Talk:Elon Musk

RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

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

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

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

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

• Support I support this course of action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• @Firecat93 Support

reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Foonix0 Hi, thank you for your reply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  @Slatersteven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ElijahPepe

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

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

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

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOWBALL consensus for Support. guninvalid (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Should the page describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes? BootsED (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Sources

• Clayton, Freddie (December 22, 2024). "Elon Musk courts Europe's surging far right". NBC News. Archived from the original on January 19, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025. Musk has thrown his support behind far-right politicians in the U.K., Italy and Germany, where the leader of the AfD party has evoked Nazi rhetoric. ... What began as a tech mogul railing against political correctness in the U.S. has evolved into what appears to be a global campaign of support for far-right ideologies, forcing governments on both sides of the Atlantic to reckon with Musk's growing political and cultural influence.
• Mac, Ryan; Bensinger, Ken (January 8, 2025). "As Elon Musk Embraces Far Right, Some of Its Top Figures Reject Him". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on January 8, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025. Mr. Musk's falling-out with some on the far right stands out as he increasingly embraces more extreme parties and figures globally, including in Germany, where he has backed a political party with ties to neo-Nazis and plans to host a livestream with one of its leaders on Thursday.
• Lawless, Jill (January 7, 2025). "Elon Musk helped Trump win. Now he's looking at Europe, and many politicians are alarmed". The Associated Press. Archived from the original on January 8, 2025. Retrieved January 20, 2025. The Tesla and SpaceX chief executive has endorsed the far-right Alternative for Germany, demanded the release of jailed U.K. anti-Islam extremist Tommy Robinson and called British Prime Minister Keir Starmer an evil tyrant who should be in prison. Many European politicians have been left concerned by the attention. Musk's feed on his social network X is dotted with abusive language — labeling politicians "stupid cretin" and "sniveling cowards" — as well as retweets of far-right and anti-immigrant accounts.
• Siddiqui, Faiz; Merrill, Jeremy B. (August 11, 2024). "Elon Musk's X feed becomes megaphone for his far-right politics". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on November 24, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2025.
• Darcy, Oliver (March 19, 2024). "Radicalized by the right: Elon Musk puts his conspiratorial thinking on display for the world to see". CNN. Archived from the original on December 9, 2024. Retrieved January 20, 2025. At this juncture, calling Musk a right-wing shitposter is no longer provocative. It's simply accurate. ... Musk appears to be growing more intolerant of other viewpoints. While elevating right-wing extremists, he simultaneously seeks to destroy trust in credible news sources.

Polling

Support

• Support This appears to be contentious on this page, and there are constant edit wars over it and disagreements on talk. I believe there are ample reliable sources that describe Musk as a supporter of international far-right political parties, activists, and causes as presented in the proposed sources section above. Note, that we are not saying Musk is far-right, but that he is a supporter of the far-right, which is what reliable sources describe him as. BootsED (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that the average reader would consider that the statements "supports the far-right" and "member of the far-right" to have different meanings. Most think of those two as identical meanings. Ergzay (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are so close to figuring things out. Just keep rubbing the sticks together. 155.186.205.191 (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support - per RSs. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support This statement is backed by numerous reliable sources. I agree with the above reasoning. Marincyclist (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, repeats what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say this. Thus we should too. Fieari (talk) 04:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support: As per reliable sources EarthDude (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support: If not even a recorded Nazi salute can convince some that he endorses these types of regimes, I'm genuinely not sure what else he needs to do to change their minds.

