Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk/Archive 2

Why remove mention of post-takeover censorship?
This article seems to present a biased view of Musk's changes to content moderation. It talks a lot about his "free speech" angle, making it seem like Twitter has become strictly more permissive since the takeover, even though there's been a good amount of attention on the ways that Twitter has recently become less permissive. I added some relevant information, trying to give a more balanced presentation, but these changes were quickly scrubbed: @SteelersDiclonious removed content about censorship of Palestinian activists, and @InfiniteNexus removed content about censorship of content mocking Musk. Why? It seems like there's currently WP:UNDUE weight on the "free speech" angle. Freoh (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a notable topic for the article, but I don't perceive the edits you mention here as being outright removals. The former having a rational content concern, and the latter being a copy-edit for less editorializing. The SPLC language feels pretty good in its current state, and I'd recommend finding a broader source about the wider trends in political censorship on the platform, rather than what seemed to be a source about one particular account. That would make for a much stronger argument for inclusion.
 * I will note that probably shouldn't have marked their edit as minor, as per WP:MINOR, and I'll leave a Talk page reminder as well as this doesn't appear to be isolated. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The main content I was trying to add was the fact that Musk's "free speech absolutism" didn't prevent the company from censoring controversial content, and this was completely removed. Freoh (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Freoh, I tried to retain your free speech commentary, but neither the SPLC or CNN sources mention free speech, so doing so would be WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Impersonation accounts are already mentioned in the article at . I also disagree with your unbalanced tag, I don't see any signs of bias. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What if I added citations from MarketWatch and The Hollywood Reporter instead? Are those explicit enough for you? Freoh (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The bias is that there is plenty of content promoting the view that Musk supports free speech and that his takeover made the platform more permissive, but any relevant content about post-takeover censorship has been removed. Freoh (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would consider those appropriate citations for the attributed opinions of the authors in the Reactions or Critical analysis section. The last two sections are where I would consider most of the discussion about the differing definitions of "free speech" to be most appropriate. I looked through the current wording of the lead sentence you had edited to mention stated support for free speech and found that sentence to be improved. But on a bigger search I found that "free speech" was being used in place of "content policy" in multiple locations, such as Musk announced the creation of a "content moderation council" with diversified viewpoints to determine how the platform would handle free speech. I'm going to do a pass through the article to clean some of these up, per MOS:LABEL. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Neither source criticizes or even points out Musk's hypocrisy, just that Musk has banned a bunch of people. Again, drawing a connection ourselves between that and Musk not honoring his free speech vows would be WP:SYNTH. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I'm not trying to synthesize anything.
 * Musk has described himself as a “free-speech absolutist” and said that content on Twitter should not be censored much past the law. Last week, after completing his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, Musk tweeted: “Comedy is now legal on Twitter.”
 * In April, Musk said: “I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means.”
 * But perhaps more telling, in a 2019 interview in the Atlantic, Musk said, “Accurate and entertaining satire is vital to a functioning democracy,” then quipped: “Unless it’s about me.”
 * A number of Twitter users called out Musk for Sunday’s changes.
 * Freoh (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Having heard no response for more than a week, I went ahead and re-added this content, as per WP:BRD. Freoh (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the Palestine bit, as you didn't appear to address my concern above (hence my lack of response, I thought you had conceded). Per my comment above, I was also expecting you'd add these sources to the Reactions or Critical Analysis sections, did you have a rationale for returning them in this section? Bakkster Man (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? I thought your concern was about . There are now several sources in the article meeting your requirements. Most of the coverage I've read about suspensions and reinstatements gives examples of accounts that were suspended or reinstated, and I feel like this is relevant information for Wikipedia readers. These examples are covered in reliable sources and they're less than a sentence in this article, so it seems to meet the WP:DUE criteria.
 * In originally including the Palestinian example, I was trying to give this article more of a worldwide perspective, as per WP:CSB. I feel like it is too U.S.-focused as-is, so I've re-added the maintenance template. Freoh (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is my concern. Echoing below, I would have preferred if you thought this was indeed the best/only source for a global example, with none giving multiple account examples, that you came back to the Talk page prior to simply re-adding it without. My concern remains that it's an article about a single account (which makes it potentially an isolated issue being portrayed as systemic), and particularly one relating solely to the contentious topic of the Palestine-Israel conflict (for which there are discretionary sanctions WP:A/I/PIA). Resolving at least one of those concerns would make me reconsider, but I think it's hard to make a case that this source's international topic offsets those concerns.
 * Given the concerns being voiced, I'd recommend getting at least one concurring comment on the Talk page prior to making edits going forward. If you choose to do so, I'll attempt to make sure to look them over and provide feedback. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this characterization. The text you removed stated . I don't see how this could be misinterpreted as introducing a issue. It seems pretty clear that we're describing a single news outlet, and it's being included only as one example in a list of several wide-ranging examples, all of which are part of a systemic issue already described: a purging of activists on Twitter. Freoh (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with ArbCom procedures. Are you trying to say that I'm disallowed from mentioning any criticism of the Israeli government because I haven't made 500 edits to Wikipedia? Freoh (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I meant to remove only the Palestine topic, and returned the LGBT security account to the paragraph. My apologies.
 * My overall view on this is making sure that we're describing overall systemic changes, and I think we best fit with WP:NPOV and WP:DUE by making sure we make specific mention of accounts only when we can directly relate them to the specific categories regarded as systemic changes (ie. anti-fascist per the current wording), or are independently notable (ie. Kanye West, Donald Trump). Of course, this is just my view, and it's all open to consensus building.
 * Regarding the sanctions, I don't think it's necessarily a case of 'you can't edit', though I think may be within the boundaries of how "broadly construed" is described in WP:TBAN: "parts of other pages that are related to the topic". Which is, in my view, a good reason to avoid this particular topic  especially if we can cover the international affects another way. Emphasis added regarding my overall preference, that this is already a contentious article, and we make our jobs harder if we address a sanctioned topic from among multiple possibilities. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you here. This article relies heavily on American news sources and describes pretty much only American impacts. Twitter has a lot of international influence, and as per WP:CSB, we should try to represent a worldwide perspective. Freoh (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope my above reply helps clarify this concern. I agree with your concern on systemic bias on the encyclopedia, I'm hoping we can look for an alternate example to address this which isn't itself covered by sanctions first, then loop back if we can't find something. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to follow the WP:STRUCTURE guidelines, which recommend . Freoh (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While this is a good goal, I think it will require a more holistic approach. While we've got the reactions and critical commentary sections, we should continue to use this format until we can apply WP:STRUCTURE across all the commentary on each topic, lest we make the section more WP:POV/WP:UNDUE by treating some reactions as more notable that others. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we first organize the article into Musk's POV and other people's POV, and then reorganize the whole article chronologically? That seems significantly less efficient than just putting content where it belongs and iteratively cleaning up as we go. Freoh (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Less efficient, maybe, but sometimes editing in a less contentious manner ends up more efficient by avoiding edit wars and RfCs that are even less efficient. I'm concerned that introducing critiques on a case-by-case basis risks introducing WP:UNDUE concerns. I'd like to clarify that this is my preference and recommendation that I've seen work before on similar fast-moving contentious topics. That said, there's room to discuss where that line is between "describing the two positions of a thing that's occurring", and "reactions and analysis to the thing", and the current article text likely falls under the former where it's appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the same WP:TE behavior that other editors are discussing on your talk page that you are now bringing to this article. Just because you dont get your way in a week time, doesn't permit you to re-add it. You need to provide sources and if other editors agree, it can be added. If other editors remove it, and then you cant find consensus to re-add it and you re-add it regardless, the edit is WP:TE. You seem to be misunderstanding the WP:BRD process. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't why I re-added it. I re-added it because I thought I had addressed the other editor concerns, and they stopped responding to me. This seems to be following the WP:BRD process to me, which advises that . Freoh (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to follow the WP:STRUCTURE guidelines, which recommend . Freoh (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While this is a good goal, I think it will require a more holistic approach. While we've got the reactions and critical commentary sections, we should continue to use this format until we can apply WP:STRUCTURE across all the commentary on each topic, lest we make the section more WP:POV/WP:UNDUE by treating some reactions as more notable that others. