Talk:Elon Musk

RFC on family's wealth

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.

A large majority of participants agree that Musk's socioeconomic background belongs in the lead. However, many editors, both for and against the removal, agreed that the current wording incorrectly implies that Musk's family was amongst the wealthiest of the wealthy. I thus see a consensus to change the wording. I will a make a change myself; if people disagree with some aspect of that change and want to discuss it further, they should feel free to do so on this talk page. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

---

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

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

Polling

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: [1] Tikaboo (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support Removal, Nobody knows the Musk name because of anyone other than Elon Musk. It is not at all on par with the likes of what are generally considered "wealthy families" in the west like Rockefeller, DuPont, Kennedy, etc. Would we also declare Taylor Swift a member of "the wealthy Swift family" or Miley Cyrus a member of "the wealthy Cyrus family"? The term "wealthy" doesn't even appear at all in the Estevez family articles. Why here? I can't help but guess it's an attempt to frame a BLP with a selectively applied negative perception. Nerfdart (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - per RSs. If anything, an addition of "relatively" before "wealthy" would be fine for me. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose removal - His family has been wealthy since before Elon Musk himself became wealthy. Obviously, Elon does not want this to be mentioned anywhere,[2] but this fact remains intact. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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[3] and for Pretoria Boys High [4]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Mr Musk’s journey to such unimaginable wealth started from a position of financial privilege, albeit one of emotional abuse." [[5]] 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." [[6]]. 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)

Refs

References

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.

Should Musk's juvenile antics be mentioned?

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

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

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

The Childish Drama of Elon Musk - The Atlantic

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

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

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

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

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

Second rewriting the public image paragraph.

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

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

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

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

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

Reading what NME wrote (referencing things from a few years ago) and a simple Google search of "Elon Musk juvenile" will show you that your recentism concerns are unfounded.[7][8][9][10] You are still violating TPG by bringing up editor behavior rather than focusing on content. Stop that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thanks. That's an interesting comparison, although i'm not sure it's entirely apt. I think the pubilc, for quite understandable reasons, has different expectations of a leading businessman and government official than they do of a satirical cartoonist. NME Frigate (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include a section entitled “Controversial social media comments,” vel sim., detailing Mr. Musk's inflammatory remarks.

I've already collected sources for the Harry Bōlz incident, if anyone else wants to include them in an ad hoc section (or perhaps even an article of its own).

By the way, @Muboshgu: thanks for pointing me to this thread. OzzyMuffin238 (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

All of that stuff, e.g. his controversial social media comments/"juvenile antics" and how the public perceives them and his other actions, belong in Public image of Elon Musk article. I recommend starting there and then just summarizing it in a short paragraph for the Public image section here. Some1 (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE addition to the first paragraph

JackTheBrown is edit-warring to add the ridiculously WP:UNDUE "He has received several honors for his design and engineering work" to the first paragraph of the lead. This was first added yesterday and reverted as clearly undue on that same day.

Instead of following WP:BRD, he has resorted to edit-warring by re-adding content for which no consensus exists. This lead section has been subject to a ton of discussion, and we don't even mention his political meddling and far-right activities and views in the first paragraph. You cannot just unilaterally add hagiographic content there that is obviously WP:UNDUE, and edit war it back in when it is challenged.

Also note that your reference to the one revert rule in place is no excuse for ignoring BRD and for edit warring an undue new addition back in when it is challenged, instead of seeking consensus for its inclusion.

Please self-revert immediately. --Tataral (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I originally added that, so there's already two users who seem to think this is relevant. How is it undue exactly? --FMSky (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't even mention his political meddling in the first paragraph. It is obviously WP:UNDUE. It makes the first paragraph highly unbalanced in favor of Musk, and it is trivial in comparison to his political impact. A list of honors is not something that is typically included in the first paragraphs of lead sections. It is something that is typically mentioned below. --Tataral (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Disagree, I actually think his impact beyond politics is actually very underrepresented in the lead. Its very common for influential individuals to have entire paragraphs dedicated to honors or awards, so this short mention is not undue at all. Musk was listed among the Time 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2010, 2013, 2018 and 2021, and was ranked joint-first on the Forbes list of the "Most Innovative Leaders of 2019". On December 13, 2021 Time magazine named him Person of the Year. (from his awards page) - This was all before he was ever involved in politics --FMSky (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE because of MOS:OPENPARABIO. The first paragraph sets the stage for the article by describing why the person is notable, their noteworthy positions, activities, or roles, and so forth. An opening paragraph that only mentions his wealth and a vanity-like list of honors he received—for an oligarch who is extremely politically controversial and widely accused of being involved in an ongoing coup and dismantling of the government—is ridiculously unbalanced and does not follow best practices or guidelines, including MOS:OPENPARABIO. There is no consensus for it. It doesn't belong in the first paragraph. --Tataral (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