Being afraid to use labels that are not well-received by some in society is not being neutral, but rather the opposite, because you are artificially trying to make everyone look "normal" by hiding what your prejudice deems to be "bad." Yoitai (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support, one only has to look at the situation in which he changed Twitter's policies on doxing, almost overnight, in order to provide cover for the neo-Nazi StoneToss (read the article for more details and sources) when he could not have given a flying fuck about doxing on his platform previously. That aside, per the reliable sources given above. TarnishedPath^talk 10:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, that is a wholly uncontroversial description, very well supported by reliable sources. --Tataral (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support - Following RS is what we do. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support We go by what reliable sources say, not what editors think about those sources. Carlstak (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support WP:WEIGHT is met for including this in the body for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Soft support per the sources available. Might be worth waiting for academic sources. Surprised we need an RfC on this? Kowal2701 (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support: There are more than enough reliable sources suggesting this with verifiable proof of this pattern. There appear to be no reliable sources denying this is happening or contradicting the proposed wording. The opposing argument that "far-right" is a slur lacks any basis, as it is used extensively by reliable sources and there are a number of high-quality Wiki articles dealing with this topic. CrazyPredictor (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support as per sources already in the article --RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support We can't say he's a Nazi (yet), so this will have to do (for the time being). Serial (speculates here) 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Per sources. - SchroCat (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support This is a man who openly supports and advocates for neo-nazis in Germany and the UK, performs the nazi salute on stage, is criticised by numerous world leaders in democratic countries for his far-right propaganda, and is described as far-right by a long list of recent and reliable sources. Should be one of the most obvious RfCs ever on WP. Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong Support Musk has been extremely vocal in his support of far-right parties and policies abroad. His support hasn't been ambiguous, indirect, or isolated. I'm inclined to believe that someone is a supporter of something when they have a long history of saying that they support that thing, and their statements have been verified and interpreted similarly by multiple third parties. RFZYNSPY ^talk 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support Even if Elon Musk didn't make a Nazi salute, there are more than enough proof from reliable sources of him supporting the far-right. Prime6421 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support Reliable sources clearly state this, with little to no reputable rejection of this description. --Pinchme123 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support. We document what RS say. It's that simple. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support per other !votes, I also don't see this as controversial, though I understand the need for such an RfC given this is a contentious topic on a highly notable figure. Reliable sources clearly document Musk as a supporter of the far-right in the article body already, in a variety of ways, so an inclusion is merely WP:DUE at this point per WP:BALANCE, in order to avoid a WP:FALSEBALANCE. I also don't see this description as WP:WEASEL words, nor as a slur like MOS:RACIST, it's merely an accurate description of the end of the political spectrum that Musk supports. While being far-right can be seen as negative, similar to far-left, there is nothing inherently WP:CONTENTIOUS about these labels, even if often associated with a negative connotation. Overall, for balance we go with what a diversity of sources say. CNC (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support simply because it is objectively and verifiably true. Musk consistently supports political figures who our own Wiki, as well as most verifiable news sources, describe as either right-wing or far-right. There are dozens of available examples where reputable sources document Musk supporting international right-wing/far-right figures and causes:

a right-wing opposition leader in in Canada,

a right-wing Prime Minister in New Zealand

a right-wing to far right Prime Minister in Hungary,

a right-wing to far-right head of state in Argentina,

an imprisoned alt-right figure in the UK,

a far-right leader the Netherlands,

a far-right party in Germany,

a far-right activist movement in Ireland,

a far-right former President Brazil,

a far-right Prime Minister |in Italy,

far-right "anti-white genocide" activists in South Africa,

Respectfully, the available sources are clear and overwhelming. The discussion closer who assesses for consensus should keep the above evidence in mind. Flip^andFlopped ツ 23:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• Support per above WP:RS.

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

• Support With this [[44]], yes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
• Support his AfD support has received widespread attention and endures to this day on X, and due to some nuances vs the German description of "rechtsextrem" I would strongly argue this is a description the party is completely fine with in English. Since he's also recently supported far-right politics in the UK, this seems completely due. Mystic Cornball (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Look at the word immediately after the one you bolded. What does it say? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Oppose I feel like the proposed sources above are claiming that far right is negative, and to some that may not be the case. The sources are also making assumptions about someone's character who supports far right policies, which is a very bias opinion and not a neutral fact. If it can be done in a more neutral way I think it is Wikipedia appropriate, otherwise just sharing his support of Trump and pursuit of politics in that sense will allow those reading to make their assumptions and not provide rhetoric one way or the other. ^🦄✨bedazzledunicorn^✨🦄 20:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose reference to far-right but, to some extent, with less objection to a reference of "right wing". All the same a lot of support from the parties concerned are from the working class who simply oppose disproportionate levels of migration and of people who would like to protect their own indigenous cultures, Kirr Hardy who founded the UK Labour party had parallel views. GregKaye 01:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose "far right". I like the lists of Presidents and Prime ministers he allegedly supports (see above in the "supports"). All of them elected by their nations. Who knew _the_majorities of the_people_ were "far right"? "Far" is just a cheap attack on conservatives... by far left journalists? I don't mind if Wikipedia states in its own voice that Musk favors the right. XavierItzm (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Far-right discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  It's 31-7 now. I think snowball applies at this point. I would appreciate a closer to review so we can add this info to the page. BootsED (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I believe a consensus to add has been reached, but I have voted, so I cannot/don't want to close the discussion. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  @BootsED and @Wildfireupdateman, you can request and independent close at WP:CR if you wish. TarnishedPath^talk 23:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

