Jump to content

Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

break something

@InfiniteNexus:, I see this article is "in sync" with

I made this edit

Did I break something or should I have made this edit using a sync tool? First time I have seen this "sync" used. Is there an autosync tool being used for this?

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

It's manually synced. The revision linked at the top of the page is the version of Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk that this draft was last synced to (by me). That version did not include the text you added. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. Do you think this article is ready to go live or we need to add other content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Let's take this to Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk#Potential split. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

name

I was wondering about names for this article. We already have Twitter and that would at some point in time cover all that is twitter. We do have this interim period where we have Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk which covers a distinct event. Here we are considering creating a new article that would somehow bridge the gap between the events surrounding the acquisition and Musk's transition to full management control of the company. I'll make a list below, feel free to edit and comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I've suggested below that we can call this article 'X (social network)', that seems the most intuitive for someone trying to learn about the recent history of the website.
Flameoguy (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thus should we call this

I find the current title to be concise enough, do you not agree? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I am ok with it. Was just feeling things out. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
That's fair. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"accusations of pro-Republican bias"

User:Binksternet has twice reverted my remoavel of the statement that the recent NPR-related controversy has led to ""accusations of pro-Republican bias" -but as I noted when I removed this, none of the 3 sources for that statement actually make that claim. Please don't add it again unless you have also add a reliable source that explicitly says that, thanks. Red Slapper (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Be careful the boomerang here. You are talking about another very senior editor reverting the same content that I also reverted? Starting to look like WP:TE, be careful you wont be editing this article much longer if it continues. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean. Either the sources say there were accusations of pro-Republican bias, or they don't. If they don't , it doesn't matter if a "very senior editor", or even two, want to say that, it can't stay in the article. Red Slapper (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Red Slapper In the local parlance and jargon, this is called "failed verification". You are correct in removing any material not backed by the source. You are also correct in understanding that it's what that actually matters, not who.
For the rest of that… stuff… always be mindful of potential boomerangs, but nevermind the bollocks. Happy Trails! -- dsprc [talk] 23:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Layoffs

I thought Musk stated in the Tucker Carlson interview recently that he had cut 80% of staff. NYT reported less than 2k staff in Feb. 26, 2023. In the (BBC) interview this month he stated he cut from just under 8k staff to 1500 staff. Seems there is more (up to date) in the public domain than we are currently stating. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

We can mention his latest comments, but we shouldn't remove the old numbers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree, the old numbers show a timeframe of layoffs and is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Subsection about Musk's use of Twitter to spread misinformation

It is now abundantly clear that Musk is using Twitter to spread misinformation; see https://apnews.com/article/twitter-musk-texas-mall-shooting-misleading-claims-c297797d1eb0f708cc84d05e0735d8cc. We should at least address the behavior in the article, ideally by referring to this example and others. QRep2020 (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

We need a litany of RS for this claim. AP News is also well known to spread misinformation. Pot calling the kettle black here... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Strange then that the AP is considered a perennial source on Wikipedia.
As for your litany suggestion:
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230419-stamp-of-approval-twitter-s-musk-amplifies-misinformation
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-san-francisco-d1db5688e11f0b7a82fb4a815f8149f6
https://www.npr.org/2022/12/14/1142666067/elon-musk-is-using-the-twitter-files-to-discredit-foes-and-push-conspiracy-theor
https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/04/27/how-elon-musk-has-repeatedly-amplified-false-claims-and-boosted-disinformation-accounts-on
QRep2020 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
The Associated Press is a highly reliable source, the "misinformation" claim is false. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
On what basis? QRep2020 (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
AP by itself will not be sufficient to put this claim in wikivoice. If the editor is trying to state that 'AP says xyz about Musk', it is a different matter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: According to what, and who? Global consensus is the AP doesn't generally require in-text attribution. Per WP:GREL: "…Arguments that entirely exclude such a source must be strong and convincing…" (emphasis added). Thus far, only weak, unconvincing opinions, with zero evidence have been presented as backing. -- dsprc [talk] 01:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Everything depends on the claim. Hoping to put a WP:BLP violation in wikivoice from a single source isnt going to pass here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Barring any red flags: It mainly depends upon the source of claims (WP:RS and WP:V our proxies for Truth™). And The AP de jure passes flag and "wikivoice" concerns.
What part of BLP is violated?? Wikipedia is warts and all… It's not a BLP violation if it's verifiable. Global consensus always trumps whatever bollocks misconceptions are dreamed of here…
I don't care but, you're the only one (With. No. Evidence.) claiming AP churns out fake news, isn't a reliable source for this information, and unilaterally imposing a litany requirement…
(We'll need more than risable chest thumps, because some contributors legit DGAF – the fallout and Vogons can always be dealt with later…) Happy Trails! -- dsprc [talk] 04:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow, what an answer with lots of essay links. Key point is if you are hoping to add a additional weight to vague claims it isnt going to fly. Please create a list of links and quote the exact text that states Musk is spreading misinformation. The AP link that started this discussion above didnt exactly state that when I read it, it seems you are trying to SYNTH something out of that source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
0: One should note: I'm not the OP calling for inclusion. Nor have I made any such suggestions…
1: You should read those links thoroughly. Familiarizing oneself with community norms and expectations, will help avoid some disruptive behaviors noted below.
2: You don't WP:OWN this article. Continued barking of edicts about what you require, what will or won't pass or fly, isn't going to help you gain consensus. It may however, further negatively impact credibility, one's standing in the community, or other adverse impacts – we'd collectively prefer the inverse to occur though.
3: Again: What part of WP:BLP would be violated?
3.a: Again: According to what or who, is AP an "insufficient" source for the proposed material?
3.b: Please stop deflecting from the bogus assertion The Associated Press is well known for fake news – which, as previously noted, is in direct contravention of global consensus. If so well known: it's also easy to produce copious material from independent, third-party, reliable sources backing the claim. So… where are they? Please: support the claim, concede it's bollocks, or pound sand. Happy Trails! -- dsprc [talk] 22:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I dont appreciate the conduct violation allegations per your comment of OWN. You can check my edit history on this article and see if it remotely evidences your claim. If it doesnt, then be WP:CIVIL. Please state the text in the sources that supports your argument. If you do not have text to support the claim, then we can leave it there and no need to be hostile in hopes to try to push content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Name

