Talk:Elon Musk/Archive 23

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

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)

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)

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," has now become a common way 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." 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)

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)

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^[update], 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. Now I'm just counting down for it to be reverted I guess. CNC (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

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". soibangla (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Coristine

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

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)

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)

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. 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. 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. ) 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)

Actually, i went thru the article and nvm lol. It seems that its been fixed already EarthDude (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The following sentence should be moved from the last to the first paragraph of this section, where it is relevant:

The elder twin later came out as a trans woman and, in 2022, officially changed her name to Vivian Jenna Wilson,[377]adopting her mother's surname because she no longer wished to be associated with Musk.

The following sentence in the final paragraph of this section should be clarified - the previous sentence talks about Grimes therefore it is not clear that the ‘pair’ in this sentence is actually Musk and Zilis:

In September 2023 it was reported that the pair had had a third child (Musk's eleventh). Louise.a.thomson (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

Since no kind of justification has been offered for reverting the necessary, careful, and conscientious trimming (with detailed justifications) of undue intricate detail in the already too long lead section that was discussed here, and since there is a general consensus in this discussion for this trimming that is well supported by policy (per above), the shorter version will be reinstated shortly. This version aligns better with our guidelines for lead sections and also leaves a little bit of room for a few extra sentences on his role in government once we agree on them, which is the next thing we need to do. --Tataral (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that FMSky is still edit warring over the edits agreed on here while refusing to provide any kind of justification for it and failing to gain any kind of support. And they are also introducing absolutely ridiculous puffery in a whole new section devoted entirely to praising Musk (without any kind of consensus). This should all be reverted immediately. --Tataral (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Which part do you consider edit warring? And which consensus are you talking about? --FMSky (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You have repeatedly reverted other editors' work, as discussed in this very section, instead of seeking consensus. There is consensus here to remove, for example, the intricate detail listing seven companies in the first section. There are also a number of other edits you have offered no kind of justification for, edits that have been discussed here and that editors have offered detailed justifications for. --Tataral (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

But there was never any consensus to remove these companies in the first place? --FMSky (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You don't have a personal veto. You are the only editor objecting, while several editors agree it doesn't belong. You also don't cite any kind of policy to back up your claims, while the argument that it doesn't belong is based on a solid policy foundation. You offer short one-sentence replies with assertions of your personal opinions but don't engage with other editors' policy-based arguments in a detailed or serious manner. That is not enough. You also posted a false edit-warring warning in retaliation for non-edit-warring, in this case implementing a change after discussing it in great detail and waiting for a response. --Tataral (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually only one editor has agreed with you so far, and the discussion has only been open for a bit over a day. Either way, you've got your wish, and your preferred version is now in the article (including the category "Neo-nazi polticians in the United States") --FMSky (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not one editor though, I assume you are referring to me here. There was a previous brief discussion about adhering to summary style guidelines, that other editors agreed to, hence it was implemented. The issue here is that after the radical re-summarization of the topic, the lead now requires refining and the due notable context included into the MOS:OPEN as I've stated before. CNC (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for a slight trim in the 3rd section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elon_Musk&diff=1274423433&oldid=1274423263 This doesn't really add anything. The main point is the increase in hate speech. --FMSky (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor: Thoughts on that trim? --FMSky (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Slightly trimming the Twitter stuff by removing "large employee layoffs" and the Twitter verification issue, while keeping "His acquisition of Twitter was controversial due to an increase in hate speech and the spread of misinformation and disinformation on the service", would be fine in my opinion (in addition to the existing trim, of course). --Tataral (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah the existing trim can stay obviously. I actually changed my mind on that, as there wasn't really all that much lost - FMSky (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

Elon is a consultant and hence should not use office holder template

The United States Digital Service and Department of Government Efficiency is not considered a public office because it is a government initiative staffed by professionals who are not elected or in positions of sovereign authority. They provide technical expertise but do not exercise legislative, judicial, or executive power in the traditional sense. It is not created by law

Office holder template should be used for individuals who hold or have held a recognized political or governmental office (e.g., a mayor, minister, senator, etc.).

Temporary Status: DOGE was created via executive order as a “temporary organization” under the U.S. Digital Service, with a scheduled closure date of July 4, 2026

The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen “special government employee” (SGE), a temporary appointment limited to 130 days/year. SGEs typically advise agencies rather than hold permanent, statutorily defined offices

Using office holder template would misrepresent DOGE’s status and potentially violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies. Astropulse (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems a valid objection. Slatersteven (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Your source does not state anywhere that Elon Musk is a consultant; it specifically mentions that Tom Krause was hired as a consultant, not Musk.

"The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen" is inaccurate. Even if temporary, an SGE is still a government employee (as indicated in the title). Therefore, the fact that he is an SGE with a temporary appointment and was not elected should not disqualify the use of the officeholder template, as he remains a government employee, and his involvement with DOGE is highly notable.

