Jump to content

Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 26 April 2022

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

The result of the move request was: speedy moved to Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk due to heavy WP:SNOW: near-unanimous opposition to Takeover and likewise support for Acquisition. El_C 08:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk → Buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk – The word "takeover" is a bit POVish here and doesn't factually describe what is happening which is either a "buyout" or an "acquisition" of Twitter by Musk. Yes, I know the speculation is that Musk wants to take over how Twitter operates to his own ends, but that's speculation and should not be how we present the topic. Masem (t) 00:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

+1 for Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk; sounds neutral. Nythar (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
+1 for "Acquisition". Standard finance term. Let's imagine we are in a business school, and not in David Foster Wallace seminar on how to not overthink (you can't trust his advice on the matter). 2600:1012:B047:3A4F:A09B:4D43:4563:61FA (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protection

Can this page be edit locked? 2601:409:8500:CD50:F155:F308:38DE:BDA4 (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Not unless there's a good reason to. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Mate, I bet that this will be heavily vandalised by both Muskquitos and Anti-Muskquitos. Ocemccool (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Muskquitos? I learn a new word, I guess. Anyway, be that as it may: Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. El_C 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Off-topic comment containing external link hidden — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0xDeadbeef (talk • contribs)
You didn't sign your censorship! El_C 12:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Rule number one of new Twitter: the ban hammer is a real hammer (Shut down me). El_C 08:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@El C: Where does it all end? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
What, I'm not gonna hit you with a hammer, again (or will I?). El_C 13:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@El C: that unsigned comment note is pretty funny. 0xDeadbeef (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Amount of offer

In the lead, it says $43 billion as Musk's offer ... and, then, just a few sentences later, it says $44 billion as the offer. Can someone please fix the error ... or, if no error, explain the discrepancy. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no error. Musk's offer was reported to be $43 billion, while the final deal was reported to be $44 billion. Could possibly have something to do with rounding, but that's WP:OR on my part and can't be used as an explanation in the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but as I said ... "if no error, explain the discrepancy". I am sure there's some explanation out there, somewhere. Left as is -- without any clarification -- readers will just assume a typo. Even an added word like "Musk's revised offer" ... or some such. I have no idea about the specifics, so I wasn't competent to make the edit. Or, it can say "the original offer was stated as $43B, which was later reported as $44B" ... or whatever. Having both statements in the lead, as it is now, is confusing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that we don't know why there is a discrepancy. It could be a revised offer, or a rounding error, or that initial reports were inaccurate, or Twitter made a counteroffer, or the value of Twitter shares went up. Whatever it is, unless a reliable source tells us so, we can't provide an explanation. If you have any ideas on how to clarify the confusion without doing any WP:OR, then let's hear it. The original offer was stated as $43B, which was later reported as $44B wouldn't work because that suggests an error in initial reports. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I have not paid much attention to this story. I just noticed the discrepancy in the lead. Just now, I did some Google searching. Most sources say something like "about $44B" or "approximately $44B" or some such. So, I assume that that is the discrepancy. I am sure we can find a proper re-wording / clarification. At the very least, we can just use two (or more) sources that say "approximately $44B" ... since that seems to be the more prevalent figure floating around in RS's. And we can nix the other source and its discrepant dollar value. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Also, I just noticed. I think the "actual" agreement was $54.20 per share ... and all of that business of $43B versus $44B are just estimates and approximations. Regardless, a clarification of some sort is better than an explicit discrepancy. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:31, 28 April 2022
Also, also, I just noticed. The lead does not have a single citation or source referenced. Making our job that much easier. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
There are no citations because of WP:LEADCITE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Virtually all sources agree on the $43 billion figure for the initial offer. Likewise, virtually all sources reported that the final deal closed at $44 billion. We can't just retcon the initial value. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. But this is the biggest news of the past week or so. Is there no reliable source to explain the discrepancy? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Scoured the web for an explanation, but none found so far. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I will try to take a closer look, also. Thanks for your input and for the civil discourse. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

OK. I found this. Is this helpful at all?

What we know: The Price: Musk said in his original bid for Twitter that he wouldn’t budge from the price of $54.20 per share. He stuck to that promise, announcing the all-cash deal for exactly that amount. Though his initial filing valued the offer at $43 billion based on the company’s outstanding stock, Monday’s confirmation bumped that figure to $44 billion. That’s likely a quirk of the numbers of shares being counted, rather than any adjustment to the price. Source:Bloomberg.

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Since the quote says likely, I don't know what we can do with that. How about we just remove mention of the $43 billion figure in the lead? Would that be less confusing? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Reactions section

We see to have a lot of speculation of what might happen with twitter if Musk is allowed to purchase it, with various political pundits giving their opinions and we are in some cases following these quotes. I would think these need to be summarized and not quoted, as they seem to be bordering on UNDUE. Many of these statements are forwarding looking crystal ball statements. 

Fergus Ryan, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said, "There will be lots of opportunities for Beijing to put the squeeze on Musk", as China has a record of using business interests to extract political concessions.

For example, why would we include a crystal statement as a quote when we wouldnt summarize it due to WP:CRYSTAL? And then 

Thierry Breton, the European Commissioner for Internal Market, emphasized that "any company operating in Europe needs to comply with [their] rules", while the European Union announcing that new online rules will "overhaul" the digital market and Tech Giants.

This quote from the EU commissioner seems to talk about future overhauling (again crystal applies?) of social media rules that might happen? The section isn't horrible yet (as it is small) but how will this develop? I didn't delete these two sentences, as I thought my reading of WP policy might be worth getting some feedback on first. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

From what I understand, most of WP:CRYSTAL applies to the unfounded speculation of Wikipedia editors, but there is a relevant bit in the first paragraph: 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. In this case, the onus is on whether we consider the two being quoted to be experts or "recognized entities", which based on their titles appears plausible.
As to the warning about undue bias, the quotes are in a section that is about reactions to the acquisition, and they are properly attributed, so I personally don't see an issue with them, though somebody else may. (I will note that the bit about "overhaul"ing digital markets appears to have been added by the BBC and not Breton, which might be worth adjusting) (aand I'm back again. I made a small adjustment to the bit about China, but the added "flavor" after each of the quotes may be questionable still..)14:19, 27 April 2022 (UTC) ASUKITE 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Multiple pieces of (what I believe is) valid commentary from reliable sources or subject-matter experts were removed from the article yesterday: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Should they be added back? I was thinking maybe we could add an Analysis section under § Reactions if there are concerns with WP:NPOV and/or WP:UNDUE? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the clear analysis from Asukite. It does seem I was misunderstanding WP:crystal to an extent and that made me clear. I think we are dealing with a DUE and NPOV issue here, with some content being removed (seems mostly opinions of wall street analysts) with only inclusion of political pundits as I gather from InfiniteNexus's note. I think we need to do our best to include most of it so it is balanced (as I personally dont see the value of a political speculation above a wall street speculation or HR speculation). Might also be another approach to summarize it, as the pundits will keep doing their jobs, otherwise they wouldn't be pundits. But do we give them all space for their quotes here? I am sure they would like that, but it seems to me normally we summarize unless there is a reason for the word for word quote, and I dont see one today. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
So are you for or against including commentary from political pundits? I personally think we should be including as many viewpoints as possible. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I am opposed to including political pundits while excluding financial pundits. Generally speaking I would prefer that we summarize sources and stay away from quotes. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Difference