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that we first organize the article into Musk's POV and other people's POV, and then reorganize the whole article chronologically? That seems significantly less efficient than just putting content where it belongs and iteratively cleaning up as we go. Freoh (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Less efficient, maybe, but sometimes editing in a less contentious manner ends up more efficient by avoiding edit wars and RfCs that are even less efficient. I'm concerned that introducing critiques on a case-by-case basis risks introducing WP:UNDUE concerns. I'd like to clarify that this is my preference and recommendation that I've seen work before on similar fast-moving contentious topics. That said, there's room to discuss where that line is between "describing the two positions of a thing that's occurring", and "reactions and analysis to the thing", and the current article text likely falls under the former where it's appropriate. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the same WP:TE behavior that other editors are discussing on your talk page that you are now bringing to this article. Just because you dont get your way in a week time, doesn't permit you to re-add it. You need to provide sources and if other editors agree, it can be added. If other editors remove it, and then you cant find consensus to re-add it and you re-add it regardless, the edit is WP:TE. You seem to be misunderstanding the WP:BRD process. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't why I re-added it. I re-added it because I thought I had addressed the other editor concerns, and they stopped responding to me. This seems to be following the WP:BRD process to me, which advises that . Freoh (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the same WP:TE behavior that other editors are discussing on your talk page that you are now bringing to this article. Just because you dont get your way in a week time, doesn't permit you to re-add it. You need to provide sources and if other editors agree, it can be added. If other editors remove it, and then you cant find consensus to re-add it and you re-add it regardless, the edit is WP:TE. You seem to be misunderstanding the WP:BRD process. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't why I re-added it. I re-added it because I thought I had addressed the other editor concerns, and they stopped responding to me. This seems to be following the WP:BRD process to me, which advises that . Freoh (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't why I re-added it. I re-added it because I thought I had addressed the other editor concerns, and they stopped responding to me. This seems to be following the WP:BRD process to me, which advises that . Freoh (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Can someone fill me in on the status of this debate? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the current version is too US-focused. I proposed adding content to what is now the section about a suspended Palestinian news outlet, but  opposed and removed it because it is a controversial subject. I would like this section to have some international coverage before removing the Template:Globalize section. Freoh (talk) 13:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The above from pretty much covers it. I agree with the concern of being US-centric. My preference is to avoid discussion that only covers a single account (potentially WP:UNDUE), especially where it relates to a sanctioned topic area. If there's an article indicating a wider trend in moderation on multiple Palestinian accounts, then I would be in favor of including that. Since the above discussion, there has been a good amount of EU reaction; to the banning of journalists, German labor disputes, and a recent lost lawsuit in Germany finding that Twitter failed to remove defamatory posts fast enough and must continue to do so in the future. I think these are a more notable and less contentious set of issues to include to reduce the US-centric focus. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Which of the accounts banned we should mention should be determined by their notability based on what sources highlight, not by how controversial they are. I took a look at the three sources Bakkster Man provided, and here are my thoughts:
 * Banning of journalists – This would go under, not.
 * German labor dispute – This also doesn't have anything to do with content moderation, and would be better off under.
 * The other lawsuit – This one, we can add.
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to clarify, the Palestine account being a controversial/sanctioned topic applies because the original source didn't seem to be a strong source on a notable account. If it had broad mainstream coverage, then the topic wouldn't matter. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of section tag
In this edit I removed the section tag as it said the section was too focused on the US. I am not aware of any US focus nor have I see any discussion here about how this section is missing a global focus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , I re-added this tag. What do you mean that you haven't seen discussion here about how this section is missing a global focus? The discussion is directly above this comment. and I are both concerned about the U.S. focus. Freoh (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Bakkster, are you concerned about the location issue sufficient for the section tag that I removed and Freoh re-added? I do see some mention of Palestine above, but I am confused if this discussion is about global content or if we are talking about a particular region of censorship focus. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that and I are in agreement that we'd like to see more international coverage in this section. I proposed the Palestinian censorship as an example, but Bakkster Man has been looking for alternative examples that are less controversial. I don't think that we should remove the tag until there's at least some international coverage in this section. Freoh (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Then propose something else that maybe Bakkster will agree with, you are the one who added the tag is it is your responsibility to shepherd the process. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the question of whether there's a section tag or not depends on whether there's notable and verifiable non-US censorship related to Musk's ownership. I agree with Freoh's intentions to ensure the article isn't US-biased, but I think it's also possible that Musk's changes are primarily (or exclusively) US-focused as were his motivations for the purchase.
 * The Palestine account was the original source mentioned, but I'm concerned it may not be notable enough or have enough verifiable coverage to say with certainty that it's related to Musk's acquisition. If we get strong enough sources to draw that connection, I'm in favor of referencing it in the article. But broadly speaking, I think the actual agreement between myself and Freoh is to find the most notable non-US, non-English-speaking allegations of censorship, and our disagreement is on the minimum threshold of V/N. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We cant and dont try to ensure that every article isn't US focused especially those that are in fact US focused. We are talking about a US company, with US based CEO, and if the CEO bans some US accounts we dont need to try to find twitter banning a non-US account. Nor do we need to find a candidate for US election from Madagascar to create balance. Not every policy and tag is suitable for every article. If Freoh is adding a tag to a section and doesnt have any content he proposes to add (other than this Palestinian event which you stated was poorly sourced) then there is no valid reason for the tag. If this is really an attempt to POV pushing adding the Palestinian content then that is an attempt to TE in WP:FALSEBALANCE. We cant use our own WP:OR to create a personal feeling and then TE that into the article. In this case there are too many possible scenarios: maybe Musk's bans have been US focused, maybe twitter users are US focused, maybe the rest of the world doesnt care when a non-notable account gets banned and thus it doesnt generate RS, etc. Key point for us wikipedia editors is we dont care why we cannot find other sources, and just because we cant find other sources doesnt justify TE to keep a tag on a section without providing content that is being excluded per WP:ONUS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it biased to describe Musk's alternative content moderation as "greater free speech"?
A recent edit by @Jtbobwaysf changed "alternative content moderation" to "greater free speech," and removed mention of censorship in the lead, with the justification. Sourced discussion of post-acquisition censorship is already in the body of the article, and it seems biased to me to summarize both reinstatement and de-platforming under the euphemism. Freoh (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your post significantly misrepresents the sequence of events. User:Jtbobwaysf did not change anything the wording; he reverted the bold change you made here to what it said previously. You have sourced allegations of censorship, to a biased source whose statement should be attributed, which belongs in Critical reactions (or, as I propose above, Reactions). Doesn't belong in the lead, or where you put it in the body, and I think the POV tag is unjustified. DFlhb (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you felt like that was a misrepresentation, but I view reversions as changes. Freoh (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you feel like censorship is an "allegation" unworthy for the lead, but "free speech" is worthy for the lead. I find "free speech" to be significantly more misleading, especially given recent events. Freoh (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that this is material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, I've re-added it with a citation as an attempt at compromise. Freoh (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In response to your second and third reply: this criticism would need widespread coverage by non-biased (mainstream) WP:RS for it to be due in the lead. I don't think we've met that bar; up to you to demonstrate that we have. There have been many criticisms; most aren't treated as significant by reliable sources.
 * A single reliable source, considered biased by Wikipedia consensus, isn't enough for the lead. Still belongs in reactions, attributed to the piece's author. "Free speech" reflects almost universal media coverage (in fact, many mention the risks of harassment caused by free speech, etc). DFlhb (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that mainstream sources are non-biased? Freoh (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Bias is determined by editor consensus, which is listed at WP:RSP. I'd support treating every single WP:RS as "biased" when it comes to politics, since it would certainly encourage editors to base more coverage on expert and scholars on a wide range of topics, but I and others have been unsuccessful in pushing that. DFlhb (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there's an that mainstream sources are non-biased? I don't see that on WP:RSP, but it's a big page and I could be missing it. Freoh (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not just one.