However, we do not know Musk's official title. We only know that he is classified as a Special Government Employee (SGE) and that he leads DOGE.

I suggest using "Head of the Department of Government Efficiency" or "Head of the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization" in the infobox, as "Head" is a generic term. Max1298 (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

"Trump said the new department will realize long-held Republican dreams and "provide advice and guidance from outside of government,"

All people in that department are consultants. Its a temporary department to start with.

question is not about Elon's title. weather office holder template should be used or not Astropulse (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The source you cited is from November, when DOGE was expected to be a presidential commission. However, it is now clear that they are not operating outside the government as Trump had claimed; instead, they are an official organization within the Executive Office of the President (EOP).

And no, they are not just consultants as you said. DOGE is actively implementing changes within the government, such as developing in-house AI for government use. They will also “make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system” at the FAA, among other initiatives. These are direct government functions, not advisory roles.

Therefore, yes, the officeholder template is appropriate, since Musk is now an official government employee leading a highly notable official government organization that is actively making changes within the federal government. Max1298 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This is feb 6. Musk's status with the federal government was unclear.

"The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen"

Thus office holder is not appropriate at this time Astropulse (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

The source you provided speaks of a lawsuit filed on February 3, in which the lawsuit stated that at the time of its filing, Musk's status with the federal government was unclear.

However, the White House has since confirmed that Musk is indeed serving as a Special Government Employee (SGE), which is a clear designation of government employment, even if temporary—it's literally in the name. As CNN reported, Musk is also "covered by a federal conflicts-of-interest statute, which prohibits government employees from participating in matters that would affect their financial interests."

So, while the lawsuit raised questions before the clarification, the current, official confirmation makes it clear that Musk is indeed a government employee. Thus, the officeholder template is appropriate. Max1298 (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

They made DOGE official already? Bro, there is so much insane shit happening in the US in such a short period of time, its getting difficult to keep up. Isn’t this RfC basically pointless now tho? EarthDude (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

DOGE has been official since January 20, when Trump signed Executive Order 14158, establishing it Max1298 (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

all public officials are government employees, but not all government employees are public officials.

i need to think more and research whats happening right now. for now - ill let other's continue discuss Astropulse (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

They argued access for Musk, a "special government employee", and Doge, which is not an official government department, violated federal law.

Judge has blocked elon teams access to treasury department. we need to wait until how this ultimately plan in court. Astropulse (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see how this is relevant to the discussion. Whether DOGE is classified as a 'department' or not is beside the point—it is still an official government organization operating within the Executive Office of the President. Just read the Executive Order that established it. Max1298 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point, it really doesnt matter whether or not DOGE is an official government agency or not. DOGE is basically a private entitiy acting as a government entity, with all the powers a government agency would have. So, office holder should not be removed, and should be kept, because Musk and DOGE, be it officially of not, are functionally acting as a part of the government, and Wikipedia should represent this reality. Reliable sources back this EarthDude (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. your comment only making my case. Musk do not have real power. eg. They only have read only access to treasury payment system. Elon advises president and president makes decision ( like consultants ). He cannot make any changes to government. Trump itself has said this Astropulse (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No. You completely missed the point. I said that even if DOGE is not an official agency, the org and Musk himself have enormous power in the system, and are functionally acting like a full government organization and Musk as a government employee. So, Wikipedia should represent that reality and keep the officeholder section in the infobox EarthDude (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

You are confusing influence with power. he doesn't have any official power because DOGE is not a official agency. He advice's the president. Trump has not made it clear if Elon is an officer or employee of the U.S. government as per the source already linked . DOGE "provide advice and guidance from outside of government" Astropulse (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that this is a valid objection. Do we have any other articles for precedent we could compare to? I would guess not many, but the best I can find are others listed on the Special Government employee article. Both Huma Abedin and Scott Atlas do not use office holder infoboxes, and this is the closest position I can find to compare Elon's position. So far, the officeholder template seems to mainly be used for either elected/Congress-confirmed officials, or officials heading departments approved by Congress, or officials heading permanent government departments (such as the CDC or EPA). - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding Template:Infobox officeholder here for easy reference. - Whisperjanes (talk) 18:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I dont mean influence. I mean full on political power, to do actions others wouldnt be able to do, but he can due to his position. For example, his recent unilateral actions in the Treasury or USAID, are some actions he was able to do via DOGE, which would otherwise require official govt agencies or acts of congress. Again, you are misinterpreting what im saying. DOGE is not an official government agency but has as much actual tangible political power, if not more, comparatively to any other official agency. Wikipedia should represent that reality, and so the inclusion of the office holder template for DOGE is really important. I would actually argue not having that included in the infobox would be violating WP:NPOV EarthDude (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

they are suing the trump administration over USAID if he had the power to do it - then there wouldn’t be a lawsuit, would there? you need congress approval to dismantle USAID Astropulse (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you want to achieve with this but musk doge held such a significant political power that is greater than many top officials, I agreed with EarthDude (wether doge is an official govt agency or not) it still have much actual tangible power and Wikipedia should represent this reality.