• Based on recent edits,[45][46][47], we might be past the point of a close on this one. There is well-sourced content on Musk as a far-right political figure now at a higher level summary, assuming it won't be reverted. Edit @FMSky reverted with this diff. CNC (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Worth noting that the Views of Elon Musk article currently states in the lead "Following the COVID-19 pandemic, however, his views have also been described as becoming more right-wing and conservative over time, sometimes being described as far-right" [48]. The relevance being that if this child article was appropriately summarised in this article in order to adhere to editing guidelines (which it isn't), then this description would already be included in the body in a similar way. CNC (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

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

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

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.

RM notification

There is currently a discussion at Personal and business legal affairs of Elon Musk regarding a Requested move of the article to Legal affairs of Elon Musk. The thread is Requested move 31 January 2025. The discussion is about the topic Personal and business legal affairs of Elon Musk. Thank you. CNC (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

AfD notifcation

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other activities of Elon Musk regarding deleting Other activities of Elon Musk. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Other activities of Elon Musk. Thank you. CNC (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Extreme concision edits have introduced comprehensiveness and due weight issues

There were issues with this article, but the extreme shortening by CommunityNotesContributor has harmed the quality of this article. They have trimmed it to a shockingly shockingly brief 1,830 words. For comparison, the Jeff Bezos is at 7,200 words and Mark Zuckerberg is at a similar 6,271 words. Both of those are Good Articles. Should Musk's article really be 5 to 6 times shorter? That seems very extreme. And beyond the unwarranted brevity, CommunityNotesContributor has introduced a number of issues to the article:

1. Undue weight The uneven trimming of certain sections has created significant issues in terms of undue weight and recentism. For instance, Twitter gets nearly as much coverage as the entirety of the rest of his 25 years of business. etc. Note that almost one half of the lead is about his business career. Because that's what most of the coverage on Musk has focused on in the past 25 years. That should be reflected in the body as well.

1. Factual inaccuracies and prose quality CommunityNotesContributor has taken a haphazard, seemingly random approach to what is and what was not kept. And gross factual inaccuracies have also been introduced. For instance: "Musk received $176 million after PayPal acquired eBay as the companies largest shareholder." is incorrect as eBay purchased PayPal, and the latter half of the sentence is both nonsensical and lacks an aprostrophe. There is slop like this everywhere.

We need to return to a length and level of summary style that this article possessed when it was successfully promoted to GA status by myself and QRep2020. I have just restored an appropriately concise business career section, but all other sections must be addressed as well. ~ HAL333 01:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Article is currently 6,185 words.[49] There's also approximately 2,000 words from Other activities of Elon Musk that is lilely to return via AfD, meaning it'd be within the ideal remit of words per WP:SIZEGUIDE. CNC (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The article is 6,185 words because I just added a lengthened business career section and the public image section. Before I restored much of the old content, it was 1,830. Additionally, WP:SIZERULE is not absolute. Note that an article that is 8900 words does not necessarily even need to be trimmed/divided. Although such a length is likely too long in this case. ~ HAL333 01:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Before you restored content, it was 4,478 words.[50] With Other activities returned it would have been around 6,500. I otherwise have no objections to returning sections in summary style as you have done. CNC (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