 * And more are under discussion:
 * Freoh (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First, you cant just keep re-adding content to the lede that is under dispute saying it is an effort at compromise. That is WP:TE aka WP:SEALION. The LEDE summarizes. If there are sufficient sources to add this to the article body, and then body has due WEIGHT to justify mention in the lede (think at least a section or sub-section) with multiple sources, we can look at adding it to the lede. We all can see that there is controversy relating to Musk's actions at twitter, particularly relating to changes in twitters censorship policy and personnel, and this is covered in the article. If you feel that is not properly summarized in the lede, explain that here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I was trying to follow the WP:BRD guidelines, but I'm sorry if it came across as edit warring. I assure you I was making my edits in good faith. Freoh (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the situation is that Freoh removed a with a comment Musk had made upon acquiring Twitter, calling it propaganda, and proceeded to add statements that portrayed Musk as someone who sought alternate content moderation and brought about a rise in censorship. Jtbobwaysf undid these edits under the belief they were pretenses and not supported in the article. Freoh then added a statement removing the  template and adding additional information regarding multiple anti-fascist accounts being banned.
 * Removing the tweet makes no sense—there is coverage of Alex Jones and his opinions despite his comments being inflammatory and dangerous. Editors adding a tweet of Musk's with the words "the bird is freed" is not an admission of bias nor propaganda, it encapsulates Musk's statements after acquiring Twitter. Opinions are formed by the reader as to whether or not Musk's actions truly "freed the bird".
 * No empirical evidence is mentioned in the article that Musk truly brought about a rise in censorship. Although reports of accounts being terminated following tweets made by them disapproving of Musk have come out, these reports aren't enough to suggest that there is a rise in terminations, much less a rise in censorship. "Greater free speech" is a defining characteristic of Musk's acquisition, whether or not it brought about actual free speech. Musk's calls for alternate forms of content moderation are yet to be supported in the article proper.
 * The removal of the was acceptable, as was the additional text added. Covering Jacobin as a source may seem biased, but it works here because it's being used to back up those claims, not their validity.
 * There's nothing inherently wrong with choosing to reword the lede in this way, but a lede is an encompassing summary of the article. References aren't directly cited within it because they're supported within the article. I can see where you're going with adding the censorship statement, but it should be attributed and it needs to be notable enough for the lede. Some left-wing users claiming that they have been suspended isn't a strong enough statement to warrant a mention in the lede. If there is strong evidence Musk is censoring critics, by all means, add it to the lede. As for whether or not "greater free speech" is more biased than "alternate content moderation", the words suggested by Musk are for free speech (as in, "free the bird"). That doesn't change, even if it's apparent that Musk isn't interested in free speech. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's keep that discussion in Freoh (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like it's already covered:
 * I originally wrote because it seemed more neutral than "free speech," and because it encapsulates both the reinstatement and the censorship with one phrase, but I'm open to suggestions. Freoh (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Japanese military described their WWII invasion of the Philippines as a liberation, but it would be biased for the Wikipedia page to describe it that way. We shouldn't be relying on primary sources for our word choice. See WP:WIKIVOICE. Freoh (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a week with no response, and the censorship content in the body of this article has only grown. Can I revert the edit by @Jtbobwaysf? Are there any objections? Freoh (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to find consensus to add whatever you are seeking to add. If you dont have consensus, then it stays as is. There is no timeframe for POV pushing and the one week you have been waiting is irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to do, establish consensus and remove the tags. Do you oppose my proposal? If so, why? Freoh (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do object to the description of Musk making "calls for alternative content moderation", even though I agree his 'free speech absolutist' stance was facetious and should be treated skeptically. We should have the face value description, especially if we can't verify (in the WP:V sense) that the praise received wasn't actually expecting an increase in free speech by people who are now surprised by recent moderation decisions to the contrary.
 * As a potential compromise solution here, I'd suggest splitting the edit. Keep his calls for greater free speech as that's the literal claim by Musk, but add "censorship" (or another phrasing/wl which can gain consensus) to the list of criticisms. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, works for me. Freoh (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you still object? If so, could you explain why? Freoh (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you now proposing to add to the lede and does it summarize something already in the article? I recall what I reverted earlier was not summarizing anything. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherently wrong with choosing to reword the lede in this way, but a lede is an encompassing summary of the article. References aren't directly cited within it because they're supported within the article. I can see where you're going with adding the censorship statement, but it should be attributed and it needs to be notable enough for the lede. Some left-wing users claiming that they have been suspended isn't a strong enough statement to warrant a mention in the lede. If there is strong evidence Musk is censoring critics, by all means, add it to the lede. As for whether or not "greater free speech" is more biased than "alternate content moderation", the words suggested by Musk are for free speech (as in, "free the bird"). That doesn't change, even if it's apparent that Musk isn't interested in free speech. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's keep that discussion in Freoh (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems to me like it's already covered:
 * I originally wrote because it seemed more neutral than "free speech," and because it encapsulates both the reinstatement and the censorship with one phrase, but I'm open to suggestions. Freoh (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Japanese military described their WWII invasion of the Philippines as a liberation, but it would be biased for the Wikipedia page to describe it that way. We shouldn't be relying on primary sources for our word choice. See WP:WIKIVOICE. Freoh (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been more than a week with no response, and the censorship content in the body of this article has only grown. Can I revert the edit by @Jtbobwaysf? Are there any objections? Freoh (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to find consensus to add whatever you are seeking to add. If you dont have consensus, then it stays as is. There is no timeframe for POV pushing and the one week you have been waiting is irrelevant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm trying to do, establish consensus and remove the tags. Do you oppose my proposal? If so, why? Freoh (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do object to the description of Musk making "calls for alternative content moderation", even though I agree his 'free speech absolutist' stance was facetious and should be treated skeptically. We should have the face value description, especially if we can't verify (in the WP:V sense) that the praise received wasn't actually expecting an increase in free speech by people who are now surprised by recent moderation decisions to the contrary.
 * As a potential compromise solution here, I'd suggest splitting the edit. Keep his calls for greater free speech as that's the literal claim by Musk, but add "censorship" (or another phrasing/wl which can gain consensus) to the list of criticisms. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, works for me. Freoh (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you still object? If so, could you explain why? Freoh (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you now proposing to add to the lede and does it summarize something already in the article? I recall what I reverted earlier was not summarizing anything. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a potential compromise solution here, I'd suggest splitting the edit. Keep his calls for greater free speech as that's the literal claim by Musk, but add "censorship" (or another phrasing/wl which can gain consensus) to the list of criticisms. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, works for me. Freoh (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , do you still object? If so, could you explain why? Freoh (talk) 02:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you now proposing to add to the lede and does it summarize something already in the article? I recall what I reverted earlier was not summarizing anything. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not caught up with this debate, and I'm not keen on reading all that text above me, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding or missing something. I gather there is a dispute on whether to replace with  and also whether to add  to the list of criticisms. For the first point, I don't think the current wording is biased or non-neutral in any way, it's simply describing what Musk has claimed he would do, which is championing free speech. That's a fact, we're not saying that he has introduced greater free speech, just that he has pledged to do so. As for censorship, adding that to wouldn't work, as there was no criticism over a fear in censorship before he took control. The criticism came after, so I would propose we add something like I don't think we can say  as none of the sources in the article specifically describe his actions as such, and we would need to have a large number of sources to support such a claim per WP:DUE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First interesting you simply used the od to get template to go all the way back out, I had always been trying to figure out the number of colons to add. Wow, learning something every day. Thanks! Next, the censorship is a widely absurd claim. I think we can all agree that musk has received a lot of criticism regarding his moderation polices (removing the moderation team and now probably doing his own moderation by poll). As a second note, at some point in time the article needs to cut off and focus on the acquisition time period and not the ongoing company management. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this deserves due weight. Lots of reliable sources have covered this, and there's a fair amount of content about it in the body of the article, even if not all sources have used the same word choice. I think that limiting the lead to only mention greater free speech and vague approaches to content moderation could give the misleading impression that Musk's changes were strictly more permissive. Freoh (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think is correct, while this is a DUE critique, it's a critique that was made after last Thursday rather than prior to the takeover. While the lead sentence we're talking about doesn't explicitly limit itself to referring to pre-acquisition criticism, I would agree that it implies that and we would want to be clear about when censorship concerns joined the others if there's consensus to include it for the lead. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not opposed to it being a separate sentence. I just think that it should be clear that we're talking about censorship and not just "free speech." Freoh (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, the lead is intended to serve as a summary of the rest of the article. Now, I just did a search for, and neither of the four sources criticize Musk's banning of certain accounts as censorship. You claim , but we'll need more than just the CNN source before "censorship" can qualify for appearing in the lead. In the meantime, I'll add  as discussed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added "heavy-handed" to clarify that the approaches to content moderation aren't just "free speech." Freoh (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 issues with it: first, it's (apparently) unsourced. Second, it's a vague term with nonspecific meaning, and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. The second point is a result of the first, since using a fuzzy term makes the need for sourcing far less apparent than when we use a precise term. DFlhb (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My edit includes a reference to an opinion piece that mentions Musk's thin skin and heavy hand. I agree that it's a little vague, but the lead is supposed to be a summary, and I think that leaving it at his approaches to content moderation is significantly more vague. Is there a different term you'd prefer? Strict? Aggressive? I feel like the fact that a lot of people are getting suspended is notable enough to deserve at least a one-word descriptor in the lead. Freoh (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An opinion piece obviously can't be used; but I'm not suggesting we replace it with another vague term; I'm suggesting we be precise about what exactly was being criticized. DFlhb (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I went for a generalized description (approaches to content moderation) because it's less wordy than, say, . InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine, actually. I would say that "criticized for his approaches to content moderation" (approaches -> approach?) is perfectly accurate; I just prefer avoiding terms that are both critical and imprecise ("heavy-handed", "aggressive"), where sourcing issues would come into play. DFlhb (talk) 02:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be consensus for removing, including from someone who started a new discussion down below, so I'll remove it for now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I still feel like this is too vague, and it should be clearer that we are talking about policies that make the system restrictive rather than permissive, especially given the highlighting of "free speech." Freoh (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion that the system is restrictive or permissive and we dont put our opinions in articles. We only add what we can find in sources and where there is a lot of coverage (often in the case of Musk and other ultra-celbs, then we end with a watered down statement (as often we find positions on both sides). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of coverage about Musk's restrictions. All of the talk about free speech seems a lot more like an opinion to me. Freoh (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of coverage about Musk's restrictions. All of the talk about free speech seems a lot more like an opinion to me. Freoh (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Both are essentially opinions in the eyes of wikipedia. Every platform has content moderation and we dont get all obsessed with it. Are we currently saying that Musk is offering free speed in WP:WIKIVOICE? If we are, we should not be. If we are attributing some of his claims, that's pretty normal for this type of article, his name is the title of it after all. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you explain to me why mentioning Musk's involvement in account suspensions is an unacceptable opinion? What is not neutral about my proposal? Freoh (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please add some sources to what you want me to comment on. You dont need to repeat questions on talk pages again and again until you get an answer that you like. We are here to discuss content, not your opinions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you think that this is controversial enough to need additional references, I could copy these from the body:
 * Freoh (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Elon Jet and Kathy Griffin are both already covered in the article. Your point is? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, you seem confused about my proposal and I think it's uncontroversial enough that I went ahead and added it. My point is that this deserves mentioning more precisely in the lead. Freoh (talk) 10:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources that evidence this claim that says Musk has suspended accounts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Freoh (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * First, I forgot to add the colons to manage the dent (just added in this edit), so our thread is a bit out of sync here, would be helpful if you could add as well, didnt wanted to edit your comments. Next, I took a look at all three of those sources and didnt see that any of the sources supported your claims in wikivoice that:
 * 1. that Musk banned anyone (twitter banned, not Musk banned)
 * 2. that there was a backlash
 * Please clarify if these sources support any of those claims, maybe I missed it when I read them. If the source doesnt support those claims, please remove them.
 * Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Freoh (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please clarify if these sources support any of those claims, maybe I missed it when I read them. If the source doesnt support those claims, please remove them.
 * Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Freoh (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Freoh (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Freoh (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

none of these state that Musk suspended any account. Is that correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They all describe backlash for his involvement in account suspensions, as stated in the article. I don't know if Musk personally clicked a "suspend account" button. Is that what you're asking? Freoh (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Freoh, you are continuing to POV push in this section in violation of the BRD policy. First you added content, then I reverted it, then to mis-represented my edit implying that I had changed something, then you went on to re-add a reworded version (now heavy handed) of the removed content being discussed in this very section. Your WP:SEALION on this (and other) articles is problematic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have asked you multiple times to keep this discussion civil. Could you please stop it with the name-calling? Freoh (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Freoh, your POV tag was not appropriate. There is clear consensus here that we should not be using the word "censorship" in the lead, or "heavy-handed". I gather you are relatively new here, so I respectfully ask you to read WP:DEADHORSE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This is one of those cases, please do not continue to push for your viewpoint when it is clear there isn't any support for it. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit is WP:TE and you can see very clearly there is no support for your POV regarding censorship, heavy handed, etc. You are having problems with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that InfiniteNexus noted above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You're right, I shouldn't have re-added those tags without adding something new to the conversation. I'll make a new proposal that summarizes Musk's heavy-handed censorship without using the words heavy-handed or censorship:
 * Freoh (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you shouldnt have added the tags at all after it is clear that only you want the tags. Your edits are WP:TE and starting to look like WP:OWN. I do not support Musk's management activity to be placed in the lede of this article. You should get involved in creation of a new article that you can add more of your management issues to it (assuming you want to continue). The phrase you are talking about is in no way related to acquisition and are all clearly related to ongoing management. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The body of the article has plenty of content about the changes Musk made soon after acquiring Twitter. I think it's within the scope of this article, and plenty of other editors have added content to . If you think that post-acquisition reforms are outside the scope of this article, I think that you should make a separate topic for that, as that's a pretty major change that people are sure to have opinions about. Freoh (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your POV is not due in the lede and we will likely be moving most of it off to a new article anyhow. Probably nothing will remain in the lede about company's post acquisition management, you are probably wasting your time here. Dont add any new tags, content, or anything else on this matter without consent of others and if you do I will create another ANI. Maybe you can find others that support your cause, but right now it is pretty much WP:RGW. About me making a new section, there is a already a separate discussion about that and you have already responded in that section, we don't make multiple sections about similar topics. I dont need to make new sections to refute your claims and your notion that I do is WP:OWN in thinking that I need to refute every claim you make on this talk page. Wikipedia is a collaborative process, and you have to understand when to go with the flow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Several editors have posted comments that favor keeping content about post-acquisition reforms , so if you're arguing that this is out of scope, then I think that requires more discussion. Freoh (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion below on whether to spin off the post-acquisition info to its own article — it's at the bottom of the page, at . InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Potential split
I previously wrote that we would probably need to stop adding post-acquisition content at some point to prevent this article from being unwieldy and too far off-topic. has just echoed my sentiments above, and I agree with them. Since I do see value in this information and would hate to see the entire section deleted, what do editors think of a potential split to cover Twitter's many changes under Musk? I've mocked up a split at Draft:Twitter under Elon Musk, let me know what y'all think. The only downside would be that a spin-off article might get sent to AfD if someone doesn't find the topic noteworthy on its own. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to splitting, but I think that content is on-topic enough to deserve a decent summary here at least. Freoh (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, if a split occurs will be trimmed and appended with Main. This is routine for splits of any kind. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not referring to any "that content" in this section. We are discussing the need to split the article now that the acquisition is complete. The acquisition refers to a specific and finite legal event, and now that it is closed we are fudging in some extra time (as probably we dont know where else to put the content), but that time is limited and I think has come to an end. The content you might be trying to add should be discussed in that relevant section, not here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that at some point this article will need to stop covering content as no longer applicable to the acquisition itself. My initial impression is that there's some timeframe (three months? first full quarter after going private?), and that we cover only topics explicitly discussed in the lead-up to the acquisition (Elon Jet being applicable for pre-acquisition commitment not to ban, poll to step down probably not applicable).