What are we going to do with the name of this article. After Musk is no longer the CEO, is twitter still under him as owner? Or does this article focus on Musk's reforms while he was CEO? Thoughts? This article cannot go on forever as a WP:CFORK of the main Twitter article... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it's time we stop adding new info to this article unless it directly pertains to Musk. For example, anything that the new CEO does does not belong here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Im not opposed to that. If this article represents a distinct time period, say post acquisition until take over by another CEO, then this article makes sense. At some point in time we do need to get back to the main article to avoid continuing a fork. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Now there is a new CEO, what are we going to do with this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Stop updating it unless something notable happens that has to do specifically with Musk's leadership/ownership of the company. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @Horse Eye's Back: I reverted your addition here under the premise that this article subject is completed for a timeframe. Thus our logic is that this content will get added over at the main twitter article, or some other sub-article. What do you think? Issue here is we are facing a content fork if we continue running two articles and how to define what goes where? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Isn't consensus to update it when "something notable happens that has to do specifically with Musk's leadership/ownership of the company"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: am I missing something here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: We have a WP:CFORK going on here. Was hoping your case might add some additional clarity. This article is not a location for twitter's ongoing list of blocked accounts (which the media may allege without any evidence is due to Musk) which will certainly continue in the future. We dont associate Washington Post's content to Bezos, nor Vice's content to Soros, Facebook's blocks to Zuck, etc. Why would we do that here? You will note that the source stated that the person blocked hadn't received any clarification on the block, the source also didn't state that Musk did the block. The source did allege that Musk was an enemy (or vice versa) of the person blocked. So what exactly does this have to do with Musk? I ask this rhetorically (as it appears nothing). However, on a large scope, what do we do about the CFORK and what do you suggest? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:19, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
If the source says that its related to Musk we aren't allowed to second guess that, they also don't need to present any evidence... That is not the standard we operate on here at wikipedia, who in the world gave you the idea that editing in that way was ok? We also don't appear to have another page which covers this topic (the history of Twitter in the Musk era) so how is it possible that this is a CFORK? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The source doesnt say it is related to Musk, it only says Twitter silenced a Musk critic. My understanding was that this article was about Musk's actions while heading twitter. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
How is that not related to Musk? This article is about Twitter under Elon Musk, that includes "something notable happens that has to do specifically with Musk's leadership/ownership of the company" from after he stopped being CEO. Unless Musk sells twitter this will be an active page, its just expected that less will be relevant here because Musk won't be mentioned in every story about Twitter just ones which relate to him directly (such as this one). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there a significant number of stories recently that dont mention Musk? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
If there aren't then everything would continue to be covered here, the only way that this page can be in any way closed or have what's included be reduced is if there are a significant number of stories recently that dont mention Musk. If nothing distinguishes coverage of Twitter under Elon Musk from coverage of Twitter then this remains the primary page. The shotgun is loaded and you're pointing it at your foot, will you pull the trigger? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Reactions

Only includes negative reactions. Should be updated to include positive. 172.113.31.15 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

only if notable and reliable sources have had positive reactions, which they do not. don't fall into false neutrality please 51.37.156.33 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ella Irwin resigned

We should mentioned this. Because she did on the day Elon Musk decided to allow Matt's documentary which Ella moderated. See What Is a Woman?. PalmScrost (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, what do you propose? QRep2020 (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