What is the difference between reactions post announcement and analysis. Seems these sections could be merged, they look the same subject to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Analysis section is for opinions, commentary, and speculation from analysts, journalists, and subject-matter experts. The Post-announcement section is for those involved in the acquisition, notable public figures, and the general public. At least, that was my thinking, do you have an alternate suggestion to organize the Reactions section? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

so called technologists in Washington Post

"which was echoed by other technologists."[1]

The so called technologists:

  • Imran Ahmed, CEO of the nonprofit group Center for Center for Countering Digital Hate
  • Yishan Wong, a former CEO of the Internet platform Reddit, Wong, a "Silicon Valley pioneer"
  • Katie Harbath public policy pundit
  • Esther Crawford (twitter employee)

Are any of these people really technologists other than Wong. Are they even notable enough to mention? Certainly not in wikivoice. I changed this on the article to say it is the opinion of the Washington Post. Or if editors really want to use the term technologist, then need to refer to what Wong stated. Note that Jack Dorsey is also quoted in the news source, but we all know that he has come out in favor of Musk's acquisition, so that cant really be part of this against argument. Very difficult to do all of this in wikivoice from what I see. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dwoskin, Elizabeth (April 18, 2022). "Elon Musk wants a free speech utopia. Technologists clap back". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on April 18, 2022. Retrieved April 24, 2022.

Wording in the Lead

Under consensus, the title of the article was changed to "acquisition", should we also change takeover in the article's lead to reflect that? Willthehelpfuleditor (talk 13:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Don't see a need for a change. "Buyout" is synonymous with "acquisition". InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
The word "buyout" and "acquisition" are very similar, but there is a subtle difference. Typically acquisition means "act or process of acquiring". Whereas "buyout" means "acquisition of a controlling interest in a business or corporation by outright purchase or by purchase of a majority of issued shares of stock." Given what occurred with Twitter, either term could be used but the terms are not the same. Jurisdicta (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
There was snow closed RFC on this. The consensus is to use acquisition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
The snow close was for the article's title, not the wording in the lead and body. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I understand this is discussing the section. How about we just use "Purchase" as it is more descriptive. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to resurrect a wrapped-up thread but why exactly is Musk described as a "business magnate" in the lead instead of the usual 'entrepreneur' or 'businessman'? Magnate is a strong, emotional word that sticks out to me. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't know why it was changed, the original wording was "entrepreneur". But I don't think "business magnate" is incorrect here, and that is how he is described in the first sentence of his article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Ineligible for DYK as the article is currently on ITN.

(
)

Created by InfiniteNexus (talk). Nominated by Fakescientist8000 (talk) at 17:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC).

NYT in depth

Lot of depth here without paywall on the deal and timeline. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've added this one to § Further reading until/unless some info from the article is added into the article's body. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Also a bit about reaction here in NYT, including a quote from twitter by acquirer, that would not be RS. This statement by Musk seems to lend towards intent: 

“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally,”

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Removing Babylon Bee story

The background section currently heavily features the story of the Babylon Bee Twitter suspension, featuring it as 'the' reason Elon is buying Twitter. However, the only source for this is the CEO of Babylon Bee claiming this, in a story by the not particularly well-regarded Washington Times. I would argue this hearsay is not well-sourced enough to be included in this article, especially seeing as Elon had teased about buying Twitter multiple times before that instance. Coretteket (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Definitely agree, especially since the timeline cited in the paragraph notes Musk began building his share holdings a month and a half before the Bee suspension. I don't think it will be hard to speak more broadly of the rhetoric and zeitgeist around Twitter suspensions in general, rather than particular incidents without a good source linking them directly as the catalyst of the purchase. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
~~Made a WP:BOLD edit to this effect.~~ Bakkster Man (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Apparently I never hit submit, but Firefangledfeathers had me covered. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Reverted by Jtbobwaysf. Hi Jt, was my removal really unexplained? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
What was removed contained multiple sources, not a single source that was discussed here. The historical context that leads up to the acquisition is certainly encyclopedic and when I look in google there seem to be pages of sources related to it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Only one source (Washington Times, case-by-case reliable per WP:RSP) made a connection between Babylon Bee and Musk, and attributed it to the Bee's CEO: Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon said Monday that Twitter’s decision to suspend the Bee’s account may have been “the last straw” for billionaire Elon Musk. This is arguably insufficiently reliable to claim as 'background information', in particular by mentioning it solely and not alongside any other controversial suspension by Twitter (MTG, DJT, Matt Walsh, etc). Particularly when our Bloomberg citation indicated stock purchases began well in advance of The Bee getting banned.
If Babylon Bee isn't meaningful background information, then the other sources are unnecessary, since none of them reference the buyout at all. And if we're going to mention the Bee at all (ideally, in the context of the larger public conversation about social media and free speech, not as if it's the sole incident Musk would be reacting to), I think we'd be better off trimming it to one sentence of "Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon claimed..." than spending three sentences WP:COATRACKing one incident. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
I started an RFC below, feel free to get consensus there. In this edit you continue to revert content that is already subject of RFC, that is WP:TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Do you feel we've met the WP:RFCBEFORE threshold of "thorough discussion"? I urge you to withdraw the RfC until we've given local consensus a bit more time to develop. Though I oppose the content, I am fine with leaving it in until consensus develops, though I think BRD/ONUS would favor leaving it out pending consensus. If restored, please use this Bloomberg source instead of the Washington Times one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:PAGs seem clear to me on this. Which I've cited to make clear my rationale for removal pending consensus. Notably, WP:ONUS: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. If you feel strongly that my policy-motivated revert of your "I just made an RFC" revert (prior to your engagement in this existing Talk page discussion on the topic) meets the criteria for WP:TE, please feel free to take it to AE accordingly. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
We can discuss this down below in the RFC. Yes, you removing content that is subject of active RFC after RFC is already in place is TE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Please either strike your accusations, or take it to the admins. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
It appears that you are using this RFC simply as a way to prevent people from making edits you disagree with, we dont need a RFC as of now Googleguy007 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Babylon Bee content

Keep or remove the The Babylon Bee content leading up the the acquisition. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