 * Is the correct solution a split to a brand new article, or adding content to one of the existing articles depending on the topic? Twitter suspensions, Censorship of Twitter, December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions, etc. Those other articles probably provide good context for the depth of coverage that's reasonably considered encyclopedic (versus WP:NOTNEWS). I'd suggest that if the length of this article is becoming unwieldy, the solution would be to trim it down in depth, rather than split it. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there's reader value in keeping all the Musk–Twitter info in one place, so I don't think merging the content to a bunch of existing articles is the solution. The fate of the 12/15/22 article is also still up in the air. I've already done a lot of trimming, believe me, but the problem is that Musk does something new every day and editors are immediately tempted to add that into this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * While we're talking about trimming, I'd like to reiterate a point that got buried in a conversation above. I would be in favor of cutting out both and  and folding the most relevant content into the existing sections, as recommended in WP:STRUCTURE: Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. But that's admittedly a pretty major undertaking. Freoh (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed on both the preference for doing so, and the size of the task. We're probably far enough from the initial announcement that we could start this process on the initial bid and announcement sections, we're no longer in the mode of 'capture all the reactions as they happen' and can more easily identify the relevant ones with the benefit of hindsight ("in the business, we call this foreshadowing"). I think sandboxing this would probably be a better use of our time right now than a split. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree, we should be keeping all the facts on one side of the page and all opinions on another. And again, length. If we get rid of the Reactions and Critical analysis sections, each section on the article is going to be six paragraphs long. This is also standard practice on articles about events. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a WP:PAG rationale for keeping all the facts on one side of the page and all opinions on another? WP:STRUCTURE recommends against this approach. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's what WP:STRUCTURE is saying. It advises us to spread out "debate" across an article, it doesn't say anything about a ban of reception sections. Which doesn't make sense anyway, as I've stated this is an EXTREMELY common practice on WP articles, and many essays such as WP:CRIT and WP:CSECTION discuss this. There is no policy violation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Second. Also, let us not fall into the trap of recording everything he puts to (digital) paper on his timeline. It is something that Elon Musk struggles with from time to time too so the impulse is understandable. QRep2020 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree we would need an entire article just for elonisms...did I just coin a term? I am guessing I am not that novel ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I dont think we need to worry that much about structure of existing article right now, articles change over time. Freoh I am sure can participate in specific comments about structure and maybe even edit the draft article (with permission of InfiniteNexus). Normally we use drafts and sandboxes just for this purpose. But if we stray off into absurdity of edits, then we can just launch the article and discuss the content in a live environment. After we get into a new article it might indeed be more logical to use a timeline (with the reactions and criticisms in the timeline), but we have to look at that. If it gets absurdly undue, then we will need to trim out the reactions and criticisms. After all Elon bought twitter with his money, and facts and figures surrounding that are the main historical points. The reactions of the pundits is clearly due, but need not be given excess weight (some loved it and some hated it, yada yada). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me take things a step back. Just so we're clear, my initial post asking whether the post-acquisition info should be split to Draft:Twitter under Elon Musk is a separate matter from Freoh's subsequent proposal to eliminate the two reception sections. Anyone is welcome to edit Draft:Twitter under Elon Musk, no one needs my permission to do anything unless the page is in my userspace, this is one of WP's core policies. If Freoh would like to mock up a proposed overhaul of Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, the appropriate place to do this would be at one of their sandboxes. Drafts are generally used to incubate articles until they are ready to be moved to the mainspace; sandboxes are testing grounds for editors to experiment and compare proposals. I strongly oppose turning this article into a timeline, but I'm open to trimming the two reception sections. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * apologies for my misunderstanding and I stand with InfiniteNexus on all these comments Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, the current readable prose size is 56 kB, which justifies a split per WP:SIZERULE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be rough consensus for a split. Are there any additional concerns before I execute the spilit? InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree for a split and have no outstanding concerns. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Split executed, spun-off article now live at Twitter under Elon Musk. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Cite news vs cite web
A recent edit by changed the Template:Cite news for an online news article to a Template:Cite web. According to the template documentation, cite news is used to create citations for news articles in print, video, audio or web, while cite web is reserved for web sources that are not characterized by another CS1 template. It seems to me that the original cite news was more appropriate. Freoh (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur, cite news is the proper template here. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen, Cite news is generally used only for newspaper articles (for COinS purposes). If we used Cite news for all kinds of news articles, Cite web wouldn't need to exist — have you ever had to cite a website that isn't a news article? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many citable websites which aren't news articles. For instance, the Twitter article infobox cites sec.gov and about.twitter.com. Blogs which are reliable for a specific use (often attributed rather than wikivoice), official government documents, press releases, and WP:SELFSOURCE are all good reasons why a web source wouldn't be considered news, a journal article, or a book. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but this is rare, and generally discouraged. It's preferable to cite a third-party RS rather than a first-party source. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, generally less common than citing a third-party, but you asked for if there was "ever" a circumstance to use it. There clearly are.
 * I'll add that I see web citations used a lot as the third-party RS for WP:PARITY reasons, fact checking and debunking unreliable fringe claims whose sources are even lower quality. For instance; WP:SBM, WP:SNOPES, WP:IFCN. All sources which are third-party RS, and we would often be worse off citing a news article summarizing them. Which is a major reason I tend to prefer to use the news template to distinguish news from non-news online sources, even if the displayed output is equivalent. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm unfamiliar with the details of COinS. Is there a rationale for distinguishing "newspapers that are also published online" from "news websites"? Freoh (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a handful of news-related properties missing from the web cite template, like 'agency' (for AP/Reuters sourced articles we've sourced to a publisher) and some date formatting differences ('publication-date' vs 'orig-date'). I generally assumed the only practical difference between print and online news is whether we populate the url field or the volume/issue fields. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite news is for newspaper articles, regardless of whether the article was published online or in print. Non-newspaper "news" articles online generally use Cite web. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite news says it's for news articles, not newspaper articles. Based on, it looks like there's no practical difference, and the output COinS metadata looks identical to me. My vote's for Cite news, but I don't feel strongly about it, so I'll leave it to you two to decide. Freoh (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the standard/default cite template is Cite web, and then Cite news is used for newspapers and Cite magazine is used for magazines. I've rarely seen Cite news being used for non-newspaper sources, simply because there's no need to; the only difference between the two templates is that Cite news has newspaper-specific parameters and newspaper-specific COinS metadata, which non-newspaper sources don't make use of. So there's no reason to use that template. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There used to be a time where Cite news was only used to cite physical newspapers, until this RfC came along a while ago and it was decided that it should be used for online newspapers as well. This is the only reason why we are using Cite news and Cite magazine for some citations on this page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

RFC on merging reactions/analysis sections
Shall we merge Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk and Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk to form one section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Polling

 * No – As I wrote above, Reactions covers reactions and spontaneous comments from notable public figures and the general public, whereas Critical analysis covers analytical and speculative commentary from journalists and subject-matter experts. We are including the first group's opinions/actions because they are notable people, but we are including the second group's opinions because they give us insight into all the drama. There is a more-than-clear distinction between the two sections, and merging them would bring serious length issues. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No – the reactions section cover involved groups and government oversight at the different stages of events. Anything of simply external punditry (generally looking off to the future without giving details) who had no part of the events goes to the section of critical analysis.  Though I really do not see the point to even having all those external pundits -- there seems no analysis there, but just some blather and speculative thoughts from the sidelines of uninformed talking heads.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No – See argument above; quick news reactions are distinct from well drawn critical responses. QRep2020 (talk) 06:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * No — though it makes no sense whatsoever to treat journalists as subject-matter experts; no one in the world believes that they are. Journalists rely on subject matter experts, who they reach out to. If those experts are quoted in a news piece, then their reactions belong in Critical analysis, and should be attributed to them (the expert), not to the news publication or journalist. Journalists' reactions firmly belong in Reactions, either in a Media subsection, or we dedicate a paragraph to journalist reactions in each subsection for each stage of events. DFlhb (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

 * It seems unclear what is the distinction between reactions and analysis. This has been a bit discussed above in Talk:Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk and one editor seems opposed to it and not much outside discussion. From my view the split of sections results in redundant content, unnecessary decision making on editors part to decide what is a reaction and what is analysis, and ultimately an WP:UNDUE amount of content on this article dedicated to the opinions of various pundits. I would like to see the sections merged so that more focus can be put on quality and due content, rather than an unnecessary discussion of what section the (maybe undue to begin with) content belongs. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems unclear what is the distinction between reactions and analysis. – Huh? I've already explained in great detail above what the distinction is, just because you disagree with how we are making a distinction does not mean that no distinction exists. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again you repeat the reason (above in polling) as your reason against it is due to length issues, confirming my point that the length of the two combined is UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Length is just one of the many reasons I listed, you appear to have ignored three-fourths of my !vote above. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not sure where the RFC template went, maybe it expired. Doesnt seem to be much support for this, so as RFC creator I request it be closed. Or should I pull it? (If I need to pull it, I dont recall how to do that). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * RfCs automatically expire after 30 days. A formal close is only needed if the consensus isn't clear, but in this case there is clear consensus against merging. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

UNDUE CRYSTAL comments or we need "predictions" section?