@FMSky: you added the neutrality tag, can you please explain your position? I personally dont find the article neutral and slants towards some sort of coatrack for negative journalism, but maybe you have a different view. Issue is that I think there has been a lot of negative journalism on this subject, and I suspect not that much positive? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

so then you agree? i dont think the article is neutral either for the reasons you stated, thats why i added the tag --FMSky (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You were supposed to initiate a discussion on here and explain what exactly makes the article non-neutral. Removing based on (2) under the guidance of When to remove.
Perhaps don't try it again until you read Template:Npov and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view closely. QRep2020 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Indeed the editor failed to start a discussion, but I have done that here in this section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
If there has been more negative coverage than positive coverage than a neutral article would have more representation of the negative coverage, neutrality is the natural balance not some artificial 50/50 split we impose on a topic. Are you saying there is a neutrality issue or are you saying there isn't a neutrality issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Certainly the coverage is nearly all negative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
If thats the case then what is the neutrality issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I wasnt the editor who added the tag, I only started a discussion as that is encouraged. I have a different issue with the article that it seems to be a coatrack for all Elon Musk (as he is if anything non-car and non-rocket he does it seems there is a desire to add to this article). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything that isn't twitter related about Elon on the page. Can you provide some examples? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I've discussed it on this talk page over the past couple of months. Here is a couple of examples:
  • By December 17, Twitter was blocking some links to Mastodon as being "potentially harmful" or "malware".[97][98]
  • In June 2023 Twitter suspended the accounts of Musk/Tesla critic Aaron Greenspan and his legal transparency company PlainSite. PlainSite had released a number of Musk/Tesla related documents over the years. In February 2023 Musk had sued Greenspan over communications between the two being published.[100]
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
How are those not Twitter related? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
They are twitter related, but to be on this article they need to reflect Musk's management of twitter (he no longer is the CEO of twitter) and/or reflect twitter's actions under Musk's direction. I am skeptical that either of these meet that criteria. We do have an article Twitter and we do have a biography article(s) for Musk. Same as a source about Musk personally would belong on his BLP article, and not on this article. This article is starting to be a POV fork. These content duplication issues are not unique to this article of course and exist in many articles, but we do try to minimize it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thats not what this article is for... This article is about Twitter under Elon Musk... Not Elon Musk at Twitter. "Under Elon Musk" is a time period, one which continues to this day. The main Twitter article is too long to cover everything there, thats why this page for part of their history was created. This is the main page for anything that has happened at Twitter under Elon Musk, not Twitter or Elon Musk. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Then does this article cover the new twitter, and we dont add current events to the existing Twitter article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
If due they can be added both places, but ideally a full description would be found on the daughter page and one a summary on the main page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

X

Hi

We could have a separate page for X because since Musk's ownership, lots of things have changed since original Twitter. We could move Twitter under Elon Musk to X (social network). Panam2014 (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Twitter and X really are two different things so it would make sense to have different articles. 98.118.103.87 (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
This has been proposed over here: Talk:Twitter#Survey with reference here. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved The related request for the base page was closed due to snow. The weather is just as bad here. (closed by non-admin page mover) * Pppery * it has begun... 03:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Twitter under Elon Musk → X (social network) – Name changed by Musk. Panam2014 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

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

RFC on article categorization and subject

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.
Procedural close at behest of requester. WP:BLP policies apply across all of Wikipedia, whether article's primary subject is a person or otherwise. -- dsprc [talk] 15:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

{{rfc|econ|bio}} Are we going to treat this article as a standard corporate article (we have Twitter) or are we going to add WP:BLP restrictions to it since it contains Musk's name? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