His design and engineering work at Texla and SpaceX is exactly what makes him notable (and it was actually the only thing he was notable before 2024). Excluding it would be completely nonsensical --FMSky (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The claim that he is notable primarily—let alone more than for his current political role—because of a list of honors is absurd. No evidence for it exists. No consensus. No policy-based rationale. Nothing. Including something in the first paragraph (MOS:OPENPARABIO) of the lead has a very high bar. The fact that something isn’t included there doesn’t mean it’s "excluded". --Tataral (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

PS: He didn't invent Tesla, although he has tried to take credit for other people's work. And anything he did in private business, as an investor, pales in comparison to his role in the American government. --Tataral (talk) 20:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I dont want to assume bad faith but you are currently also drafting an anti-Musk article, so I'm not completely sure you're tackling this topic from a neutral perspective --FMSky (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason that article is in draftspace is because I consider it premature for the article space right now, but it is likely to become a notable topic. The very fact that you have a problem with editors covering pushback against Musk by Democratic politicians in Congress is telling. If anything, the existence of such initiatives in Congress only underlines why we need a greater emphasis on what many Democrats consider to be a coup by Musk and his allies. --Tataral (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with it at all, where did I say that? If that act is notable than I'm all for it. Its just that it seems you're a bit biased when it comes to Musk. Anyway maybe someone else wants to weigh in -- FMSky (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I would replace "several honors" with something along the lines of "He is best known for his accomplishments in design and engineering work" as "several" is kinda weasely to me(but that may be a minority point of view). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I would take this discussion to 3O though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That would also be a good solution. FMSky (talk) 17:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

He was never notable for design and engineering work at Tesla or SpaceX. Musk is a businessman, not a real engineer - he hires enginners. He was definitely notable before 2024 for other things, such as spreading COVID misinformation, being the richest man in the world for quite some time, buying Twitter etc. etc. BeŻet (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

We can also go with "recognized for his accomplishments in design and engineering, and his efforts to combat global warming", which would be in line with List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk. FMSky (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Also your comment seems to contradict almost everything on said article:

• 2007 Index Design award for his design of the Tesla Roadster. Global Green 2006 product design award for his design of the Tesla Roadster, presented by Mikhail Gorbachev.
• American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics George Low award for "the most outstanding contribution in the field of space transportation in 2007/2008". Musk was recognized for his design of the Falcon 1, the first privately developed liquid-fuel rocket to reach orbit.
• The world governing body for aerospace records, Fédération Aéronautique Internationale, presented Musk in 2010 with the highest award in air and space, the FAI Gold Space Medal, for designing the first privately developed rocket to reach orbit. Prior recipients include Neil Armstrong, Burt Rutan of Scaled Composites and John Glenn.
• Recognized as a Living Legend of Aviation in 2010 by the Kitty Hawk Foundation for creating the successor to the Space Shuttle (Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft). Other recipients include Buzz Aldrin and Richard Branson.
• On February 9, 2022, National Academy of Engineering announced that Musk was among their new, peer-elected members, an award considered to be among the highest professional distinctions accorded to an engineer, "for breakthroughs in the design, engineering, manufacturing, and operation of reusable launch vehicles and sustainable transportation and energy systems".

etc -- FMSky (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that any of those are signficant enough to mention in the lead... Thats where we would mention a Nobel or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I dont mean any awards should be named in the lead, i just posted them to disprove the other user's point about him not doing engineering work or not being notable in that field - FMSky (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I get that, I'm just trying to get us back on track (which is not running down vague claims or disses) which is figuring out whether "several honors" should be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

We can also mention this instead was listed among the Time 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2010, 2013, 2018 and 2021. In 2021, he was named Time magazine's Person of the Year. --FMSky (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Now that *is* something that we should have in the lead, at least person of the year (I don't think 100 is due)... Ok what about an addition to the third paragraph "He has received a number of awards and honors including being named Time Person of the Year in 2021." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for it. But why not in the opening paragraph? --FMSky (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Because it isn't a defining feature like it is for a figure like Michael Phelps, it isn't a core part of why Musk is notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where this would fit in. Although I agree on notability, the second paragraph talks about his companies and the third about politics. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