According to X-tools, the article was 1,830 words prior. Regardless, that's good to hear. I'll trim the Personal Life section next (which I think is too long and can be better organized) and then I'll start working on making sure other sections adhere to summary style. ~ HAL333 01:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Good. I appreciate the effort you are putting in to returning the article to better quality. CNC (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help. For instance, the COVID-19 subsection definitely needs a reintroduction in some capacity. QRep2020 (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Second. QRep2020 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=prev&oldid=1273402733 and its introduction of 2 subsections again shifts the focus too much on his views and poltics and away from his business career which he was exclusively known for until last July. - FMSky (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I reverted that. Adding two random sub-sections is how you end up with a dozen sub-sections instead of a summary style section. No need to go down that route again. To clarify, I'm not completely opposed to having sub-section summaries for Views, similar to Business career, but adding Transgender and COVID-19, when these aren't the main sub-sections of the child article, provided WP:FALSEBALANCE and I don't consider an NPOV edit either. If higher-level indpeth sections were summarised, say Politics and Science and technology, I wouldn't be opposed, or otherwise summarising the entire child. CNC (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Related but there should really be a "political career" section at this point. His activities in the current US administration have been covered extensively in reliable sources (e.g. [51]) but are barely or not at all mentioned beyond his political views. Citing (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It has not even been a month, and for all we know it might not last a month. Lets at least wait and see if this does actually become anything long-term. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I concur, see WP:CRYSTAL. ~ HAL333 17:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. There is also the entire Politics section of the Views article. CNC (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't tell you how long it will last or what its impact will be but it is absolutely not WP:CRYSTAL to point out that his career as a politician exists and is currently happening. Hell, he's worked with the White House longer than Anthony Scaramucci. Citing (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the better argument would be merging Political views with Political activities and making Political positions of Elon Musk or similar. There would at least be enough words for a standalone, and Views article would then get back below 9,000 words split (where it belongs). Though granted there is a lot of trimming needed there also. CNC (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

These are not abstract "views" or "positions", these are actions which he is undertaking or overseeing in his capacity as lead of a presidential commission. With respect to the activities/views sections, I think anything from 2024 onwards (like speaking at rallies or with other leaders, hosting political fundraisers and events, working with DOGE, etc) could easily fit the umbrella of a "political career" section. Citing (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Per comment in other topic, I'll sort out the "international" sections of both articles and merge where possible, but after going through both subjects I agree they are very distinctly different. I wouldn't be opposed to moving to Political activities to Political career, but also think it may be too soon if most it is still funding based CNC (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Some information from the article before the trimming needs to be added back EarthDude (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

This has more of less been resolved with editing, what information do you think is still missing? CNC (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Twitter controversies

This man has a lot of Twitter controversies, I was suggesting adding it to his catagories. Alexkrzywicki1 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN

For the opening paragraph I had included at the end: "Since 2022 Musk has supported the Republican Party and become progressively involved in politics both domestically and internationally." as additional context for notability per MOS:OPENPARABIO, but alas it was reverted. Do you think this is a suitable neutral addition? Is there a better way to phrase this without having a contentious argument?

Additionally, the Views article that after trimming undue content is still 8,000 words, so I now wonder if also including the sentence: "Musk's actions and expressed views have made him a polarizing figure." (from last paragraph of lead) would also be suitable to move into the opening paragraph, linking those child articles in the process. Notably the Views article is one of the most viewed child articles, so I'd assume enough readers are looking for this, and with the new summarised sections these are more appropriate audience targets.

I think this has the benefit of helping the reader navigate to the relevant child article content they are looking for, similar to how business career and his ownership of X is also wikilinked the MOS:OPEN. The full paragraph (based on current wording) would then read:

Elon Reeve Musk (/ˈiːlɒn mʌsk/; born June 28, 1971) is a businessman and government official known for his key roles in the automotive company Tesla, Inc. and the space company SpaceX. He is also known for his ownership of the technology company X Corp. and his role in the founding of the Boring Company, xAI, Neuralink, and OpenAI. Musk is the wealthiest individual in the world; as of January 2025, Forbes estimates his net worth to be US$426 billion. Since 2022 Musk has supported the Republican Party, has become progressively involved in politics both domestically and internationally, and his views have made him a polarizing figure.

CNC (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I moved these sentences up that we're burying at the bottom of the opening paragraph instead. I was going for something a bit more neutral, but this wording has consensus so it's fine.[52] Now I'm just counting down for it to be reverted I guess. CNC (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"MAGA civil war" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect MAGA civil war has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § MAGA civil war until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"Kekius Maximus" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Kekius Maximus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 3 § Kekius Maximus until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Treasury Dept. gives Elon Musk's team access to sensitive federal payment system

This is a huge event, but it's recent.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-elon-musk-doge-treasury-5e26cc80fcb766981cea56afd57ae759 Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

We may want to give it a few days to see how things go, but yes, unlawfully and unconstitutionally shutting down a government agency and interfering with payments directed by Congress, while ignoring classification laws is kind of a big thing.