  • It seems this article is WP:BLP(ish) as it is focused on Elon Musk's rule at Twitter. I have raised concerns on this talk page that this is a developing WP:CFORK, but other editors seem to think it validly focuses on Musk's role as head of twitter (somehow undefined, does it describe the time now passed when he was CEO, or as long as he is the owner?). If that the article is not a CFORK and rightly focuses on Musk's twitter, it seems to me that WP:BLP measures should be put in place to keep sourcing a bit tighter. The impetus of this RFC was this in which an editor felt that sexual abuse support allegations were DUE (I felt they were poorly sourced relying on WP:VICE). Thus, I felt this overall subject warranted discussion, if we will treat it as a BLP (with tighter sourcing rules) or if it is a regular corporate page (and then if so, how does that relate to the main Twitter article and CFORK issues). I know my comment here is pretty broad, so I tried to keep the subject more narrow in the RFC per WP:RFCBRIEF. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
    Full disclosure: I'm the author of the referenced edit. I don't view this article as biographical, although I admit it's not as clear-cut a determination as most articles, and I'll accept if my view doesn't match consensus. It seems to me that this article is about Twitter from October 2022 to present (though the lead places the end date in June 2023), and the main Twitter article is about Twitter from March 2006 to present. These intervals overlap, and as a result I share your WP:CFORK concerns. I anticipate the divergence between this article and the main Twitter one will grow as time goes on unless this is addressed. DefaultFree (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The issue is that Musk's name is in the title of the article, thus it does give maximum WP:WEIGHT in association to him. If this is a BLP the sexual content from one iffy source (Vice is now owned by Soros and is another of these Billionaire owned PR machines pushing a POV). I do see you added another source from NYT, but I dont have an account anymore, does NYT state that there is now more of this content now than before, or do they say only that Twitter has faced difficulty to remove it (as the title implies)? I hope more editors will over time chime in about the long term focus of this article, and then we can make some more policy for it. Are we going to limit to content that involves Musk himself (an editor earlier argued for that) then this is a BLP. If it is a particular timeframe that ended in June 2023, then your edit to add the content would be UNDUE, as it would go over at the main Twitter article due to timeframe limitations. Maybe some other interpretation could be devised that would justify keeping it here...I personally would call it a BLP and end content additions for anything after June 2023, but no idea where my view is in relation to others (another editor on this talk page a month or two ago was opposed to my interpretation) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair point about whether there was an increase or a lack of decrease. I re-read the NYT ref and I think you're right that it only explicitly claims that things have not improved, while Vice claims it's gotten worse. Thoughts on [1] as a rewording that's congruent with both sources? DefaultFree (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent edit looks fine for me relating to this content (if it stayed the same or got worse, the latter being inflammatory and I felt implied that Musk is somehow complicit). I still think the RFC can go on to address the larger issue. What do you think? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree the BLP and CFORK concerns are still outstanding, and this RFC would be a good venue to discuss them. I think we disagree on BLP, and agree on CFORK. I'd like to see some other editors chime in, so we can have an N larger than 2 to draw consensus from. DefaultFree (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
(Brought here by RFC noticeboard) Since the article contains Musk's name, it implicitly regards/deems BLP Protections. Also agree that Vice is not the most reliable source anymore. As for Content Forking Twitter post Musk doesn't warrant it's own article. I think it should stay under the main article. MaximusEditor (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - the very first sentence of WP:BLP - Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. (emphasis not mine) + Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. So BLP already applies to this article. And since BLP is a community consensus endorsed core policy, a local consensus here at this RfC can not override it.— Isaidnoway (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: This RFC does not seek to form a localconsensus to override BLP policy. This RFC questions if BLP will be applied to all of this article, or just according to certain (unspecified or TBD) content. I havent seen many articles in the past (sure there maybe is WP:OSE) that refers to an article that is in general not a BLP but that has a name of a BLP in the article name. Would you expect the reader to associate everything on this article to Musk since his name is in the title? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: - BLP says information about living persons to any page; that includes this page. So when information is added to this article about a living person (like Musk or any other person), then BLP applies to that information being added about that person. We have thousands and thousands of corporation articles (no person's name in title) where there is information added about the Owner, CEO, Vice-President, Marketing Director, etc. etc. etc., they are all living people, so of course BLP applies to the information being added about them. Musk's name being in the title of this article is only relevant to an understanding of a specific timeline. All other content not related to a person, is governed by policies and guidelines.- Isaidnoway (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Isaidnoway: Thanks for clarification. Yes, my question was raised as there is a BLP name in the title and I am aware that BLP would apply to any content on any corporate article. My RFC topic was if this would be different since we have a BLP in the name of an article. Not sure if was clear enough about that, apologies if I was not. Couple more questions, does your timeline end at the time Musk stepped down as CEO or continue as long as he owns it? Do we continue to add to Twitter, or should that article be titled 'Twitter under Jack Dorsey', 'Twitter before Musk', or something like that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf:- Complicated. In my view, this type of article tends to be a magnet for getting overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens. Twitter under Musk is a notable topic, as evidenced by the amount of reliable sources reporting on it when you do a google search Twitter Under Elon Musk, Twitter under Elon Musk. The problem is staying focused on the big picture and summarizing content, rather than an impulse to add every breaking news reports and controversy as it happens. As for the other Twitter related articles, leave them be with the titles they currently have. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Speedy close per Isaidnoway. BLP policy is explicitly clear that it applies to all biographical information in any articles, not just biographies. That being said, content that is less directly tied to Musk the person (e.g. Twitter stat A went from B to C) do not implicate BLP as much as those that are (e.g. Musk ordered A, Musk decided B). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Patar knight: if Twitter stat A went from B to C then it would be WP:undue for this article. We are currently only adding content that is related to Musk. We would currently only add it if if Twitter stat A went from B to C and Musk was related to it in D way. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Obviously it depends on what the stat is. Your characterization of the scope of the article is also incorrect. This article is clearly about the history of Twitter since Musk took over. Musk is more involved than the typical executive, so there are comparatively more references to him, but large portions of the page are about the company with a Musk comment thrown in as largely an afterthought. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Patar knight: So how would you distinguish what content goes on this article and what is placed over at Twitter article? Is the old article all about Twitter pre-acquisition and this is post acquisition? Please explain how we deal with the WP:CFORK and how that relates to Musk's name in the article title. Note that what you refer to as "my characterization" is the current rough consensus on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
This isn't different than any other parent/child articles that are WP:SPLIT. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the child article will be more detailed and a summary of the key points will go into the parent article. As it currently stands Twitter is the parent article that covers all of the site's history and has an admittedly overlong summary of this article at Twitter#Post-acquisition. This isn't a content fork issue at all, though the section on the parent article could probably use some pruning. Of course, depending on how quickly the rebranding actually occurs and how the WP:COMMONNAME shifts, there might be a new structure for this group of articles soon enough.
Reading this talk page, I don't see any "rough consensus" that this article should be restricted to specific things Musk has done. It's been you pushing for this repeatedly, and almost other editors disagreeing. Your position also isn't reflected in the actual content of the article as I described above. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 12:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Invalid question This question is based on a clear misunderstanding of BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Please make an RFC about your real question I possibly agree with Horse Eye's Back. I am not understanding the RFC question. WP:BLP applies whenever talking about a living person, whether the subject of the article is a corporation or not. The subject of this article would appear to be a person. And from what I can tell so far, it appears to be a WP:SPINOFF situation, which WP:CFORK describes as an acceptable kind of forking.
As I closely read Jtbobwaysf's comments, it would appear the real dispute regards claims of sexual harassment and whether Vice's coverage is reliable enough. If you're just asking if this article should adhere to WP:BLP the answer is, obviously yes just like any article. But I can't help but to think what you really mean to make an RFC about is whether those controversial claims should be added and if the source is reliable, if the claims are corroborated, etc. Ender and Peter 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Not it is not related to any specific content, eg the sexual content you refer to. I have been raising this issue for a month or more, only recently the sexual content started to bubble up and I thought time to discuss the larger issue. The RFC is clearly described above. I could re-factor the RFC to make it clear if it is not clear as of now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
It's clear that BLP always applied to this article from the moment it was created. Musks name being in the title is irrelevant in that regard. So it is unclear what outcome you are expecting from this RfC, when the BLP policy already applied to this article. If you want to ask a different question about a different topic, then you should close this RfC and ask that question.- Isaidnoway (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I dont see a BLP tag on this talk page, so it is not clear to me that it applies. Do you support adding that tag? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Seriously? I've already posted this once. WP:BLP - Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages. Again - any Wikipedia page. Do you seriously not understand that? If you want to add a tag, go for it. But please know that regardless of whether or not there is a tag on this talk page, BLP applies to it, as the BLP policy clearly states.- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Here is a random article, Baranof Lake, here is the talk page, Talk:Baranof Lake. BLP applies to both the article and talk page. Why? Because they are both defined as any Wikipedia page, under the BLP policy. No tags on the article or talk page, but BLP applies to them both as defined by policy.- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
So you support adding the tag or are providing an example of where the tag is not used? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf – Tag whatever ya' want – unnecessary either way… just… WP:COAL and WP:STICK already! (and let's try to productively get that Main ratio up?…) -- dsprc [talk] 23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The tag is not used on millions of pages. The point is BLP applies to those millions of pages, just like it does to this talk page from the moment it was created. But I think you already knew that, and are now trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF. The purpose of this RFC was to understand if BLP applied to this article and you agree it does, and it seems others do as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to AGF when you say stuff like this - I dont see a BLP tag on this talk page, so it is not clear to me that it applies., especially after being told it applies to any Wikipedia page. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The only place AGF gets us is that you lack the competence to edit BLP topics because you don't understand if BLP applies to this article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Isaidnoway, your quote confirms the question of the RFC, if BLP applies to the entire article or only content in the article that relates to Musk. Horse eye also confirms that understanding, in referring to this as a BLP topic. Both of you admit neither of you can AGF on this matter. It seems that given there are not many other editors participating in the RFC, maybe the RFC is mal-formed. Maybe I should have asked if BLP applied to all content on this article and not just content where Musk was named in the sentence? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I said that I was assuming good faith on this matter, hence the understanding that you are incompetent vs malicious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Huh? SWinxy (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Malformed Seems this RFC is malformed (by me as RFC creator). Could someone experienced in withdrawing (pulling) an RFC do it for me, or point me to instructions so I can pull it. I pulled an RFC once a year or two ago and I botched that, so hoping someone can help me out. FYI, my intent in this RFC was to ask if the RFC applied to all the content in the RFC, or only the BLP content. Seems I botched that. I have added BLP tag to talk page here Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article shouldn't exist