What if we moved the sentence about DOGE up to the end of the first from the end of the second (it is now clearly defining) and put this in at the end of the second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I would support this change. His Fame in Doge is probably comparable to his ownership of companies like Twitter. Also, shouldn't it be before the last sentence of the second, as it is in chronological order and the Person of the Year award was in 2021? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think either is fine because while person of the year has a hard date the various awards and honors are scattered all over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Time Person of the Year isn't necessarily an honour, it's a recognition of influence - Hitler, Stalin and Putin have all won. I agree it is notable but the simplest wording is best: "He was named Time Person of the Year in 2021". Mentioning "awards and honours" in the lead, engineering or otherwise, is inappropriate per MOS:LEADREL and MOS:PEACOCK. Jr8825 • Talk 19:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Different meanings of honor, closely related though. List of awards and honors received by Elon Musk is a full daughter page so theres really no getting around linking it somewhere in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've BOLDly added the TIME accolade, in addition to other small changes. Would you mind taking a look and make sure I'm not breaking some obscure convention about lead abbreviations? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Wildfireupdateman thanks, although I personally dislike using the acronym DOGE in the lead by itself given the context and related memecoin, so feel we should use the full form even if it's repetitious.

I still oppose the separate mention of awards and honours in the lead, which comes across as puffery. They are not particularly significant or famous and not an adequately notable aspect or the lead. Jr8825 • Talk 20:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. --Tataral (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back just because a sub article exists doesn't signify adequate relative emphasis/ notability about a person such as Musk. There are many aspects of his life that could probably be treated as a valid fork article, not all of which are suitable for the lead. I don't believe the awards he has won are an important aspect of his life - he's not known for winning awards, and the ones he has won are not particularly notable or famous. The National Wildlife Federation's Connie Award and a fellowship of an engineering society? Not significant when there's so much else to cover. Jr8825 • Talk 20:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I take issue with the wording since he really has not contributed much of anything to engineering. While he has received honorary awards in engineering, we can clearly connect that back to his design and leadership work as it pertains to engineering projects at his companies. QRep2020 (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence per the talk page discussion above(I forgot to do it last edit of mine). @Tataral - would this be a good compromise? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are asking whether I support the current version that includes "Musk was named Time magazine's Person of the Year in 2021" in the second paragraph of the lead, then the answer is that I don't have a big issue with that. This discussion was specifically about the first paragraph. --Tataral (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tataral: why didn't you ping me? I hadn't noticed the thread. "Edit-warring"? It's a totally unfounded accusation, because I only undid your edit once (I almost never contribute to this article). JacktheBrown (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I added a table.

I WP:BOLD added a table of Musk's children. The sheer volume of children makes it almost impossible for the reader to digest this information in anything approaching a cohesive manner and the situation is only likely to be exacerbated given Musk's apparent fertility. Introducing intelligible organization to complex sets of information is the reason we have tables and I feel this presentation is compliant with MOS:TABLES, but feel free to revert me if you disagree. Chetsford (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I moved the table to Musk_family#Relationships_and_children_of_Elon_Musk, which is the more detailed parent article. Some1 (talk) 04:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good - thanks! Chetsford (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't Musk's current office at DOGE be mentioned in the infobox ? Psychloppos (talk) 19:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would make sense to introduce the Officeholder infobox (Template:Infobox officeholder). Chetsford (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Since this is very notable at the moment, it would definitely make sense. Psychloppos (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

It actually had the officeholder infobox until very recently, until someone took it out which also removed his position from the infobox. Yeshivish613 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Guys - I'm gonna do it ... Chetsford (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I did it. Chetsford (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I undid it. This is highly contentious based on past talk page discussion and would need a stronger consensus than this to reinsert. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

My reading of the past discussion of February 7 was it was relevant to a specific point in time; that is, subsequent reporting clarifying the nature of his role will have remedied the objections. But I agree that a formal consensus should be achieved if there's any potential of dispute. Chetsford (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes it should be mentioned Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

No, useless bloat / unneeded--FMSky (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Given the extensive media coverage of what he is currently doing in this capacity, it may not be that irrelevant. Psychloppos (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Should we use the officeholder infobox?