  • @Jtbobwaysf : keep, somewhat agree with keeping at least until controversy resolved, as this is current history; page content could be redacted.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove for being unreliable: it's a questionable source quoting the CEO of the banned group and nobody else. Replace with description of broader topic of Deplatforming, unless a reliable source can be found identifying this incident as the primary catalyst for the acquisition. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    In this edit you removed The Hill, The Independent, Newsweek, and Washington Times. Which of those specifically is a questionable source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    The Hill, The Independent, and Newsweek didn't mention Musk at all. Per RSP, the Times has no consensus on reliability. In my edit summary, I described it as "unreliable", which I suppose I should have clarified is based on my opinion + RSP and not centralized consensus alone. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    Washington Times and Newsweek are both listed yellow at WP:RSP, meaning reliability is case-by-case. This kind of political culture war link is the kind of thing where their reliability is most likely to be called into question. The others are reliable for coverage at The Babylon Bee#Social media and other platforms, but don't directly address the link between the Bee's block and Musk's decision to make an acquisition offer. If I've missed it in these reliable articles, please correct me. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm with Firefangledfeathers and Bakkster Man, WP:RS don't seem to actually be discussing it in such a way as would merit coverage on this particular page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove, per Firefangledfeathers and Bakkster Man. If there is some inclusion it should be as an attributed statement by the Babylon Bee CEO in the broader context of sources reasoning behind buying Twitter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • Comment The historical background for the acquisition is encyclopedic and undisputed. We also have sources Megyn Kelly show, Washington Examiner, BNN Bloomberg, NY Mag, Washington Post, etc. I dont see how this content can be considered poorly sourced, nor is it controversial. Maybe I am misunderstanding something? If the original statement must be attributed to the CEO of, that's fine with me. But I dont see how whitewashing is called for here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    That this particular element of historical background has particular notability for the acquisition is, indeed, disputed. Primarily in terms of whether the person who runs a banned account actually got contacted by Elon Musk after the ban in regards to his intent to purchase. Nobody disputes that Seth Dillon said Musk contacted him, we dispute that this is relevant enough to be in this article's Background section, the first section of the article. I'll make note that WP:UNDUE includes prominence of placement and the juxtaposition of statements as elements that can lead to undue prominence, and I'd be much more willing to consider "Seth Dillon said..." in the Reactions Pre-announcement section to avoid this concern.
    Regarding the source we actually cite, you've provided a WP:YOUTUBE link, another WP:RSP yellow link for partisanship, an opinion piece, a reliable (if minor) source in Bloomberg BNN Canada, and then two potentially reliable sources that don't mention Babylon Bee in relation to Musk's decision to purchase Twitter. To the point of contention here, if this were indisputably a notable enough piece of background information for the first section of the article, it would be easy to find multiple reliable non-partisan sources making the connection as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
    To clarify, your position is that the alleged reason Musk bought twitter is UNDUE? The Megyn Kelly show is on SiriusXM and it is just as much an RS as CNBC shows on youtube are as well. It is not user generated content as you contend. We use youtube links all the time when the show itself is notable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    WP:UNDUE for the first section, while it remains solely based on the claims of Seth Dillon, yes. Bakkster Man (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed, and even Dillon doesn't allege that the Bee's ban was the "reason Musk bought twitter". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:14, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
    OK, then is it undue if the allegation is attributed to Dillon? Did Bloomberg do a follow up piece on the allegations? I dont have access to bloomberg, seems to be paywall. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Concur generally with Jtbobwaysf, and with Bakkster Man's "I'd be much more willing to consider 'Seth Dillon said...' in the 'Reactions pre-announcement' section". It's not that it's completely undue somewhere in the article, but it is undue for the first section, in combination with the other statements in that section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove per Firefangledfeathers analysis of the sourcing provided. More reliable sourcing would be needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with the editors above me who said this should be moved somewhere else, probably in the pre-announcement reactions section (particularly because the background section is so short). It's too much if we're having to rely on what Seth Dillon said. It could also be shorter, something to the effect of After the Twitter account of Christian conservative satire website The Babylon Bee was suspended for referring to Rachel Levine, a transgender woman, as their "Man of The Year", Babylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon said that the website was contacted by Musk, who mused that he "might need to buy Twitter". Or something like that. Regarding sources, these Bloomberg and Fox Business articles seem good enough to me. Endwise (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep, move & re-word per Endwise and others above. The content is well sourced, encyclopedic, and non-controversial. It does seem to need to be re-worded as others have pointed out and it should be moved to pre-announcement reactions section. There are ample sources (Fox, Bloomberg, etc) linking these events and we would be doing the reader a disservice to remove them entirely. We can cover them in a neutral way in such a way at the reader can reach their own opinion. At Wikipedia we cover events, no need for us to WP:SYNTH to form our opinion and then push that opinion on the reader. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove - There doesn't seem to be a consensus about any relation between the banning of that account and Musk's decision to buy Twitter. If more RSs pop up making that claim, then the text could be added back, perhaps to the background section. PraiseVivec (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep and mention (shorten), per Endwise's summation above. GenQuest "scribble" 14:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove for now unless it's picked up by more / higher-quality sources. Things related to major, controversial culture-war issues should not be cited to low-quality sources like the Washington Times or (when it comes to American politics) Fox. The Bloomberg and Fox Business sources aren't usable because they're from prior to the acquisition and therefore don't, themselves, make the connection we're trying to make here; and beyond that, the brief one-paragraph bit in the Bloomberg piece would hardly be enough to establish due weight. It is the sort of claim that, if it is true and significant, ought to have more and better sources by now given the comparative significance of the larger topic. --Aquillion (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove as this is a questionable source (case by case). I suggest finding more reliable sources before it's added back to the page. Some of everything (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Bloomberg is a reliable source that provides info about the Babylon Bee's relation to the purchase[1]. X-Editor (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    Reliable that Seth Dillon tweeted the claim, yes. But a short (three sentences, plus the embedded tweet) Bloomberg piece with no critical analysis or follow-up reporting implies it's not that notable. It's also worth pointing out, this source is from the week prior to Musk's acquisition proposal, so it doesn't actually provide any info about the Babylon Bee's relation to the purchase, just a suggested relation to Musk running a Twitter poll about free speech. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove and trout the OP for starting an RfC before a "reasonable attempt" at local consensus was made (WP:RFCBEFORE). The paucity of reliable sourcing floats like a dull dinghy in an ocean of coverage about this subject. I think there's a good-faith argument—which I'd disagree with—that it'd be due to mention the banning of the Bee among other things Musk had criticized Twitter for. The actual language under consideration here, which implies that the banning was a cause of the purchase attempt, is patently undue. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Acquisition and... harassment by whom?