This article shouldn't exist for the same reason there isn't an article Apple under Tim Cook or CNN under Jeff Zucker. Sure, Musk has changed policies, but new CEOs do that all the time. Twitter is still fundamentally a microblogging platform, and yes he wants to change things and expand into other things, but we don't just create new articles for when corporate strategies or focus changes. Everything in this article should simply be in the main Twitter article and/or History of Twitter, not off on its own just because his approach is creating news. (About the only reasonable argument for something that approximates this type of article would be a Twitter controversies or something where company policy created some kind of notable event.) --ZimZalaBim talk 01:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Tim Cook didn't buy Apple and Jess Zucker didn't own CNN. This isn't a page about Musk as CEO, its a page about Musk as owner. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Irrelevant. We write articles about companies. We also sometimes separate out their histories into new articles. But we don't need a new article for a company whenever the ownership changes, even if that new owner happens to make headlines. That's what the existing articles are for. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
If you think you can find consensus for your point of view you can attempt to merge or delete this article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@ZimZalaBim: I tend to agree with you. It seems unclear if this article is a BLP focused on Musk's behavior as the owner of Twitter, or if it relates to Twitter's time period (not yet ended) after Musk's purchase, or if it relates to Musk's time as CEO (a definite time period). That was the reason I did Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#RFC_on_article_categorization_and_subject get input if this article is a BLP or if it is just a corporate article explaining a certain time period. Maybe I framed the question poorly in my RFC. Normally if it is Musk's behavior and his tweets, etc then we would put it under the Musk main article (or sub-article) and call it something that makes it clear it is about Musk (eg Musk's actions as owner of Twitter), then it would be an obvious BLP. In this case it seems to be a WP:CFORK referring to some unspecified time of a corporation. I didnt know how to create an RFC and be WP:RFCBRIEF to address all these issues, so I created the above (possibly malformed) RFC. Suggestions? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
How is that a question? This article is "Twitter under Elon Musk " not "Elon Musk over Twitter" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikilink to first reference of "Twitter" on page