Maybe pretending that this isn't happening will distract his fans from posting endlessly about how he's too autistic to know what a Nazi salute is? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Please no more "two anonymous people ~familiar with the matter~ and one political opponent said [insert event related to Trump administration] could be a catastrophe!". We really need to stop adding things to articles, especially BLPs, that get headline news coverage for a few days and then turn out to completely unravel. If DOGE does anything unconstitutional, it will absolutely be covered in reliable sources in the future and can be incorporated into the encyclopedia. Otherwise WP:NOTNEWS. Big Thumpus (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

We already know that what he's doing is both illegal and unconstitutional, and that multiple sources are talking about it.

This is the one of the same things Trump got impeached for last time, when he withheld aid to Ukraine to try to blackmail them into making up dirt about a political opponent. Congress directs spending, the President can't just say, "No, I don't feel like it."

We don't need to rush it into the article, but being at the center of a constitutional crisis is absolutely notable and we'll need to be ready to add it in when things settle a bit. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we don't know that. "Multiple sources" just happen to be sources that have been openly politically opposed to the current president for an entire decade. If by "when things settle a bit" you mean 5 to 10 years in the future then I agree, I think we'll have a much better understanding of everything by then and academic sources to rely on instead of news media. Big Thumpus (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay? *You* may not know how the US government works and aren't familiar with the issues from that impeachment, but almost everyone else here is? Why don't you let the people who understand the issue edit this section?

And no, we don't need to wait years to document his involvement in illegal activities just because it would make his fans unhappy. This is a dictionary, not a fan page. We should have at least something up by the end of the week, there's already at least one lawsuit about it and there's going to be more soon. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Good luck achieving the consensus you desire without remaining WP:CIVIL Big Thumpus (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If you're trying to pretend that disagreeing with you about having to wait "5-10 years" to tell the truth about Musk is 'Uncivil' you're going to keep getting hugely outvoted by unbiased editors. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you need to really read over WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS and maybe WP:CIVIL one more time while you're at it Big Thumpus (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop posting your personal attacks on the article talk page. If you can't contain yourself to discussing the article, move it to a user talk page.

If you're going to quote policies, try to follow them. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The Financial Times reported on February 2 that Musk responded to an X post by Michael Flynn, who posted a spreadsheet purportedly showing federal payments to Global Refuge, a charity that provides services to legal migrants. Without evidence, Flynn asserted there was money laundering involved and that there were many other organizations "cashing in on our hard-earned money". Musk responded that DOGE "is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments." He later asserted that federal employees are "breaking the law every hour of every day by approving payments that are fraudulent or do not match the funding laws passed by Congress".[53] soibangla (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

First sencence

We need to do something about the first sentence. It has been amended a few times recently, but it doesn't work very well. Currently, it is: "a businessman and United States government official known for his key roles in the automotive company Tesla, Inc. and the space company SpaceX." A few things are problematic about this:

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,"[54] has now become a common way[55] 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."[56] 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.

He is also not "best known" for Tesla (which he neither founded nor invented) and SpaceX; that implies that his role as an oligarch, the political power he wields, is secondary to owning 13% of the Tesla shares, which is obviously ridiculous. He is best known for wreaking havoc on democracies around the world, supporting the far-right, meddling in elections in the United States and other countries, and now acting as if he were the unelected President or perhaps Emperor of the United States. --Tataral (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh please stop. Please. Stop.

Talk:Elon Musk#RfC: Mentioning Oligarch Characterization in Lead

Please, stop. Big Thumpus (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No, we're not going to stop having discussions on how we can improve the article. There was indeed an RfC that addressed a part of the broader topic discussed here, a while ago and before he started running around unilaterally "shutting down" huge government agencies and acting as if he was the President. And before 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." But we obviously need to revisit this question, among others. Things change. --Tataral (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Let's uphold WP:NPOV. if you can't. stay away from any political articles. your personal opinions are irrelevant. facts matter here. CViB (talk) 05:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Now the lead has been changed to "is a businessman and United States federal special government employee." While it may be technically correct that he currently holds such a role, it doesn't at all capture his role and political influence as an oligarch, during the election (when he didn't even hold this role) and after it. Again, nothing he does is typical of a "federal special government employee." For pretty obscure oligarchs (by comparison) linked to Russia, we have described them as oligarchs without any issue if they meet the typical definition, and combine wealth with closeness to state power. --Tataral (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This won’t happen until lots of high quality academic sources describe him that way. There’s a few low quality ones at the moment. Media is junk. Kowal2701 (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Reference DOGE in the first paragraph?