This section Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk contains multiple undue comments and quotes that can be summarized. For example why is the opinion of a NYT that twitter will have difficulty making a profit due? Its non-controversial, but we dont normally include everything like that. The section goes on to include statements by other publications that can be summarized. Are these WP:UNDUE and/or WP:CRYSTAL? Is this a section that we shall call 'predictions of twitter's demise'? There are more zinger I can add, thought I would ask first. If people think this is in fact due, maybe we should make a section (or sub-section) that contains all of the predictions of future trouble that Musk will face. Likely interesting from a historical perspective (if we are going to deem the third party CRYSTAL statements as DUE). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "Lauren Hirsch of The New York Times observed that Musk would face financial challenges in owning Twitter, including the company's difficulty in turning a profit."
 * "Edward Niedermeyer, an author and critic of Musk, argued that Twitter may fail due to Musk's hubris."
 * "New York University's Center for Business and Human Rights deputy director Paul M. Barrett speculated that a moderation council under Musk would face skepticism due to Musk's "erratic and imperious" behavior in the past."
 * "Media Matters for America president Angela Carusone warned that Musk's leadership would lead to an increase in disinformation, conspiracy theories, and harassment on Twitter."
 * I don't think there is an issue with WP:UNDUE. These are all notable people with notable opinions, and we're not giving excessive weight to any of them. They're not extremist/minority viewpoints either. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant, that guideline refers to the inclusion of rumors and articles that are egregiously speculative. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CRYSTAL says: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements". Aren't these pronouncements? Also says "expected future events." Are we using these types of predictions on a large number of other articles? I recognize WP:OSE for sure in some cases, but this to me reads like crystal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * CRYSTAL does not refer to opinions from notable people. A CRYSTAL violation would be if we said, On the contrary, it wouldn't be a violation if we said,   (He didn't say that, this is an example.) Product announcements refer to the gazillion new features Musk introduces to Twitter every day, which we don't cover in accordance with CRYSTAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL is more concerned with an article like Potential Twitter bankruptcy under Elon Musk than individual labeled predictions in an article on the parent topic. Per CRYSTAL: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. I lean towards clearly indicating that this is a notable critique/prediction from observers, rather than a definite future event, is appropriate. Especially since Musk himself reportedly acknowledges the possibility (should this be mentioned in the article, or have I missed it?). Bakkster Man (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Understood, this and the statement above from InfiniteNexus both make logical sense regarding crystal. In this case to make it DUE we would need to see that the person making the statement is an expert in the field. We do not have notable business figures making predictions here (Bill Gates saying xyz), we have non-notable journalists who will say anything to get a click. I think we should use the test if they have a wikipedia entry themselves they might be notable, but xyz journalist who lacks and entry (we can presume not notable) then the statement would also be UNDUE as the person stating it is not notable. This test I have seen used on many other articles, is it incorrect? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if the journalist is writing for a reputable and well-respected source, we should be fine. WP:UNDUE is not about notability, it's about representing all viewpoints fairly. Which means we shouldn't dedicate a whole paragraph to a NYT opinion piece and then have one sentence about a Washington Post article, or single out one person's opinion in the lead that no one else shares, or discuss fringe/conspiracy theories. We're giving roughly one sentence to each commentator, and we have commentary from both sides, so I don't believe we have problems with WP:UNDUE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, it could be a fringe opinion by a journalist at NYT for example. "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Are you saying that there are many that think "a moderation council under Musk would face skepticism due to Musk's "erratic and imperious" behavior in the past." Can you find another example of someone notable who states this? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you think "Twitter could go bankrupt" is actually a fringe opinion "held by an extremely small minority"? Because I dig up a substantial number of articles referencing this as a possibility, many of them citing Elon Musk himself as floating the idea. To me, that's DUE, but feel free to explain if you disagree.
 * A potential adjustment on the topic might be to cite Musk as floating the possibility of bankruptcy alongside financial details like the debt equals about seven times the company's projected earnings for 2022... the annual payment is $1 billion... its cash flow last year to pay for things like debt payments was just $632 million. This feels like a DUE mention with concrete, verifiable information providing context: the company is indeed in substantial debt, and interest exceeds revenues. Then, in place of the current outsider speculation about bankruptcy, replace it with something like this article explaining Musk's past bankruptcy threats, and opinion it may be an employee motivation tactic. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, "extremely small minority" refers to bizarre, extraordinary, absurd, conspiracist claims. Not something as ordinary as this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, bankruptcy threats is more due than speculation by non-finance people. Or we include every time Jim Cramer predicts something ;-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

American Political Terminology
I noticed in the introduction it is stated that "liberals" criticized Musk's policies while "conservatives" opposed them. I understand that in the United States these terms are generally used to refer to leftists and rightists respectively, but in the rest of the world, especially Europe, this would appear odd. I suggest we replace it with different terms, like perhaps "leftists" and "rightists", as this would make the article easier to understand for readers not well-versed in american political discourse. 82.73.17.19 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why this would appear odd? I think that liberal is a more informative label than leftist, as there are leftists who oppose liberalism.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 22:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it help if we wrote and  instead? Or perhaps  and ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How about ? Is it clear enough now?     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 23:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that wording. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Musk view on hate speach
you removed Musk's statement that he reduced hate speach and said due to WP:COI source in this edit. Please explain here. But for some reason you didnt remove the source. If the source is a COI, it should be removed. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:33, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I guess WP:COISOURCE wasn't exactly the right issue to point to. My issue was more about undue emphasis. Using an article titled "Hate speech is soaring on Twitter under Elon Musk, report finds" to change Musk also relaxed the platform's hate speech policies to Musk claimed to strengthen the platform's hate speech policies is prioritizing opinions over facts, and Mandy Rice-Davies applies.     &mdash;&hairsp; Freoh 08:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement
Did (in WP:WIKIVOICE) "Musk circumvent[ed] the agreement by asserting the executives were dismissed "for cause"" diff Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Before
quite an ambitious RFC close by you above as an involved editor. You and here both reverted edits, so feel free to explain (if you want) why you want to include the content described here Talk:Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk. You might start first with if the source is sufficient to state in wikivoice that Musk has committed a crime. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While it's a mess of process, not having a formal RFC until we've at least attempted a discussion is the right call here. I'd be willing to revert the close and re-close if you feel strongly on following the process strictly, but I'd suggest we just let it go for now and stick with standard discussion.
 * You might start first with if the source is sufficient to state in wikivoice that Musk has committed a crime. I'm curious about this phrasing of the dispute. Your proposed change from Musk circumvented the agreement by asserting the executives were dismissed "for cause" to but Musk attempted to circumvent the agreement by asserting the executives were dismissed "for cause" doesn't seem to reflect a change in whether or not a crime is being attributed to Musk. I'm not aware that, even if it was determined that Musk violated the contract, that it would be a criminal matter, rather than one for a civil lawsuit. And both wordings implicate using a clause of the employment contract, the only difference is whether the "for cause" claim ultimately holds up or not.