Under my interpretation of the style guide with MOS:LINKONCE and MOS:UL, the first reference of the platform Twitter on the page should have a wikilink due to it providing useful context for the article. I made an edit to do this, @Jeaucques, you reverted it without providing explanation. Do you have any reason that there shouldn't be a link here? Doawk7 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Doawk7: Firstly, Wikilinking uses Square brackets [[]] instead of Curly braces {{}} which is used for templates. Secondly, There is already a wikilink to the article Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk. This already informs the reader about Twitter which doesn't require double-linking. Jeaucques (talk) 03:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation of your revert. Must have been having a rough day when I wrote that edit, don't know why I mixed up the brackets. I'm still not entirely convinced on whether the platform of Twitter should be directly linked or not, as I think the platform itself is a direct matter of concern for viewers of the page, but leaving it as the status quo is fine by me. Doawk7 (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Account Suspensions: Kathy Griffin

I'm wondering if anyone else finds the current wording potentially confusing:

"Musk began unbanning banned accounts in late November 2022, beginning with Jordan Peterson, Kathy Griffin, The Babylon Bee, and Donald Trump."

To me, the above text makes it sound like Kathy Griffin was banned prior to November 2022 and prior to Musk's acquisition of Twitter like the others in this list. But actually, Griffin was suspended in November 2022 for impersonating Musk and then had her account restored in December 2022.

(If consensus is in agreement that this wording is in need of being fixed, I'm honestly not sure how to best go about it, nor am I really up on this topic. So I hope a more experienced contributor will tackle any necessary changes.) 2600:100A:B1C2:F2CC:0:0:1A50:CD01 (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

See the cited article from The Verge. It looks correct. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sensor Tower

@Soibangla: I removed, because I'd heard for years from small-to-medium iOS devs that Sensor Tower stats were inaccurate. Sensor Tower happens to be a spyware firm that obtains its data from man-in-the-middle attacks, per a Buzzfeed News report, so there's a risk that the people who would download their dodgy VPN apps (from which they collect their data) would be non-representative of iOS/Android users. But I just did some more reseach, and found two reports, one from Business Insider and one from Reuters, that support Sensor Tower's accuracy for very large developers, likely because the sample size is very large. So consider my concern withdrawn. DFlhb (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

corporate value

BarrelProof, the $19B value is not a company estimate, it is objectively derived by analysts based on stock grants documents released by the company, so it is a better valuation than Fidelity makes, because despite being a major investor, they do not have insider knowledge. By releasing those documents, the company "disclosed" its value rather than "estimating" it. soibangla (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The $19B estimate is based on a valuation used by the company itself for its restricted stock program. This is clear from the two cited sources. I don't know how the company arrived at that number. Fidelity's estimate is more independent. You are entitled to think the valuation established by the company is better, and that's fine, but Fidelity seems to think otherwise, and their estimate also seems notable. And Wikipedia tends to emphasize sources of information that are more independent of the topics it discusses. (And since Fidelity appears to have invested less than 1% of the company's valuation at the time of the acquisition, I would not consider it a major investor.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed split of Twitter

There is a proposal to split Twitter and/or move this page. Please see the discussion at Talk:Twitter § Survey. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Pull quotes should be removed

