall outcome. I'm not even sure how I would begin to do that. If you really believe it's worth fighting, you can either start a new RfC with intent to overturn consensus or you can take it to WP:AN. I thank you guys for your feedback and I will take it into future consideration for other RfCs, but in this case I don't think it would've changed anything except my closing rationale. guninvalid (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll consider taking this to WP:AN; it's a really bad close. There are roughly as many comments for A and B, and the "other text" will require some effort to sort through. The RFC had issues from the very beginning. Characterizing it as WP:SNOW in the closing statement and as "uncontroversial" in the edit summary suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of how to close an RFC of this nature. @JacktheBrown, what do you think? Nemov (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemov: in my opinion, you're 100% right. JacktheBrown (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nemov: can you please take this conversation there? JacktheBrown (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

To WP:AN? Nemov (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Wording in 3rd lead paragraph

"and is a supporter of far-right activists, causes, and political parties." should be changed to "and became a supporter of far-right activists, causes, and political parties." as it implies he was always a supporter of such causes, when in reality this is a recent development. This would also be in line with the poltics section. Currently it feels very much like WP:RECENTISM --FMSky (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@FMSky: I fully agree, +1. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

How do we know for certain his support was only a recent development? We can pinpoint when his overtly political actions started, yes, but his allegiances could have always been far-right-leaning in the privacy of his mind. In truth, I don't think anyone besides Musk can ever know.

That said, there is nothing incorrect about describing him as a "supporter of far-right" things, just like there's nothing wrong with describing him as a 53 year-old man despite that number changing somewhat recently. It is fairly obvious what he supports today. QRep2020 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@QRep2020: with all due respect, but this is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia is an (online) encyclopedia, and therefore doesn't read people's minds, so we don't care if these ideas were already present in his mind. JacktheBrown (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

But we can't imply that he only became a supporter at a particular point in time, either; that would also be reading his mind. Ultimately, either way, Wikipedia articles describe things in the present (especially in the lead), so it's a moot point; I don't think anyone would read that he is eg. a businessman and assume that that means that he was a businessman when he was twelve, and we also state that he's a U.S. Special Government Employee in the present tense in the same way. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Well he factually only became a far-right supporter in 2024 (he didn't even officially endorse Trump until last July!). And this is a guy who voted for Hillary in 2016 --FMSky (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

We could certainly say he began openly supporting far-right politics in 2024, but stating he became a supporter of theirs in 2024 conveys something different.

Per my earlier points and Aquillion's argument, I believe we should leave the language as is. QRep2020 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. QRep2020 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The phrase "he was the largest donor in the 2024 United States presidential election, and became a supporter of far-right activists, causes, and political parties" gives the impression that he became that during or in connection with the 2024 election. It's better to state that he "is a supporter of far-right activists, causes, and political parties," the original wording implemented based on the RfC consensus. Or at least it should be made clear that this wasn't something that suddenly happened in 2024, for example, a wording like "he has been a supporter of far-right activists, causes, and political parties since the 2020s" or "since the 2020s he has been a supporter of far-right activists, causes, and political parties" (the public support for the far right appears to have happened gradually over a couple of years). --Tataral (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats even worse than the current version. Can you give an example of him supporting far-right causes before 2024? --FMSky (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• The current wording is fine; we describe things as they are currently. He wasn't a U.S. Special Government Employee previously, for example, yet we simply say that he is one in the lead - it would be silly to suggest that we say he became a businessman and a U.S. Special Government Employee. This is no different; he's a supporter of far-right causes and we should state that simply and straightforwardly in the lead. Those interested in the full history of his politics can read the article, but for the lead we just say what he is now. --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Material inside the quotes section of the citations