It is not clear in the section Acquisition... in para 2 whom the harassment is by or whom to, at least in this para's context, to the reader unfamiliar with the most current controversy: Musk by objectors or vice versa, by or to investors, or users by other users.D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The comment "Twitter general counsel Vijaya Gadde was criticized by Musk, cried during a meeting after the announcement, and was subjected to online ridicule" should reference the fact that the criticism was based on Gadde's censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story, a decision criticized by Jack Dorsey himself. This just makes Musk seem like a bully while Gadde's malfeasance goes unmentioned. 98.116.104.130 (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it the past this section said she was subject to ridicule on social media. But this content is constantly edited, so it seems to veer of course. In fact Gadde is often referred to as the twitter censorship chief/czar/head/etc. But the article until now hasn't reflected that well (there seems to be strong opposition to using plain and simple text to express this). The text is again and again WP:WEASEL down to play that down. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
In fact Gadde is often referred to as the twitter censorship chief/czar/head/etc. Do you have a source for this? The Vijaya Gadde article only uses the word 'censor' twice: once to describe the Hunter Biden decision, and once with the weak attribution podcast host Saagar Enjeti who called her “top censorship advocate”. As for the opposition, WP:BLP makes it pretty clear what our responsibility is.
Not repeating weak, non-notable allegations (again, if you've got strong citations to the contrary, please share) is not WP:WEASEL. It is policy. Actually, your assertion above is what would be WEASEL if put into an article. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Any updates on the deal?

Dear colleagues, you could use these sources for recent news:

Also, I wish I had a reliable source with the analysis of how the Tesla shares falling below $800 impacted the deal (see https://twitter.com/WallStCynic/status/1520122678421696512 for context). Ain92 (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

plus Added, minus the last tweet (which we obviously can't use). InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 May 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) BilledMammal (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk → Proposed acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk – The acquisition has not happened, yet the title suggests it has, that an acquisition has indeed taken place. Further, there is no certainty it will ever happen. Musk has made a proposal, the board has tentatively accepted pending some things, and meanwhile other events might complicate the completion. So while the possibility of the acquisition and its related events are worthy of the article, the title should reflect the fact it is currently merely something that might happen. ZimZalaBim talk 21:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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

Gary Gensler

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: Could you point out to me exactly what information in relation to the Twitter acquisition can be found at Gary Gensler § SEC but not here? I myself didn't see anything particularly noteworthy that we haven't covered here, in fact I think that article has excessive information about the Twitter deal. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Apologies. Upon re-reading the article, I thought I did not see something I had included at the Gensler article that was not included here. If you feel like the link is unnecessary, we can remove it. I disagree that the Gensler article has excessive detail related to the Twitter acquisition proposal. The SEC is investigating Musk's initial stake in the company. Musk's conduct during the course of the acquisition attempt is being invoked in a lawsuit against him by Twitter shareholders alleging market manipulation and insider trading. Enforcing laws against market manipulation and insider trading is within the regulatory purview of the SEC. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
No apologies necessary. minus Removed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Subsection headers

In the wake of Musk's withdrawal I've adjusted the subsection headings for the § Reactions and § Critical analysis sections, but I'm not happy with their wordiness/awkwardness/repetitiveness. Are there any suggestions for better headings? InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would be better to have the top-level sections be chronological (Takeover bid, Acquisition announcement, Attempted withdrawal) and the subsections be by topic where needed (Reactions, Critical analysis). If there's support for this I can do the reorganization. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
It would be incorrect to refer to the withdrawal as "attempted" when the title of this page describes the acquisition offer as "proposed." IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
That would probably create even more repetition, and a separate Reactions/Reception section is standard convention. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I think withdrawal would be more appropriate, as the attempted part is all speculation WP:CRYSTAL if the court compels. But as of now it is withdrawn. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
I think a case could be made that the withdrawal going through is the WP:CRYSTAL part. Perhaps 'Announcement' is a better caveat than 'Attempted' as it describes the current state prior to the withdrawal being finalized, which can be removed/changed if/when the deal closes/dissolves. Perhaps "Withdrawal Announcement and Legal Challenge"? Bakkster Man (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Musk doesn't need permission to withdraw from the deal, he needs permission to terminate the deal. This doesn't conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm missing the nuance of the distinction between "withdrawing" and "terminating". In any case, seems Twitter hasn't agreed to the intention to withdraw, and so 'announcement' seems like a reasonable caveat to indicate that. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a legally binding contract in effect, and it has not been set aside by any court. Right now Musk is attempting to withdraw; he has not actually successfully withdrawn at this time. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
All this lawyer pretending is beyond the scope of wikipedia. It is probably still a proposed acquisition, and it failed, or maybe the courts will order it to continue, maybe Musk will refuse...How many more crystal permutations shall we consider? Proposed is past tense, I suppose at this point in time it is still an accurate description. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the WP:BOLD edit spreading the Reactions and Critical analysis sections across the article, such a change should be thoroughly discussed here first (WP:BRD). It would be more readable and reasonable to have all the facts in one big section and all the opinions in another. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the buyout of Twitter official now or is it still in litigation?

Is the buyout of Twitter by Elon Musk official or is it still in litigation? 2601:85:4680:B0A0:AD23:522:8923:AB41 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

According to the SEC filings and many news sources like CNBC on October 4, the deal is official and back on Efuture2 (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It could be both as well according to the AP story "In response, Twitter said it intends to close the transaction at $54.20 per share after receiving the letter from Musk. But the company stopped short of saying it’s dropping its lawsuit against the billionaire Tesla CEO. Experts said that makes sense given the contentious relationship and lack of trust between the two parties."
https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-twitter-inc-technology-business-f52c7655942aaab05ee5be7a1388e0fd?taid=633c8c98def0cc00013d365f&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter Efuture2 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
WSJ says the trial could still go on. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

InfoBox - "Status" should be updated from "Pending litigation" to "pending acquisition"

The status in the infobox should be updated based on the news that was released today from "Pending litigation" to "pending acquisition". I updated that but it was changed back to Pending litigation, which seems to be outdated at the moment Efuture2 (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

It should just say "pending", for simplicity. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Ben Weingarten of The Federalist

Discussion here to avoid an edit war and WP:BRD. Proposed edit by GenQuest below:

Ben Weingarten of American conservative magazine The Federalist analogized Musk's actions to a proxy war between citizens and the ruling class.[1]

I'm concerned this opinion is wildly WP:UNDUE without indication that the idea that this is a 'proxy class war' is at the edges of the discourse. While the source itself is usable per WP:RSP, that really should be with consensus that this particular attributed opinion is indeed notable, given due weight, and that attribution to The Federalist is the best way to make note of the opinion.