We should not have all these pull quotes that highlight what Musk happened to say on Twitter. See WP:PQ. --ZimZalaBim talk 22:30, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, this has nothing to do with Wikiproject Quebec, but I assume you mean MOS:PQ.
Secondly, they aren't what Musk "happened to say on Twitter", they were the official announcements of policy changes, referenced by numerous WP:RS as such. I therefore wouldn't describe them as out-of-context with undue emphasis, but instead the opposite. As a reminder for context sake, Musk exclusively made "official announcements" via his personal Twitter account in almost 100% of cases, nor via press releases.
The one exception is the "account doxxing" statement, which while it wasn't the official brief announcement from Twitter Safety without much explanation, it was the justification behind the policy change, again referenced by multiple WP:RS. So overall I not only find your brief assessment inaccurate, but also somewhat insulting to think that I merely added "random" statements from Twitter into subject sections.
As for those in Reactions and commentary, these weren't just the "loudest voices", these reactions as commentary were also the most widely referenced (and discussed) by reliable sources, and therefore I wouldn't say out-of-context or with undue emphasis by any means, given that a lot of the commentary came from media and other institutions, that can hardly be described as very notable with single sources.
In any other context of using cite tweet in articles whereby the tweet isn't directly attributed to the section subject, as the original source of said subject, I'd 100% agree it'd be undue emphasis, as well as out-of-context. Of course if others disagree with this reasoning and think there should be less or none then feel free to remove. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Restructure of sections proposal

Proposing a change to the structure of 2nd headed sections to include "Policy changes". I still feel this page is a bit of a "mess" when it comes to structure, as not every 3rd headed section falls into the sub-section of "Content moderation" or "Other developments", and I wouldn't describe "Policy changes" as content moderation either. I already made a few moves, but thought I'd check with others on a bolder re-arrange.

---

Corporate management 

   Layoffs and mass resignations
   Resignation poll
   Corporate value

Content moderation 

   Initial reforms
   Misinformation and disinformation
   Increase in hate speech
   Pentagon leaks
   Child sexual abuse

Policy changes 

   Account suspensions
       ElonJet and journalists suspended
   State-affiliated media labeling
   Tweet views and messaging limits
   Announced removal of user blocking
   API changes

Developments 

   Verification program
   Revamp and rebrand
   Engagement with Musk's tweets
   Delaying links to external websites
   User engagement

Antisemitism controversies 

   Toggle Antisemitism controversies subsection
   Leo Frank disinformation
   Anti-ADL tweet campaign
   Musk amplification of antisemitism
   Media Matters analysis and lawsuit

Reactions and commentary

---

This would also be changing "Other developments" simply to "Developments". I'm sure there are further improvements to the structure of the page, so any feedback/proposals is appreciated. I'm aware there are other improvements/updates necessary for this page, especially if it is to be moved to X (social media), but I also think a better structure overall would help with that. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Move to X (social network)

Twitter under Elon Musk's management is now known as X, it would make sense for the article about the recent history of Twitter to use this name. Flameoguy (talk) 16:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes this has been proposed already: Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Proposed_split_of_Twitter over the main talk page Talk:Twitter#Survey CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

And then what?

I have noticed a lot of dangling threads in this article, which I'm going to go through and tag. Most of these take the form of, e.g. On March 23 at 13:24 UTC, Musk said that he was going to 'ban the hell out of that guy' or something along those lines, and then... nothing. Did he do it? Was the guy banned at all? Is he still banned? What does the guy think about this? We should be able to provide information like that. jp×g🗯️ 23:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Man, there are a lot of these. Some of this stuff seems like it does pass the test of time, but some of it really does not. Like this: By December 17, Twitter was blocking some links to Mastodon as being "potentially harmful" or "malware".. What... happened? Was anyone banned for this? Did anything happen? Did it get enforced and then lifted? If it's not still the case, when was the policy lifted? If we can't find anything along those lines in news coverage, we should probably treat it as a one-off event (e.g. "on December 17, it was reported that links to blah blah blah were being blocked due to whatever"), rather than phrase it like this is a continuing thing. jp×g🗯️ 00:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As an update, I've started to go through these "needs update" tags, resolving the issues you are correctly raising. I'm by no means done but dealt with about half of these so far. For reference, some were very useful, like after NPR ceased activity on Twitter, this did require an update to explain that 6 months later they still no longer use Twitter, and the negligible effects this has had. However, I did find some of tags inaccurate. For example many paragraphs in the state-affiliated media section had these tags, but the final sentence adequately summarised the end result; that Twitter stopped using these labels entirely, even if there was a little extra info that could be added for clarity. Some of these simply needed a WP:CLARIFY tag, rather than a needs update, in order to bring the information up to date, or a least a better reason for needing updating.
I've also tried to correct some the wording/phrasing if you also correctly pointed out, where there is no further information avoiding giving the impression that the event is ongoing or present as it were. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup background