 * I would have thought, if you had a concern about implying malicious intent, you'd be suggesting that the word "circumvent[ed]" be replaced with another verb instead. As it stands, it seems you're saying you intended to change the wording from "Musk [committed a crime]" to "Musk attempted to [commit a crime]", which doesn't seem like your intent. Perhaps you can clarify. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please propose another verb, I am not super specific on wording only that present wording is not neutral. The editors reverting my edits and then closing the RFC is POV pushing, and not a discussion on verbiage. At this point in time it looks like a position by NYT (ad nauseam in opposition to Musk and probably not an RS on any subject relating to him, alas here is not the venue for that I am guessing). There seem to be no other sources for this POV (assuming the editors above need to note blogs such as the The Information to support their cause). This is one of these WP:CIRCUS articles that has all kinds of POV content in it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Freoh's revert was justified per WP:BRD, and my speedy RfC close was justified per WP:RFCBEFORE. Kindly refrain from falsely accusing other editors of uncivil behavior such as POV pushing and CIRCUS, such behavior is considered uncivil. Your edit summary was not a valid justification for reverting my revert: an IP made a WP:BOLD edit, I challenged it, and it is then the IP's responsibility to defend their proposed change either via edit summaries or the talk page. It is not on me to start a discussion here, it's theirs. With regards with NYT neutrality, you will likely have a very hard time convincing editors that NYT (one of the most respected and reputable publications in the world) is an unreliable source. The Information is not a blog. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think after I reinstated the edit by the IP address editor it would have been WP:ONUS to take to talk. Instead he reverted it and then when I started an RFC on the matter you speedy closed the RFC (noting you had been directly involved in the disputed content). The Information looks like a blog and as you seem to agree with me, here is not the venue for that. Apparently you dont have any other sources other than NYT (bloomberg a reprint of sections of NYT) and this blog? I highly doubt this blog will be used to anchor text that Musk committed either a criminal (or civil) crime. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you had reverted my revert with an edit summary like "Circumvented" is non-neutral, that may have been true. But your reasoning for reverting my revert was an invalid justification, as WP:BRD states that it is up to the proposer to take it to the talk page. The Information is not a blog, and as I and Bakkstar have stated, "circumvent" does not imply a crime has been committed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned that you believe the procedural close above is uncivil and POV, and strongly disagree with that conclusion. Same with your wikilawyering accusation below, when the core discussion revolves around your shortcutting of procedure (beware the WP:BOOMERANG).
 * The discussion below seems to be fruitful in improving the article with consensus. I recommend we stick with the content questions, rather than WP:ASPERSIONS of misbehavior. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback, I will be more careful with my comments and apologize. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Speedy, procedural closes need not be performed by uninvolved editors. As I wrote, there was no discussion on this topic prior to you launching the RfC, which is a required step. Please understand that RfCs are not used for everything, only as a last resort when editors are unable to come to a consensus following regular discussion, or when soliciting opinions on something that affects the Wikipedia community as a whole. They should be used sparingly, and in this case WP:RFCBEFORE has yet to be satisfied, so an RfC is premature. My close was within guidelines, but in any case Bakkster Man (an uninvolved editor) has already endorsed it.
 * The Bloomberg article, which quotes The New York Times, writes: Mr. Musk also appears unlikely to pay the golden parachutes that the fired top executives of Twitter were set to receive. It has been three months since that report, and no new evidence has emerged that indicates Musk was forced to pay the executives after all — the only way he could have done that is if he was sued and lost, which as far as the general public knows has not happened. If the concern is that doesn't sound concrete enough, we can add in this source from The Information which corroborates NYT but uses stronger wording (Elon Musk terminated four top Twitter executives [...] "for cause" [...] in an apparent effort to avoid paying out tens of millions of dollars in severance pay and unvested stock awards). InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about an edit you reverted. How do you think that qualifies you as uninvolved? Next, the bloomberg source quotes from NYT, so normally we would use the NYT directly. Your summary in wikivoice doesnt accurately summarize the speculation by the source you provided from NYT (or bloomberg). Is Information an RS? Looks like some sort of blog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was an uninvolved editor. I said, We are citing Bloomberg instead of NYT because it also includes a second quote from Financial Times which includes the "mismanaged" bit, and there is no policy that advises against citing sources that quote other sources, so long as both are reliable. As far as I know, The Information is considered reliable, but I'm not sure if there have been any discussions on its reliability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First time I have ever seen an involved editor close an RFC. WP:WL to the absurd going on here with quotes justifying an un-civil close. All we are doing here is discussing the same content, except that it is limited to 4 total editors instead of broader exposure as the RFC process is meant to accomplish. Are you opposed to an RFC? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this was a speedy, procedural close to enforce wiki policy/conventions, not an ordinary close after consensus has been reached. An RfC without any prior discussion is premature and not how the process works. I am not opposed to one in the future, but as I stated earlier, they are only used as a last resort when regular discussion has failed. That rarely happens, and it hasn't happened yet in this case. Your comment that seems to indicate a misunderstanding of what RfCs are for and when they should be used. To reiterate, they are not meant to be used every time a dispute arises. I have proposed an alternate wording below, could you comment on that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I personally do not find the word "circumvented" non-neutral. Fact: the executives fired were entitled to golden parachute payments. Fact: Musk stated that they were fired for cause. Fact: Musk did this to avoid paying the executives. Merriam-Webster defines "circumvent" as: . Oxford defines it as . Neither of those definitions translate to "to commit a crime with malicious intent". But here's a possible rewording nonetheless: How's that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with the POV "in an effort to avoid making payments" unless you have a large number of sources for this or Musk admitting it. Are you just repeating the nyt pov in wikivoice? If yes, that is not neutral. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't care much about using "circumvented", but I do care about an opinion piece being used as the sole source for a wiki-voice statement of fact. This topic overall, and this line specifically, are controversial enough that we should adhere to WP:RSOPINION. If the content is going to stay, it should be attributed to Levine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This wasn't an opinion piece. The NYT reported that Musk fired the executives for cause so he could avoid having to pay the golden parachutes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cite the NYT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I mean we should cite the NYT in the article, instead of the opinion piece. We should also tweak the article language to match what is supported by the NYT source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, we were using Bloomberg because it included quotes from both NYT ("for cause") and Financial Times ("mismanaged"), but this can be done. In regards to the language, we could do . FT has a hard paywall, so I think we can still use Bloomberg to source the "mismanagement" portion of the sentence, in addition to NYT. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your proposed text would definitely be an improvement. I don't think the FT paywall is a reason to cite an opinion piece. Incidentally, if anyone would like a copy of the FT piece to improve this or any other article, I can email a pdf. The language would be better if the attribution that the sources themselves mention, with both the "for cause" termination and the reason ("mismanaged") attributed to "people familiar with the matter"/"people with knowledge of the matter". FT also doesn't quite support "unlikely", but we could go with "Musk might not make", which is covered by both. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to state who NYT and FT's sources are, but we could do this to address the issue with "unlikely": InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Better still. I disagree about the sources' sources, but I'd favor installing your version right away, and I'm interested to see how others feel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is proposed is not worse than we currently have. However, is it due to speculate (or repeat opinion/speculation of newspaper writers) about what Musk might do in the future? Especially speculation about Musk potentially violating the law or breaking a contract (a civil issue). Why are we including this type of forwarding looking statement anyhow? 'Musk might land on mars with his spacecraft but is unlikely to feed the Martians even if they are thirsty' said the NYT... Would this OSE also be due if the NYT opinion columnist states it and bloomberg repeats it? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Because this is a notable/noteworthy development reported by (at least) two highly reputable publications. This is neither undue speculation nor an opinion piece. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Firefangledfeathers, I'm assuming you have access to FT, could you fill in the missing last, first, and date fields? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Responding to a couple things out of order: IN, FT params added as requested. JT, what do you mean by OSE? I'm inclined to agree with IN on this being due, though I wonder if there has been any followup since October that might make the speculation point moot. Might have time to look into it soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, FFF. To answer your second question, no, we've heard nothing about golden parachutes — or the fired executives, for that matter — since October. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, so all we have here is an opinion piece from NYT and a blog that support WP:CRYSTAL about Musk theoretically maybe violating the law (either criminally or civilly) in the future? Correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing it, but the NYT article we cite doesn't seem to be marked as opinion or editorial in nature, nor as a contributor blog. The NYT attributes the "for cause" dismissal to two unnamed sources "with knowledge of the matter", and we now attribute it to NYT rather than in wikivoice. To me, this meets the criteria in WP:VOICE (I think there's a case that this might not need to be attributed, but it's reasonable to err on the side of attribution here given the valid dispute). And given that we're citing the New York Times, a traditionally highly reliable and notable source, I don't think there's much of a case that this is WP:UNDUE weight to a tiny fringe topic.