@Pennine rambler and Slatersteven: if you two could hash this[46] out on here instead of in edit summaries I think we would all be the better for it. Personally I don't see the issue that Pennine rambler raises, from the WP:BLP angle the quotations are preferable so that the verifiability of the given statement is as easy as possible. I'm also not seeing what is so contentious about the individual quotes, those aren't off the walls opinion pieces. If there was a BLP issue it would extend beyond the quote in the citation; there would actually be an issue with the text as well. So please, discuss here and I hope that other editors can also offer their opinions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the entry in the main body of the article, this quote is unnecessary and does not belong in a BLP, it is contentious from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2025. At this juncture, calling Musk a right-wing shitposter is no longer provocative. It's simply accurate. ... Musk appears to be growing more intolerant of other viewpoints. While elevating right-wing extremists, he simultaneously seeks to destroy trust in credible news sources. Pennine rambler (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The quoted quote is at citation 228 rather than main txt, it is not needed and breaches BLP Pennine rambler (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I've looked at the quote At this juncture, calling Musk a right-wing shitposter is no longer provocative. It's simply accurate. ... Musk appears to be growing more intolerant of other viewpoints. While elevating right-wing extremists, he simultaneously seeks to destroy trust in credible news sources. I see that it was added on 05 Feb 2025 by BootsED with edit summary "Adding sentence to politics section per RfC consensus". I wish there was an indication which RfC consensus, but I'll guess it's RfC: Should the page describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes?. That page includes this quote. However, the RfC question wasn't "Can I insert everything mentioned here", it was merely "Should the page describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes?" Therefore I believe that alone had consensus, the quote did not, and WP:BLPUNDEL applies. I support Pennine rambler. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I have taken note of the comments here and also note that the quotation used in the citation is a point of view of a journalist at CNN, it is not neutral. The article itself does not state Musk is a shitposter, except in quoting the journalist in a citation. To quote the journalist appears to be pushing a negative and derogatory point of view of the subject. The sentence the citation relates to is In 2024, he started supporting international far-right political parties, activists, and causes, as the article itself does not state that Musk is a shitposter the quote in the citation is not relevant to the article, it should never have been included. I do not believe Wikipedia is the place to use derogatory terms to refer to the subject of the Biography of Living Person. and in this case believe the use of this term is being pushed as an attack on the subject. Pennine rambler (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

A separate matter. BootsEd February 4 insertion began with a hidden instruction = "Do not remove the following sentence per RfC consensus established February 4, 2025." Okay, that is an indication which RfC consensus, which I didn't read carefully, sorry. But WP:HIDDEN is against "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit." What policy or guideline justifies telling others? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

There is so much wrong with these opinions sneaked in through quotes in citations. I fully stand by my reason for my edit, but not wishing to get into an edit war. The quotes do not belong and serve no other purpose than to attack the subject of the BLP, failure to remove feels very wrong. Pennine rambler (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree, they are there to show how people have reacted to certain things he has chosen to do. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Last sentence of Intro

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

Should Musk's juvenile antics be mentioned?

The final paragraph of the lede, explaining why Elon Musk is a "polarizing figure," is pretty good, but I think this article is missing a prominent aspect of Musk that makes him different from most other public figures (except his current boss). I don't think the quote of a biographer in the Public image section, noting that people have "polarized" views of Musk because of his "'part philosopher, part troll' persona on Twitter," really gets at the reality. Remember, we live in a world where Barack Obama's 2014 decision to wear a tan suit to a foreign policy meeting was seen by some as such a breach of decorum that the event has its own Wikipedia article. Think of that in light of this:

Elon Musk today changed his X handle to "Harry Bōlz".

And he has engaged in similar behavior many times before. He briefly used that nickname on X a couple years ago. And in March 2023, he temporarily had X respond to all media inquiries with a poop emoji. In July 2023 he posted to X that Mark Zuckerberg "is a Cuck" and suggested the two men engage in a "literal dick measuring contest". In September 2024, he responded to Taylor Swift's endorsement of Kamala Harris's presidential campaign by telling Taylor on X, "I will give you a child". The very reason that Musk got away with his gross smear of a cave diver in 2018 -- something which isn't even mentioned in this article (and the creepy comment addressed at Swift isn't mentioned in the article on his public image) -- is that the jury agreed that Musk was just mouthing off, as he regularly does, and wasn't seriously calling the man a pedophile. This piece from December 2022 is a beginning:

The Childish Drama of Elon Musk - The Atlantic

Yes, that's an opinion piece, as is plainly evident from the headline and the sub-hed, which complains that "an important part of the public square", i.e. X, "is controlled by a narcissistic toddler," so it's presumably not sufficient sourcing by itself to support a change to this article, and more support likely would need to be identified first. And obviously we can't rely on another associate of Donald Trump, Steve Bannon, who called Musk an "immature man-child" in 2018 because they're having a public feud right now. Part of the problem with including this amply evident piece of Musk's persona into this article is that reliable media sources either think that mentioning Musk's behavior is beneath them, or they consider it a stunt by Musk to garner attention and don't wish to be used by him. So at the moment, the "Harry Bōlz" invoice is getting little attention in the mainstream press (various Indian outlets seem to have mentioned it), and what little note it has gotten is being mocked by Elon's fans, e.g., "CNN freaks out over Elon Musk changing his name on X". (Childishness on top of childishness.) It seems to be some sort of stunt meant to inflate the value of a cryptocurrency.

Yet I ask you: if Barack Obama or Mitch McConnell or Tim Cook or Jeff Bezos starting posting on social media as "Harry Bōlz" (even if it was done just as a ploy to make themselves money) or did any of the other things I noted above (which are just a sample), that surely would be mentioned in their Wikipedia articles, wouldn't it?

At the very least, can this rather obsequious passage in the Public image section of this article be rewritten?