Pinging David Gerard as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Weingarten, Ben (April 20, 2022). "Elon Musk's Battle Is A Proxy War For Americans vs. The Ruling Class". The Federalist. Archived from the original on April 20, 2022. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
I'd also like to note my concern with both of the edit comments returning the above content citing BRD, which states: Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. Note that these edits were WP:BRB, rather than BRD, and to follow BRD the original editor should be the one to begin the discussion rather than repeating the bold edit. BRB is a potentially acceptable alternative in some instances, but I would suggest not likely when two different users have reverted the edit. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I removed it because I'm pretty sure it's WP:UNDUE. It's a Generally Unreliable source, given to conspiracy theories (per WP:RSP and the RFC leading to its listing there), and the writer isn't even anyone in particular. We list a pile of significant opinions and then there's this weird conspiracist site in the middle. It's entirely unclear to me that this GUNREL site is needed or even useful here for NPOV. If the argument is that we need a conservative-leaning opinion, there are many conservative outlets that are much more noteworthy for opinions and we don't need to scrape the barrel, e.g. we already have National Review in there - David Gerard (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Author seems to have some pedigree in conservative writer circles, but WP:QS clearly delineates how inclusions from questionable sources such as The Federalist ought to be limited in scope. This article certainly is not about the publication, its audience, etc., but about Musk and the Twitter trial. QRep2020 (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we have a problem with WP:UNDUE. Per WP:RSOPINION, sources like The Federalist should be fine to use to cite the author's opinion, as long as we're not using it to cite a factual statement. Undue weight would be dedicating a whole paragraph to the author's opinion, which isn't the case here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I support removing it as undue. In general, the article needs a heavy trim of opinion sources, and we're giving equal or less weight to some opinions that are afforded secondary coverage by reliable non-opinion sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Three things I can discuss here: First, opinions are not subject to Reliable Sourcing decrees, unless the source has been blacklisted. That is not the case here. That would be because opinions are not statements of fact. Second, user Bakkster Man has things a bit backwards. The targeted sentence has been in the article since July 10 as worded; and the sentence—without the author's attribution—from sometime prior (I didn't check how far back that went). BRD clearly states that it is incumbent upon the person (or persons) wishing to remove said statement away from the Status Quo to state why, and make a case for its exclusion. Third, there is no Undue regarding a one sentence opposing opinion. As stated above, BRD requires: Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you. To follow BRD specifically, instead of one of the many alternatives, you must not restore your bold edit, make a different edit to this part of the page, or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Talk to that one person until the two of you have reached an agreement. It was Users Bakkster Man and David Gerard who made the disputed BOLD removal, not I.
I welcome hearing the case to be made for removing the said sentence after an—at least—six week inclusion in the article, and no germaine policy reason stated other than indications of "I Don't Like It." Regards, GenQuest "scribble" 03:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It's been here since May. Pinging @X-Editor in case they'd like to comment. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Long tenure for low-quality content doesn't mean it should be kept. This is a spurious argument, which I've only ever seen used as an excuse for bad content. In any case, three months is hardly long tenure, and this is a very recent article. Even if tenure were an argument to keep it - which it isn't - the whole issue is sufficiently dynamic that it wouldn't be an argument with weight even then.
and no germaine policy reason stated other than indications of "I Don't Like It" This response to what I wrote is more of an WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. There is no point at which the mere fact of an action not being specifically forbidden by letter of policy has made it a good idea - that's a different question - David Gerard (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Long tenure of low quality content/sourcing is a really poor argument. It sounds like you are saying the turd should stay because it no longer stinks like a turd. If the content is low quality it must be removed. I too agree it is flagrantly (and potentially still fragrantly) undue. Sometimes something gets added and it takes time for it to be discussed. 'oh, it gets to stay because it has been here three months' please, we remove stuff that has been on articles for years. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
That whole screed seems rather disingenuous, especially where you are putting words into my mouth that I neither said, nor implied. Kind of like your own little WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
No one here is arguing that IF the content is deemed low-quality (which so far is just your OPINION, by the way), that it can stay due to longevity. Nobody said that. Longevity only got brought into the conversation to state why BRD and STATUS QUO needed to be followed, important steps that you and another editor tried to skip. Instead of focusing on this tangential crap, perhaps just explain why you think that the sentence is UNDUE. That is what we're here for. While you're at it, please explain how the entry of a media opinion negatively affects a section devoted to listing media opinions. Then we can move on. It's one sentence for god's sake. GenQuest "scribble" 13:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The Federalist is blacklisted, though the consensus statement was that opinions may be included. That said, suggesting circumstances surrounding a trial constitute a proxy war sounds pretty conspiratorial to me. QRep2020 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
The Federalist is NOT blacklisted or deprecated. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Reporting what he said is not giving credence to any opinion or reaction he may have had, therefore, not a violation of RS. GenQuest "scribble" 15:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, did not realize blacklist was an actual mode rather than a general description of disapproval. Still, the very act of reporting it here on Wikipedia versus the dozens of other published opinions about the matter does lend an implied credence. If he were a specialist in M&A or a lawyer who has worked within the Chancery then it would be a different story. QRep2020 (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@GenQuest: You are correct, I was mistaken on the date of introduction of the source. Please accept my apologies.
I will admit to being quite surprised that it was in the article for 6 weeks without previously being challenged. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
It is an article in flux due to its high profile subject matter and timeliness with dense material - I missed it myself. Regardless, it does not belong. QRep2020 (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: I disagree that the only way for this particular opinion (or any, in general) to be UNDUE is by dedicating a whole paragraph to it. Quantity of text is only one way in which weight is assessed, from WP:UNDUE: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Emphasis added for the two areas I think most apply to this discussion.
I appear to hold a more restrictive interpretation of WP:UNDUE than you. From WP:UNDUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Emphasis added. Is the view that "Musk's battle with Twitter is a proxy class war" a significant viewpoint? Is The Federalist the most reliable source this viewpoint has been published in? Particularly with the latter point, if The Federalist is the most reliable source, perhaps that's indication it's not a significant one. If there's a more reliable source, let's use it instead to end the dispute. This thought process may significantly trim this section if we apply it evenly across (and I believe we should).
One final note, on further review of WP:RSOPINION as you referenced, the mention of WP:BLP for SPS stuck out to me. I do wonder now if the way this source and its sentence was phrased (It's "Musk's proxy war", not just one between Twitter and a new group of investors) might put this on or over that line for additional scrutiny for ascribing the motivation behind actions to Musk personally. Bakkster Man (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
If we go by that reading of WP:UNDUE, we would have to remove much of the conservative commentary. That's why I'm hesitant about this, because if we do that, would it still be a fair and accurate representation of all significant viewpoints? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I think if it is a significant viewpoint, even just significant among one major political group, then we can reasonably apply the 'reliable with attribution' criteria to these sources (not for, by way of comparison, self-pub blogs). But if it's just this one guy in The Federalist saying Elon is waging 'proxy class war', then it seems not to be significant enough to be worth attributing and elevating alongside the other sources. Bakkster Man (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Second as Bakkster Man's argument closely resembles the one I made above. QRep2020 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I support removing the sentence. Are there any other opinions in that section with potential WP:UNDUE concerns? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Please remove it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Given the above WP:BRD concerns, I'd prefer another user to make any edits that have consensus to avoid any appearance of edit warring on my part.
On a review of the Reactions section, I found the other potential items to address:
  • Greg Bensinger of The New York Times, Brendan O'Neill of Spiked, and David Auerbach of UnHerd - All appear to be addressing the same general reaction and could possibly be grouped together. Though there's a big gap in quality between the NYT and the other two, so perhaps best to keep the latter lower prominence or consider removing.
  • Jerry Bowyer of The Christian Post - A 'modern-day Tower of Babel' seems to fit into the same category as the original discussion, an incredibly specific reaction by an otherwise non-notable writer which doesn't appear to be a significant viewpoint.
  • J. Robert McClure III of Washington Examiner and Ben Shapiro of The Daily Signal - The length of the sentence can probably be trimmed to indicate both believe "the negative reaction to Musk's purchase demonstrated the number of those opposed to the idea of free speech".
  • T. C. Sottek of The Verge - Feels coatrack to me, which doesn't add value beyond the existing commentary.
Someone else should do a similar review for any other potential items of concern. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
I made edits attempting to address the latter three items above. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@X-Editor: Ping on this edit, to continue the above discussion. Do you think something changed that makes the "modern day tower of battle" response particularly notable? Bakkster Man (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
"an incredibly specific reaction by an otherwise non-notable writer which doesn't appear to be a significant viewpoint." What rule on Wikipedia's prevents us from adding specific reactions? How is a person with a Wikipedia article a non-notable writer while several opinions in the same section are from people without Wikipedia articles. Why haven't we removed those opinions by your logic? X-Editor (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
From my reading of WP:UNDUE.
Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. (Emphasis added) This is why I pinged in this existing previous discussion, to provide the full context around avoiding this section having what in my view was an undue depth of detail and quantity of text (more than the description of the acquisition itself, despite the silly amount of legal wrangling to cover). I don't feel this particular opinion is notable and prevalent enough to add meaningful context to the section while retaining NPOV. I was hoping you'd have a more specific rebuttal if you disagree.
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. My concern is not necessarily with this source, it's with the specific "chaos was needed to bring change to the modern-day Tower of Babel" claim appearing to be an extremely small minority (or even a single person's) view, rather than something representative of a broader viewpoint. And that's what notability and NPOV direct us to focus on in a section like this. Fair point on the author being bluelinked, which I missed originally, but that doesn't necessarily make everything they say in every opinion piece they write notable for every article. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough X-Editor (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • In the past, on similar articles that had large amounts of commentary, I used a similar solution - identify broad strands of reactions that can be clearly combined into paraphrases. Ideally these would have secondary coverage, but we don't actually require it as long as the way they combine is obvious enough and straightforwardly summarized well enough to avoid WP:SYNTH. I would also emphasize that it's best to use paraphrases, especially to avoid including quotes that are basically dramatic rhetorical flourishes or clearly hyperbolic in nature - the purpose of citing opinion is to represent the broad perspective, not to make an argument in the article by proxy. That is, a cite to an opinion should be for the purpose of "dispassionately note people exist who think X" and not "convince the reader of X". See WP:QUOTATIONS, which says Quotations that present rhetorical language in place of the neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias can be an underhand method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia articles; be very careful. If an opinion doesn't clearly combine with any others, and consists mostly of a snappy quote, it is particularly likely to fall afoul of this. (Also, worrying about "if we balanced things in a WP:DUE manner, would we omit some view entirely?" is WP:FALSEBALANCE but I don't think that's a big problem here because clearly we can find adequate sourcing. Though on the whole when it comes to opinion I tend towards "remove almost everything" anyway - I feel that articles like these can too easily become WP:QUOTEFARMs where people essentially use quotes to argue by proxy in the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I really agree with Aquillion (talk · contribs) comment and am concerned about the number of silly quotes being added. This person thinks x, another person says y. Its all largely undue. Lets just summarize. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikilawyering around how long the bad content has been there and claiming that it not being specifically prohibited is a good reason to keep it ... is not addressing the content itself, which is UNDUE. Perhaps you could discuss why you think this GUNREL source noted specifically for its conspiracist content is in fact a DUE source? That's the question to answer here - David Gerard (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