 * I still don't see the CRYSTAL concern about 'implied illegality' here. We're not suggesting or implying any misconduct from Musk. We simply cite the report that says he dismissed them "for cause" (which might very well be valid, and we aren't using any WP:WEASEL words to suggest otherwise), and another report that says the dismissed execs are considering whether or not to file a legal challenge. This is not unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions which CRYSTAL prohibits, this is attributed reporting of the views of two opposing parties. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the first part of the statement is factually based and present tense (assuming correct) "terminated for cause" the second part is speculative as to whether or not something might happen in the future as a result of the termination of for cause, if Musk might have committed a crime or civil violation (yet hasnt been charged for it). Considering whether to file legal action is also factual based, and is not something we are discussing here (at least until you mentioned it). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All this sounds like the reason why we attributed the claims to their sources instead of wikivoicing, yes. Bakkster Man (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, you had said above you were making a case against attribution and my response was related to that. As long as it is attributed I dont think I am opposed to it. My initial edits and RFC and this discussion were dealing with wikivoice content which is clearly objectionable against against policy. Wikipedia doesnt predict the future. If NYT predictions are deemed due, that is a different matter entirely. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I wasn't arguing against attribution. I was saying there was a hypothetical case against it, but given that your opposition was reasonably founded (ie. not violating WP:VOICE by stating facts as opinions) we're better off just leaving it attributed until/unless there's concrete reporting (ie. not based on unnamed sourced). To put it another way, I'd have been happy to keep it unattributed only if there was no dispute.
 * I still don't think you're reading WP:CRYSTAL right (it's about articles for hypothetical topics, not well sourced content in articles), and don't think what we've got in the article cited to the NYT is accurately described as predictions. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I dispute the content on this BLP both attributed and un-attributed. WP:CRYSTAL says "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." Talking about Musk committing a crime (and or a civil contract violation) in the future (since he hasnt been charged or sued yet so we have no actual present day source) is just that. Crystal goes on to say "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included." So, we are on to the question if NYT's authors of this source are legal experts. Are the authors legal or HR experts? If not, I argue it goes away, with or without attribution. If we have a Dream Team (law) member here or someone at at least that has a wikipedia page saying showing their expertise in law AND it is published in a reliable source, we can continue discuss it. If not, we have a CRYSTAL violation on a BLP that is disparangig to the BLP subject, this is a pretty cut and dried matter. Please advise if these NYT authors are noted experts in the field of HR law and if they are not, please remove it asap. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But we're neither predicting the future, nor making unverifiable speculation. The first sentence is a report on something that happened in the past (dismissal for cause), the second is referencing the subject of the paragraph's current (now past) consideration. Both are verifiable by being attributed to the cited source so other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source (as per WP:V). We don't require a relevant expert source because we're not making any predictions in the disputed sentences.
 * When I think of what would rise to the level of a WP:CRYSTAL violation, an example would be: Some people think Musk may try to avoid paying by claiming dismissal "for cause". If he did, the fired executives might sue. The first sentence would be unverifiable speculation, the latter would require an expert source. But our sentences are compliant with WP:V, and if we're verifiable then we aren't violating WP:CRYSTAL.
 * And again, to be clear, citing a source that says the execs were dismissed for cause is not speculation about Musk committing a crime (and or a civil contract violation) in the future. It is just the categorization for the dismissal. I would agree with you if we were speculating on the details - what cause is alleged, or suggesting fraud on Musk's part - but we're not. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to narrow this is currently the part I object to "Musk was unlikely to make the payments". This refers to a future action (to make payments) and is not past tense (eg didnt make payments). If we can find a source stating he didnt make the payments (eg missed payments have occurred, lawsuits have been filed already, etc), then I drop this. Again this is speculation by the NYT that Musk is or isn't going to pay something in the future. WP:CRYSTAL "Wikipedia does not predict the future." We dont predict if Musk is going to do something, unless it meets this expert test above (and certainly NYT is not an expert on Musk's future behavior). To head off any assertion that NYT can predict the future NYT calls his management "erratic" multiple times 1, 2, and FT jumps on as well, etc. So if NYT admits he is erratic (it means they are stating his behavior is unpredictable) so we are not going to follow on then with NYT predicting something as NYT has already admitted they cant predict him. Can we remove this section of text or we need to go to RFC as I originally had wanted to do? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that concern. In this circumstance, I believe the two concepts are tightly coupled enough that it's not a case of prediction. Refusing to pay severance is precisely what we expect from firing employees 'for cause', it would be speculative to suggest he would pay severance despite going out of the way to fire 'for cause'. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not correct. I have told you at least twice that the NYT article is not an opinion piece, and The Information is not a blog. Two editors have explained to you that the text does not suggest committed a crime, and two editors have explained to you that this information is due. This is becoming an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT situation
 * I'm concerned with your continued misunderstanding of the Wikipedia guidelines you quote. We had another discussion a while ago in which you cited CRYSTAL and DUE, and you were told back then what those guidelines actually mean. Yet you are now once again citing those guidelines when they have nothing to do with this. You also seem to not understand POVPUSH, CIRCUS, ONUS, WIKILAWYERING, and how RfCs work. Please reread those links before citing them. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Source
Here is a source today in Guardian that states staff are unhappy with the severance and filed a lawsuit about it. This can maybe be used to dispense with the crystal. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote: "Now more than 500 employees, with Shevat among the highest-ranking, are pursuing legal action against Musk for what they are owed, in addition to his alleged discrimination against minority groups in his handling of the layoffs." do you want to use this instead? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, i now see that presently in the article it states "but The New York Times reported that Musk was unlikely to make the payments because the executives [Agrawal, Segal, and Gadde] had been dismissed for cause" and this is referring to the executives terminated for cause. This new Guardian source seems to refer to rank and file employees seeking compensation, so maybe we are talking about different things. The crystal statement where NYT attempts to predict if the golden parachutes will be paid needs to go per crystal (unless someone can find an actual source with details of it, not just predictions), the new statement about rank and file can be added, but my opinion better to be added to Twitter under Elon Musk. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The NYT report is not, not, not CRYSTAL. It is a report/analysis from a highly respected and reputable source, and should thus be treated as fact on Wikipedia unless proven otherwise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The current wording is crystal and speaks of a projection of what might or might not happen in the future. You are starting to bludgeon the issue. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are flogging a dead horse. Both Bakkster Man and I have explained to you in detail how this does not contravene CRYSTAL. I've cited CRYSTAL an infinite number of times elsewhere on Wikipedia, and I have seen CRYSTAL being cited an infinite number of times. To break down the opening paragraph of WP:CRYSTAL:
 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. – The key word here is "unverifiable". The content in this case is sourced to the NYT.
 * Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. – Ths part discusses articles dedicated to future events. This article documents a past/current event.
 * It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. – There you have it, sourced statements about future developments are permitted.
 * It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. – Not applicable here.
 * Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. – The NYT is a highly reliable source, and editors have agreed this information is due.
 * In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). – Also not applicable here.
 * The next five bullet points discuss scheduled or expected future events; a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names; extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"; and product announcements and rumors, none of which are relevant. If there is anything else you need clarified, please let me know. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * NYT does not meet 'expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". I dont think this discussion is going anywhere. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It says (bolding my own). InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That position would assert that NYT can speculate about anything they want in the future since they are reliable at everything? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think we have differing interpretations of WP:SYNTH. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If NYT began making unreliable speculation without firm basis on a regular basis, we would cease to consider the NYT a reliable source. But even there, our first stop is typically to attribute these kinds of claims to the source instead of using wikivoice, which we're already doing here. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

further reading againg
removed per WP:NOTDIR putting here per WP:PRESERVE Removed in no particular order with no particular weight, just kept the first three. Maybe the whole section needs to be blanked if editors keep adding it back. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * . This was not a WP:NOTDIR violation and is in line with the purpose of WP:FURTHERREADING. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur that WP:NOTDIR does not apply to Further Reading sections, only to a hypothetical List of news articles related to the Elon Musk Twitter Acquisition article. I'm concerned that this kind of continued misapplication of WP:PAGs is reaching WP:CIR or WP:GAMING levels, and needs to stop.
 * I also agree that six articles is entirely within the reasonable number of publications that can be cited. Removing to trim to an arbitrary number, with no particular weight, is not a good rationale. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)