The article opens by identifying Musk as a businessman and a government official. The opening paragraph goes on to describe his role and history as a businessman, but neglects his role as a government official. Should the department of government efficiency be listed in this paragraph as one of the things he is known for? ~Puella Mortua~ Signed from the grave. (séance me!) 17:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Large overlap in politics and views sections

These sections should be combined, they largely describe the same thing. --FMSky (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed overlap in this article with this edit. Going to sort out the overlap in Views and Political activities articles. The international sections need to be merged whole and left at the activities article it seems, but will see. CNC (talk) 06:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I meant the individual sections "Views" and "Politics", not the lead --FMSky (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Coristine

This page may be of interest of editors here. RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Companies in the first paragraph

In the first paragraph of the lead, we mention no fewer than seven companies that he is said to have some involvement with. This seems excessive and makes the first paragraph overly long and intricate in detail. Some of these companies are ones where he was just one of several people involved in providing funding or held a minority position.

The second and third paragraphs already provide detailed coverage of his business career and mention these companies again. I believe it would be sufficient to highlight only two or three of the companies he is most closely associated with, such as Tesla (with his 13% ownership) and Twitter, in the first paragraph while covering the lesser-known ones in the second and third paragraphs. --Tataral (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

MOS:OPEN as well as #MOS:OPEN. Overall in the lead there is a false balance with undue weight given to Musk's business career, when there are child articles with 8,000+ words of due notability to cover instead. CNC (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the lead is still largely the same as it was two years ago when he was primarily a businessman. Just like we had to rethink the balance of the Trump article when he became a major political figure, we need to do the same for Musk, where the lead is overwhelmingly about intricate details about his business career. In the lead section of Donald Trump, only a single paragraph now briefly summarizes his business and entertainment career in the lead, so at least three-quarters of the lead is about his political role. For Musk, it would probably be appropriate to strive for a 50-50 balance for now. That means condensing his business career and expanding on his current political role. --Tataral (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment. CNC (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

He's still primarily a businessman --FMSky (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. He seems to have spent more time acting for Trump over the past month. Perhaps we can find a recent source for that. — Charles Stewart (talk) 01:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes "past month", that would be WP:RECENTISM. We dont erase someone's 25-year career because of a bunch of viral moments and twitter posts in the last weeks. There is also a whole lead paragraph already dealing with this exact topic -- FMSky (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on due weight, there is a lot less about his business career and more about his views and political activities. You only need to count up the words to see that, putting aside the summary style of parent article. CNC (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

That was because you erased most of it lmao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elon_Musk#Extreme_concision_edits_have_introduced_comprehensiveness_and_due_weight_issues which people even objected to --FMSky (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we edit this article neutrally and not have it become the mess that is trump's article please --FMSky (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Describing his role as "a bunch of viral moments and Twitter posts" is so ridiculous it doesn't really deserve an answer. When someone becomes the president or the de facto ruler of the world's most powerful country or wields unparalleled political power, then their previous career in private business matters far less in comparison. This is because the impact of governing a country, not to mention the United States, is far greater than that of being a private businessman.

The Donald Trump lead section went from being only about his business and entertainment career to only briefly mentioning it, spending most of the lead on his political career. That was the correct decision and a result of his new role when he became president.

Editing this article neutrally means taking into account that his current role is not the same as it was two years ago when he had no political role in a far-right government that is engaged in what many describe as a totally unprecedented coup, in which he personally plays a key part.

The lead is already too long, leaving no room to describe his evolving role in government. It is absolutely necessary for us to remove the irrelevant intricacies about citizenship applications (like how exactly he qualified to apply in Canada) and CV-like details about his bachelor's degree, as they belong in the body of the article. We also need to condense his business career to focus on the main companies he is associated with, rather than listing every single investment he has made. --Tataral (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For now, the condensed version can be seen here[57]

There is still work to do to describe his role in the Trump administration more accurately, including what is going on with shutting down government departments, violating the Constitution and other laws, accusations of being behind a coup, and so forth.

And of course we haven't figured out the first sentence yet. A "United States special Government employee" is obviously not an adequate description of his political role, even if he now technically holds such an appointment. "Oligarch" would be the one-word description, but that is a separate discussion, above. --Tataral (talk) 03:39, 6 February 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)