employee demands

Has the recent demands by employees been incorporated? Seems an interesting development. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's in there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Re: the "data engineers" story

The story was seemingly a hoax; please don't add it to this article until proper sourcing is found. I'm saying this preemptively; this bit has thankfully not been added yet, but it's sadly been spread by a WP:RS. DFlhb (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Guessing you're referring to this one. Probably a good reminder to think about the WP:10YT before adding fine grain detail to a story about a current event. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Yup, that's the one. I posted this before the retraction; I was worried it would catch on and spread to other outlets.
Another good reminder is to wait until there are multiple sources for any big claims (and doing mass layoffs on the day on an acquisition is certainly a *huge* claim). Or, to look at it another way, editors should take more time to scrutiminze stories to make their own opinion about reliability; claims about mass firings that are based on two self-identified employees obviously should be taken less seriously than a claim attributed to Twitter's PR team or executives. DFlhb (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The Verge has reported on the hoax, which we can add (if it hasn't been already). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Even here, WP:10YT-worthy? Not saying it won't be notable, but let's not rush to elevate what seems to be a prank from two guys with WP:UNDUE notability relating to a $44B corporate acquisition. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

EDIT PROTECT THIS PAGE

JUST DO IT !!!! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Making multiple edits like this is neither constructive, nor helpful. Please do not spam protect requests, there is a specific process for this. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The correct place to request protection is WP:RFPP/I. Kpddg (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't look like there's been a huge amount of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Not NYSE delisted yet

Just throwing it out there that Twitter hasn't been delisted from the NYSE yet. Right now, the NYSE has suspended trades and intends to delist "at the opening of business on November 08, 2022".1. P37307 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Ridiculous long and redundant information inside article

I notice also that this WP article is repeating the same information text over and over again? 147.95.130.109 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. Where do you see information being repeated? If you're referring to the WP:LEAD, that section is intended to provide a summary of the article contents, in which case key details found below will of course be mentioned. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claim of "most poorly handled layoffs"

In the last part of the article there's a very dubious claim about the nature of the layoffs normally being done where employees are informed of the nature of the layoffs. As someone working in the valley, not once have I ever heard of or been a part of a layoff personally where employees were informed of the details of the layoff before it occurred. In fact layoffs were generally a surprise and done in a rapid pace with much confusion the day of and following. And never have I heard from anyone who has been part of a layoff of it being any different. Ergzay (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus Rather than just stripping the template out again, let's discuss. That's the point of the template. You shouldn't strip it out without first achieving some kind of consensus. Ergzay (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss. {{Dubious}} is generally used to tag factual statements of questionable accuracy, but this is literally just someone's opinion. If we were to write, Twitter's decision not to inform employees of who was being laid off and why is highly unprecedented. then it would make sense to tag that as dubious, but no, we're clearly attributing this to the opinion of the Harvard professor. It's the same thing for all of the commentary in the two sections, it might not be true that the acquisition is "about controlling a megaphone" like Greg Bensinger thinks, or that Twitter used to be operated by "radical left lunatics" like Trump says, but it doesn't matter because we've already made it clear that these are opinions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Third. GenQuest "scribble" 22:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

How much?

