Talk:Political activities of Elon Musk

synthy

[edit]

the article feels very synthy... not sure that this all groups together well as a cohesive article... would it work as maybe WP:NLIST? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats more about how young and patchy the article is rather than whether or not a cohesive article can actually be written... We do seem to have a number of sources which give signficant coverage to the "Political activities of Elon Musk" writ large. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UK child sexual abuse scandals

[edit]

The section is incorrectly titled as Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal, because has mainly talked about Oldham Council child abuse, whoose public inquiry has been the main topic of contention, while broadly also talking about Rotherham and other "grooming gangs" cases, so "UK child sexual abuse scandals" is a better title, and also increasingly used in cited sources. Thanks.RogerYg (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

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


The content at RBG PAC is clearly not going to be expanded anywhere near what an article should be and would be better off in another article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Speaking as the creator of the RBG PAC article, in the long term I believe the notability is quite minimal. The RBG PAC website is no longer even functional, and it was only relevant for around 3 months (October to December 2024). I'm also opposed to including all the content relating to the PAC in this article, as that will only bloat it. A line or two is enough. ―Howard🌽33 19:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.

"President Musk"

[edit]

I think we should add a section about Musk being called "President Musk" by critics as a dig at Trump (and I'm sure even some supporters), and how he has seemingly taken over a lot of aspects of the US government and media cycle. Maybe even a section that focuses on his relationship with Trump, to begin with. CNC33 (. . .talk) 00:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elon Musk–Donald Trump feud until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where this belongs

[edit]

He supports this right wing UK party. Advance UK. Doug Weller talk 17:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Defamation League

[edit]

Horse Eye's Back Thanks for your addition about of the Anti-Defamation League sentence. Since it's a political view rather than an activity, do you agree with me that it might be better suited for the Views of Elon Musk article? I've just had a look for a section in that article where it could go instead but couldn't think of where. Any ideas? ―Panamitsu (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the associated political view? What we have now only talks about activities, it doesn't even mention a view. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the view that he dislikes the Anti-Defamation League? ―Panamitsu (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That view could be inferred from his activities but you're in OR territory then, the text is "In September 2025 Elon Musk called the Anti-Defamation League a "hate group" and accused it of being anti-Christian in nature." which is all about activities with zero mention of views. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we both have differing definitions of what "activities" and "views" mean. I would consider this to be a view because he is voicing an opinion but hasn't done anything apart from saying what he believes. I would consider it to be an activity if he went further than that, such as campaigning for it to be shut down or something. Why do you think him calling it a hate group is an activity and not him expressing a view? When I look at Views of Elon Musk I see similar sentences such as "Musk called the lockdown 'fascist' on a Tesla earnings call". ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He tweeted about it... He used the social media platform he owned to promote his view to a global audience, that is a political activity... A statement on an earning call really isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's hyper-specific to the example I gave. The Views of Elon Musk article has 112 occurences of the word "tweet" and 119 of the word "Twitter". Are you suggesting we should move his tweets from that article to this one because tweeting to a global audience is a political activity and not an expression of views? ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:56, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back I've just had a look at the Anti-Defamation League article and I can see that Musk has done a bit more regarding the ADL than just saying he dislikes it, such as threatening to sue it, which sounds a lot more like "political activities". I think it would make a bit more sense for it to be in this article if we include a bit more than what we've got now. What do you think? ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:07, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear I don't believe that he has said he dislikes it... But yes we can of course expand what we have here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]