I see nothing different rather than the president executing his political power through doge and this is such a big deal to look down upon. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 03:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

BTW: wether congress agrees or suing him does not mean the president power is obsolete, this two are executive branch of the government and the executive power of the president are not something to belittle... A reminder: USAID was created through an executive order and can be dismantled through an executive orders. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 03:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

wiki should reflects facts through reliable sources. is there any reliable sources claiming it is a official government

this article question its power

this disputes its a official government agency

so at this point - i have not seen a reliable source source saying it is a official government agency and it has real power Astropulse (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

CBS News has confirmed that DOGE was established by an Executive Order and is "housed within the executive branch"—meaning it is an official government organization. CBS News also explicitly states that it is not an outside advisory committee. The order also placed DOGE within an existing White House office (OMB) and assigned teams to federal agencies.

Additionally, CBS states that Musk is classified as a 'special government employee' by the White House—which means he is a government employee, even if temporary.

While there have been lawsuits questioning certain aspects of DOGE's actions, such as its access to data, these do not change the fact that DOGE operates within the federal government. Lawsuits and legal challenges are common for any new government initiative, and they are part of the process of ensuring accountability, but they don't negate the official status of DOGE as part of the executive branch.

If you still claim DOGE is not an official government organization, you need to provide a source that explicitly states it is not part of the U.S. government—because all evidence, including the Executive Order and multiple news reports, confirms that it is. Max1298 (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we can keep the template until the outcome of the DOGE-related legal proceedings is determined. Astropulse (talk) 15:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commissioned officer, Musk will file a confidential financial disclosure report, a White House official said on Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about personnel matters publicly.

This is enough to remove officeholder template. I removed it Astropulse (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop with all this misinformations and learn about what a president can do within his judiciary:

. The president executive order that established doge is enough for the reliable source, there are many sources all over his campaign periods on doge too.

. Just because there was a law suit from few people in the congress doesn't mean doge is obsolete and unofficial.

. The president doesn't need anyone permission to do anything within his judiciary and the establishment of doge is among too.

. As for the USAID: The president can still dismiss them through doge with his executive order and he has many valid reasons to implement it just as we have seen from the allegations against USAID.

. The establishment of doge and the dismantling of USAID are within the president constitutional judiciary and do not need the congress.

BTW: right now the congress are majority Republicans just if they are even needed to implement orders within their judiciary. Thisasia  ^(Talk) 15:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

there is no misinformation here. im questioning if he is officer or not. not presidents power.

and i was right. read its confirmed - he is not a officer Astropulse (talk) 02:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

"As for the USAID: The president can still dismiss them through doge with his executive order and he has many valid reasons to implement it just as we have seen from the allegations against USAID."

Actually, the president's power is limited. USAID's existence and role is defined by an act of Congress, and the president has taken an oath to execute the laws. He can't just shut it down. And sociopath that he is (as Musk also is), the "allegations" you mention are just their self-serving lies. NME Frigate (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no source that refers to Musk as a "consultant" in his relation to D.O.G.E., he's a special government employee and his role is heading the Department of Government Efficiency. This makes him an office holder.

Your desire to remove the office holder template under the false premise that Musk is a "consultant" may potentially violate Wikipedia’s neutrality and verifiability policies that we have to enforce as editors, I suggest that you withdraw yourself from the editing process of this article. RickStrate2029 (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

see its argued a "special government employee", and Doge, which is not an official government department, violated federal law Astropulse (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Members of presidential commissions have historically been included as an office holder and had a template for it on their Wikipedia infobox.

ColdestWinterChill (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Members of presidential commissions that have office holder infoboxes are usually senior advisors (as far as I can tell), meaning they were appointed to a position in the White House Office, an established government entity. Musk is not this; he is a special government employee, and as I said before, I cannot find an example of another one on Wikiepdia that uses an office holder infobox.

Musk's appointment as this type of "employee" also means his position can only be 130 days long. I don't see how an office "holder" position fits with that, if he is a temporary employee. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

i found out something interesting. SGE can be an officer or an employee But how do we determine if Elon is an officer ?

This claims "The Trump administration has not publicly revealed whether Mr. Musk has been made an officer or employee of the U.S. government or remains a private citizen" - so what should we do ? Astropulse (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

As an unpaid special government employee who is not a commissioned officer, Musk will file a confidential financial disclosure report, a White House official said on Friday Astropulse (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

He's a cabinet member, keep the title Yesyesmrcool (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

He is not a cabinet member lol. DOGE isnt a cabinet department like Department of Education or smth. It is however a government agency, and a pretty powerful one at that, so yeah, the officer holder template should be kept EarthDude (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Elon Musk#Remove office holder template in infobox

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

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

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

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