The lede says Musk "made an unsolicited offer to purchase the company for $43 billion" and in the next sentence that Twitter "accepted Musk's buyout offer of $44 billion"... so which is it: $43b or $44b? Or did the "poison pill" strategy increase the number of shares by 18.5mil so that $54.20/share was now $44b? In which case, let's say that. Tobus (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This was previously brought up at /Archive 1#Amount of offer. It's not entirely clear why, and there has been no source explaining this discrepancy, but the offer was reported to be $43 billion while the final agreement was reported to be $44 billion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

lede

changed the wording a little in the lede of the article. the edit about people support the acquisition stays, but I'd welcome some feedback and change to the big tech part Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE to put it in the lead. I'm going to have to remove that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the lede now, check it out Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Post-acquisition info

@DFlhb: I agree with your edit to some extent, we shouldn't be adding everything Musk does after the closure, i.e. with Twitter Blue and Vine. But I still believe there is value in retaining his general efforts to overhaul the platform, and also anything he does which fulfills his pre-acquisition pledges. We should probably also determine a "cutoff date" where we should stop adding new info to this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the first major changes he makes at Twitter should be included, since they give context for the takeover. I just don't think announcements he makes in tweets, or rumors, or reports based on anonymous sources (we've seen how reliable those are) are noteworthy. He hasn't done much yet except redirect the homepage to the explore page (which we note). We can wait a few weeks until new features are released, and new content policies are officially revealed; there's no urgency here. DFlhb (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I've changed my mind about Twitter Blue, apparently that's Musk's plan to defeat spambots and trolls, so that's probably noteworthy. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Blue, Vine, or any major product or feature would be noteworthy IMO; to be clear, my issue isn't that they're not major, but that they're rumors. DFlhb (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Those aren't rumors. Wikipedia treats reports from reliable sources as fact unless they are later proven otherwise. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia most certainly does not; that's an essay, not policy. The relevant policies are
  • WP:VNOT: "verifiability does not guarantee inclusion"
  • WP:RSBREAKING, which states:
    • "Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it does not need to go into all details of a current event in real time";
    • And recommends "distrusting anonymous sources and unconfirmed reports";
    • And very clearly says: "All breaking-news stories, without exception, are primary sources, and must be treated with caution".
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also very clear that something being "verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
Responding to your other reply below: I see zero reason to add things that don't belong, only to later remove them. We can simply not add them until they prove to be noteworthy (in fact, we shouldn't add them if it contravenes the Wikipedia policies above). There's tons of areas on Wikipedia that need significant attention, and far better stuff to do than adding trivial stuff that'll just get removed or replaced later. It's a total waste of editor time to add stuff that others will then need to copyedit, check for source-agreement, replace with the feature's actual release (as opposed to hype in tweets), etc. DFlhb (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
It seems you've misunderstood me. I was not saying we should include every single news report, I was merely clarifying that your statement they're rumors is not correct. I'm aware of all the guidelines you linked, and I'll repeat my previous comment that I agree, we should not be mentioning everything Musk says or does. As for my "pruning" comment below, I wasn't suggesting that we add things that don't belong, only to later remove them, I was saying we should comb through the article and remove things that aren't noteworthy, which I know you've already been doing. I apologize if I wasn't being clear. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I still think much of the content in the Post-acquisition section is undue and not relevant here, and I fully admit that you never suggested adding things that didn't belong; we just disagree on what belongs. I've kept your reinstatements but removed one sentence based on a NYT report that was evidently false (it's past November 1st and the mass layoffs didn't materialize; since it was based on anonymous sources, it's unknown whether was truly ever considered). DFlhb (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be lesson learned after the 'will he, won't he' of the acquisition process itself. We'd melt the WP servers trying to keep up with everything. I go back to to WP:10YT, what's the stuff people will want to read a decade from now? Each individual tempest in a teapot, or the broad strokes of firing senior leaders and the major policy changes (which can be detailed in the citations, instead of trying to capture it in the article itself). Bakkster Man (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Eventually, I think what we'll do is go through the entire article and start pruning things that are not noteworthy enough to be kept. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, DFlhb, let's break it down.

  • Twitter homepage – as Musk's first change to Twitter, this is probably noteworthy
  • Content moderation council – definitely noteworthy, we have commentary on this as well
  • End of lifetime suspensions – this is a pretty big deal, seems perfectly reasonable to keep this
  • Suggestions from Twitter users – this one I'm okay if we remove, since Musk makes a lot of tweets like these
  • Sole director – obviously noteworthy
  • Twitter Blue – Musk has confirmed this to be true, and it's already faced backlash
  • Website overhaul – we're already omitting mention of specific parts of Twitter Musk wants to revamp, so I think this is fine
  • Won't be unbanned until after midterms – maybe this can be removed, as it doesn't really add anything

Which of the above do you think should be removed? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Since this comment's posting, I've removed two things and added in one sentence on employees' extended work hours. Signing off now for the night. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I saw this, but I don't think it's worth a mention. We're already noting that there was a spike in impersonations, which is enough. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Contributor sources are generally not WP:RS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
That too, but regardless of the fact I was saying the incident itself is not notable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we remove the N word?

The section on Completion of Purchase mentions a 500 percent spike in the use of the N word, which while worth noting, I feel can be done without actually saying that word. Can we instead say something like

"The Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) observed a 500 percent spike in the use of the N word in the 12 hours after Musk completed the acquisition, while The Washington Post noted an increase in pro-Nazi, misogynistic, and anti-LGBTQ+ tweets"? Snokalok (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCENSORED, probably not. If it's notable enough for the article, it's typically notable enough to directly quote. That said, we appear to only be citing WaPo, which doesn't directly quote. Bakkster Man (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
We appear to only be citing WaPo, which doesn't directly quote seems irrelevant, the fact that WaPo is censored does not change the fact that WP is not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree, my note was more questioning if we should cite said report directly. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. There isn't any other way we can word this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Critical analysis vs. Reaction

I dont really see the point for the two different main sections. These two sections ought to be merged. Leaving them separate wikipedia appears to be taking a position on what is a reaction and what is analysis. As an encyclopedia we don't really care and it is all reactions (or analysis), but totally unnecessary to split them at the top level. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