@FMSky: you reverted my attempt to add some background to the LEAD. We currently have a cleanup tag for it 

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: This article needs restructuring to accurately depict it as the successor of Twitter. (June 2024)

Please suggest another way to state it is the successor. I dont think "former name" is sufficient to explain we are referring to the entity post acquisition by Musk. Do you? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"X, is the successor of Twitter, is a social networking service" - isn't a coherent sentence, that was the reason for the revert --FMSky (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is unnecessarily long

Events before 2023, which are already in the Twitter article, do not need to be in this article. Kerim Demirkaynak (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree, we need to clearly demarcate the two articles. An earlier editor suggested we add a date to the article name of Twitter, such as making it Twitter (2011-2021). I think this change would help us to prune content here as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It's between 6,000-8,000 words, so it's certainly not WP:TOOBIG, but instead an ideal size and doesn't require trimming or splitting. There will always be some overlap of content with Twitter, such as summaries of background, history, and the acquisition, but these are all a basic requirement to provide the minimum amount of context for the overall content. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Article built on original research

It seems to me that the whole existence of this article is predicated on the seemingly made up claim that X somehow functions as the "successor" to Twitter instead of simply being a slightly rebranded Twitter. Are there a significant number of sources that explicitly describe X as being the successor to a now-defunct Twitter or is this all simply WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH? Loytra (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. In my opinion, the premise that X is a distinct "successor" to Twitter, rather than a rebrand, does not align with what most reliable sources say.
The closure of the move discussion is currently under review. HenryMP02 (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
While the present form is problematic as you point out, we can also add a date range to the previous Twitter article or seek some other solution. The previous article name with the BLP in the article name was much worse than present. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the move review, there are some definite OR issues here. This especially shows up in the infobox, which should summarize the contents of the article (or at the very least be separately cited). I removed the founding date and founder field from the infobox for not matching cited statements in the article. For instance, the 2nd paragraph of the article currently begins:

Founded in March 2006 by Jack Dorsey, Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams, Twitter underwent a rebranding in July 2023 after being acquired by Elon Musk in 2022.

None of the remaining text of the article that I can find describes the rebranding as a "founding" or Musk as a founder. Regardless of how the content organization debate shakes out (and ideally, comments about that closure should be in the MR that HenryMP02 linked), splitting article content scope into pre-acquisition Twitter and post-acquisition X wouldn't be license to invent distinctions that aren't present in reliable sources. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nature article

The influential scientific journal Nature published an article in August 2023 regarding the migration of scientists from Twitter to other platforms. This probably warrants inclusion but the current timeline given makes slotting it in a difficult thing to do. Is there another article that better addresses this? Link: Thousands of scientists are cutting back on Twitter, seeding angst and uncertainty Reconrabbit 16:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What on earth is going on with the Twitter and X (social network) pages

Why is this page named Twitter under Elon Musk when it's main subject would be described as X? It makes absolutely no sense.

I get that it was decided that original Twitter page would describe X pre-Elon acquisition, that makes sense. I also thought that it was decided that this page would be called X (social network), the pages having those names would make sense but this current situation does not at all. Professional Adriazeri (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The move requestion was put to review and found that it should have been closed as no consensus or relisted. So the move was undone while that move discussion has been restarted. Masem (t) 22:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus on following MOS for this page under current title

I made two changes removing the bolding of X and now outdated hatnote which were added when the page was moved to X (social network). Given that the RM was relisted and the page moved back, these seemed like standard cleanup items that had simply been missed, and brought the article in line with other post-relisting changes to the article that were not made by me.

I was surprised that the changes were reverted as "bold" by @Jtbobwaysf (courtesy ping to this discussion), as I am unfamiliar with any precedent or consensus for having an article not reflect the Manual of Style under its current article title just because an RM is active, and other changes to restore the pre-closure title and scope were not reverted. I attempted to clarify with the reverting editor directly on their talk page, but the discussion ultimately raised more confusion than it addressed. I'm seeking consensus among editors for following MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SIMILAR on this page while it is at Twitter under Elon Musk, with no prejudice against restoring the hatnote and rebolding the letter X if the page is later moved. Frankly I think this is an anodyne change, but here we are. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I just felt this better be left alone as it is also being discussed Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Requested_move_24_May_2024 in what appears to be a contentious move. Why change content that is being discussed above... Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as other editors have now made these exact changes and they've stood without issue or reversion for over a week, I assume that consensus exists for them. Likely don't need any further discussion here unless someone objects. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Since Twitter became X

It seems that I can not use X at all. I just get a "Your account has been suspended." page and that's it. How is X better than Twitter? The article should mention that many users have been locked out of X whereas before people could use Twitter. 2600:1700:4260:35D0:F503:8746:8602:8CF0 (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_under_Elon_Musk/Archive_1&oldid=1255617704"