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

• Infobox officeholder but with a clarifying footnote (i.e. [11]) and "head" uncapitalized. That Musk is (a) a government employee, and, (b) the formal and functional leader of some sort-of agency is verified by multiple RS (e.g. [12], [13], etc.).
  We don't invoke Officeholder for any government employee and there is no guideline or MOS standard for when it is applied. However, in the case of the USG there are numerous incidences of this being introduced for posts all the way down to Level 5 on the Executive Schedule (see: Tracy Stone-Manning, Stefanie Tompkins, John Ingersoll, Roselyn Tso) with no objection. We don't know where "head" of the USDSTO ranks, however — based purely on RS reporting which presents his role as analogous to that of an éminence grise — it's clear that its day-to-day power is probably more substantial than that of the director of the Geological Survey or the deputy commissioner of Internal Revenue.
  If, in the future, we learn that he was actually just sorting the recycling in the EEOB we can always remove it. This is purely a style question so no errors will be introduced by applying it now, even if we later learn it is maybe excessive. Chetsford (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

  "I don't see the relevancy of comparing Level 5 Executive Schedule officials to Musk." I'm happy to clarify it. Level 5 on the executive schedule are posts that generally have very limited and discrete power and we regularly invoke the officeholder template for them. Musk unambiguously holds greater power than the holders of Level 5 EX posts; it is the official view of 14 states that he possesses "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch" [14], a position reinforced by multiple RS.[15][16] It would, ergo, be beyond ridiculous for us to invoke Officeholder Template for the director of the Geological Survey, but not for a supervisory government employee who has "limitless and unchecked power" and the "full power of the Executive Branch" . The matter of his compensation, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to my point and my mention of the EX5 is only for purposes of the preceding comparison. I apologize if that was somehow unclear. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification; I understand your point now. If the power legally holds up for DOGE, I would probably agree with you, but it still seems too early to tell. To pull a quote from the same source you provided, 14 states also agree that Mr. Musk does not occupy an office of the United States and has not had his nomination for an office confirmed by the Senate.[17]

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes - The coverage about him being the head of the DOGE department is extensive.[18] This page needs an infobox for that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter if he gets all the coverage. ELON IS NOT AN OFFICER That is the fact. [19]https://www.npr.org/2025/02/07/nx-s1-5288988/doge-elon-musk-staff-trump Astropulse (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm leaning towards Infobox person. I don't see the harm in waiting to see what the court says. And we don't need to pretend Musk's position is precedented, and make a decision as if we are a WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  Going off of recent reliable sources, it looks like many do not describe DOGE as a government "office", "department", or "agency" (excluding when writing out its full title). Instead, it's described as an "advisory body",[20], "team"[21][22], or "initiative".[23][24] No need for Wikipedia to jump the gun when reliable sources are hesitant or questioning themselves.
  Either way, I do not think of "officeholder" when I hear of a temporary "special government employee", that can legally only work a max of 130 days in a year, running a temporary organization - regardless of where that organization runs or does its work. And if we are looking for WP infobox precedent, this article mentions the "Grace Commission" as being a similar initiative to DOGE. The head of that commission, J. Peter Grace, does not have an officeholder template. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Yes – he does hold an office, RSs have commented on his holding this office, Clint Eastwood has such an infobox even though he is much better known for his acting. Thus Musk should too. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Person "office" he holds is ad hoc, no indication there will ever be a successor. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment. Fairly recent but reliably sourced news is indicating that Musk's actual position is Senior Adviser to the President and that he is technically a White House (and I would presume Executive Office of the President) employee. [25] Marquisate (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here's a source for that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction (solved)

The introduction section needs citations. Firestar47 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Firestar47: sources are usually not added in the lead, because they're present later in the article; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section ("Because the lead usually repeats information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."). JacktheBrown (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

He's a politician at this point

Just pointing that out, it might as well be added for clarity. GrandPeople44 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

GrandPeople44 - just an FYI, that discussion is occurring here. Your opinion, though valuable, is likely to get ignored if you just randomly drop it in a different location. Chetsford (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't see it my bad! GrandPeople44 (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Opening paragraph and linking child articles

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

Yes/No. Feel free to suggest alternative wording, the above is based on current lead wording.[26] CNC (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pennsylvania Dutch connection is tenuous.

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

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

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

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

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

Add citations to the infobox

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

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

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

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

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

Calling for the Imprisonment of the 60 minutes reporters

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/18/media/elon-musk-60-minutes-prison/index.html I feel like this is notable, especially as a government employee! Calling for jail time is unprecedented. Zzendaya (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Well it certainly should go on the article Political activities of Elon Musk if it isn't already. ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)