"He has been described as an eccentric who makes spontaneous and impactful decisions, while also often making controversial statements, contrary to other billionaires who prefer reclusiveness to protect their businesses. Musk's actions and his expressed views have made him a polarizing figure. Biographer Ashlee Vance described people's opinions of Musk as polarized due to his "part philosopher, part troll" persona on Twitter."

For starters, that first sentence cites to a Vox story which doesn't say anything about Musk's decision-making and makes no contrast to the statements of other billionaires. The story is all about Musk's proclivity to spread false conspiracy theories, and if there was one overall theme of the piece, it's that Musk doesn't care whether the information he shares is true or not. So either that sentence needs to be rewritten to match the source, or additional sources need to be found to back it up its very soft characterization of Musk's persona. NME Frigate (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Second rewriting the public image paragraph.

I'm intrigued by the idea, but we should research how other BLPs handle people with penchants for lewd provocation. He isn't the first. QRep2020 (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

NME, while I appreciate your continued efforts to contribute to the encyclopedia, I think it's abundantly clear that you hold personal feelings toward Elon Musk that render proposals like this entirely too biased to the negative side and therefore WP:UNDUE. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Editorial bias does not make items UNDUE. This can be presented without bias. And you need to assume good faith and focus on that content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I certainly assume good faith, my gratitude for NME's efforts is not performative. But one can still assume good faith while highlighting an editor's obvious personal feelings which affect their contributions. Without perusing every single edit I can't say it with 100% certainty, but I'm fairly sure that every proposal of NME's having to do with Elon has involved maligning Elon in some way, and usually based on a recent headline news item.

All I ask is that we take WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP very seriously, which naturally involves a bit of a waiting period between when things happen/are reported on and when they might be included in the encyclopedia - of course with extra consideration when publishing content related to living persons. Big Thumpus (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Reading what NME wrote (referencing things from a few years ago) and a simple Google search of "Elon Musk juvenile" will show you that your recentism concerns are unfounded.[47][48][49][50] You are still violating TPG by bringing up editor behavior rather than focusing on content. Stop that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Big Thumpus:, you need to look in the mirror. You wrote: "highlighting an editor's obvious personal feelings which affect their contributions." That is not allowed, at least on an article talk page. That is considered a personal attack: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." Focus on content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

To be clear: my only specific proposal in this topic was to suggest updating a sentence where the text and source do not match.

And I have no particular objection to your thoughtful inquiry about the motivation behind my questions about whether this article was overlooking a notable element of Elon Musk's behavior, one that I think has been evident for years, but one which, as I acknowledged, was thinly sourced in the reliable media. I was quite seriously asking: How would Wikipedia cover behavior like Musk's if any other prominent government official or business leader engaged in it? And I asked it mindful that, while nobody is really without opinions and thus everyone is potentially biased, my judgment certainly could be clouded by my alarm at what has happened over the past few weeks (which is without precedent, potentially very dangerous, and already hurting people). I can't edit this article, but even if I could, I would have asked these questions first. And I'm quite interested in knowing people's answers to that question. Maybe what I think I'm seeing isn't really there. Or maybe this is an emperor's new clothes situation, in which people have politely agreed not to mention the weirdness. NME Frigate (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

He seems to be a political equivalent of John Kricfalusi, who used his blog to harshly criticize and ridicule practically any major figure in the animation industry. While his own works were primarily known for their gross out material. I would not expect Musk to act seriously if he has similar intentions "to shock the viewer(s) and disgust the wider audience by presenting them with controversial material". Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Harry Bōlz

Recently, Mr. Musk briefly changed his Twitter display name to Harry Bōlz, as detailed in my post on the Talk page for Harry Baals (sources included in original post). I speculate, without confirmation, that Mr. Musk may have drawn inspiration from Mayor Baals' name.

Either way, given that there is sufficient coverage of the event from reliable sources, it may well deserve mention on this page. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

See Talk:Elon_Musk/Archive_21#Kekius_Maximus/_Elon_new_Identity, from a proposal to mention that Elon had changed his Twitter display name to "Kekius Maximus" from six weeks ago. Neither that name change, nor the coverage of it, was WP:LASTING. This is pure WP:RECENTISM. It'll be something else by next week. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

On the other hand, couldn't this episode in particular be used as a more flagrant example of Elon's tendency to troll? Even if by simply stating in the article that he does so frequently, as supported by one or more of my references—and perhaps by others detailing other instances, such as his naming the Department of Government Efficiency thus for the acronym, DOGE—I think it may deserve mention. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Well we certainly include this in a sentence about his 'troll'ing if we don't have one already, but I'd say that there are more notable examples such as the "pedo" tweet or saying "My pronouns are Prosecute/Fauci" that we should use instead. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)