They're clearly different. Those in the Reactions section are not critics, they're just celebrities or public figures who have an opinion to the purchase. If I remember correctly, they used to be in the same section until some editors questioned why journalists and legal experts' opinions were "relevant", so it was split. Also, if we merge the two sections, it will likely become excessively large, unless we do some serious trimming. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
What is a "critic" other than an especially vocal public figure? Ergzay (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The difference is, if you were to ask someone on the street who Lauren Hirsch or David Kaye is, there's a good chance they wouldn't be able to tell you. That probably won't be the case for Trump and Jeff Bezos and LeBron James and so forth. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I am not opposed to trimming. Next, what criteria is currently used to determine which content is a reaction and which is analysis? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Currently, the Critical analysis section is for commentary from media outlets (i.e. journalists), legal experts, professors, and advocacy groups. Reactions is for basically everyone else, so Twitter employees, politicians, celebrities, Twitter users, companies, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. A critical analysis is no different from a reaction in the end. The only real difference is that someone is doing it from their chair in an institution as opposed to one done from their own home. Ergzay (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Analysis means commentary only, as in what someone thinks of something. Reactions is broader than that, it also includes things like Twitter users leaving the platform, companies stopping their advertising, advocacy groups initiating campaigns, politicians launching investigations, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I dont think there is a clear distinction in these two groups to create this bifurcation. Probably the sections are excessive and undue given above comments after merging. Please explain a clear rationale for keep the separation, otherwise I think a merge of the two sections is necessary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I have given a clear rationale why they should be kept separate, it's I dont think there is a clear distinction in these two groups to create this bifurcation that isn't a clear rationale why they shouldn't (WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Its not just me, I dont see anyone in this talk section supporting this approach other than you. Am I confused? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) One, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's about how convincing the arguments being put forth are, not about how many people agree with something. Two, you appear to ignoring QRep2020's comment below which is clearly against a merge. Three, you have not responded to my request for a good rationale on why you believe there is no distinction. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The difference is the "Reactions" are almost always immediate responses from nonexperts while the "Critical Analyses" are prepared responses from examinations done by people who have studied such phenomena. To say there is no distinction is to basically say to hell with the notion of the reasoned reflection. QRep2020 (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Then the journalists and advocacy groups don't belong in "Critical analysis", they belong in "Reactions". Let's not elevate media bothsides-ism (or sensationalism) "he might ruin it, might not!". The media's "analysis" is mostly based on the reactions of advocacy groups Wikipedia explicitly treats as biased sources, not scholarly sources (for example WP:MEDIAMATTERS)
Wikipedia consistently count journalist reactions as primary sources, per WP:RSBREAKING and per WP:PRIMARYNEWS (the latter is an essay, but not a controversial one). They are accurate sources for the journalist's view; not accurate sources for their analysis. Actual experts (lawyers, tech experts, financial experts, researchers) belong in Critical analysis. DFlhb (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. QRep2020 (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
There are no breaking news stories or immediate reactions in the Critical analysis section. They are all op-eds. So they aren't the same as Reactions. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, I linked to the wrong thing. WP:NEWSORG and WP:NOR#defs apply rather than RSBREAKING. Actual critical analyses certainly deserve to be highlighted, but they should be secondary sources, i.e. actual experts delivering an analysis. DFlhb (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I must admit I'm confused here, what does the fact that opinion pieces can be considered primary sources have to do with this? Long story short, one section covers spontaneous reactions and commentary from notable figures, and the other covers analytical and speculative commentary from journalists and subject-matter experts. To say that they're one and the same is incorrect. It's commentators' job to discuss their opinions, they've been trained to do this for a living, but notable figures have no obligation to share what they think. If you're suggesting that "analysis" is an inaccurate word, how about we change it to Critical commentary? InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I continue to believe these sections should be merged as this discussion of the type of content it is not encyclopedic and a waste of editor's time. I have done an RFC below. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
See my reply in the RFC below. If I'm a Wikipedia reader, and I want to look at what actual experts are saying, I have to dig through what a bunch of random no-name journalists have said, much of which is sensationalistic or opinionated. Actual scholarly input should be surfaced, not buried among a bunch of non-expert musings. DFlhb (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Why remove allegations of bias?

I'm confused by @DFlhb's repeated removal of allegations of bias in Twitter's censorship of anti-fascist activists. The justification is that The Daily Dot and TheWrap are unreliable sources, but based on WP:RSP, they seem reasonable, especially because the cited statement is not stating that there is some objective measure of bias, but just that left-wing activists have accused Twitter of bias. @DFlhb's comments seem to accept the WP:FRINGE theory that anti-fascism is not left-wing. Freoh (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

People are free to see the diffs for both my edits: edit 1, edit 2, and to check what WP:RSP says about both sources.
As I said in my edit summary, The Daily Dot is about an obscure Telegram group, not Twitter; and The Wrap ("The Wire" was a typo) is a dubious sources that incorrectly claims that "Alex Jones, Mike Lindell, [and] Steve Bannon" were unbanned by Musk, when none of them were. Both articles are "reporting" uncritically on random tweets, which provides zero due weight since they're not WP:RS for politics.
Your attempt to discern my political views is completely off-topic; my point was that describing self-described antifa activists as simply "left-wing" is about as accurate as calling monarchists simply "right-wing"; and further shows these sources' lack of credibility. I won't make a list of the scholarly sources calling antifa "far-left" rather than left-wing, since they are easy to find. DFlhb (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
I changed the citation to a different one. Freoh (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
New one's great. DFlhb (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we include the Musk announcement tweet?

Musk announced the acquisition was complete in a tweet which said: "the bird is freed". @Freoh removed the tweet, which he found inappropriate, calling it Musk's misleading "free speech" propaganda" (diff here)

Should we include this tweet in the article? DFlhb (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Support as proposer; the tweet went viral, and was featured in practically every news story announcing the close of the acquisition. It's also nice to vary the layout a little, and not just have endless blocks of text; having a tweet on the side is a neat idea when appropriate, and I feel that it is, here. DFlhb (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I was trying to follow the WP:QUOTE guidelines, which state that Quote boxes should generally be avoided as they draw attention to the opinion of one source as though Wikipedia endorses it, which may violate the neutral point of view policy. There's been a lot of controversy about Musk's "free speech" angle, and @Jtbobwaysf has removed a tweet that counters Musk's narrative. It seems misleading to have the only Tweet be one from Musk himself promoting the "free speech" narrative, especially when there's been a lot of attention on the recent purge. Freoh (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Re-added (Support) this article is about the acquisition and the acquirer's statement about it is certainly WP:DUE. The reverting editor is also engaged in similar dubious behavior in the preceding talk page section, and the justification "Musk's misleading "free speech" propaganda" makes it sound like POV pushing. I reverted to re-add it. Let's leave the content on the article as-is until it is clear there is substantial support for the removing editor's POV/claims. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be aggressive, just to use the edit summary to concisely justify my changes. How would you have preferred I phrase it? Freoh (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Acording to your own admission the edit summary is why you removed it. You cannot remove something for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Your opinion on the article subject's free speech, as well as your reverts of other content in the sections above this on this very talk page are inappropriate. We follow sources and not everything you like or dislike will be in an article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't removing it because I "just don't like it." I was removing it to adhere to WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:QUOTE. What reverts are you referring to? Freoh (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Oppose, per the concern of Freoh that an embedded tweet risks being WP:UNDUE. Especially for such a short quote. I propose putting it right in the prose, like this: In the afternoon of October 27, Musk and Twitter closed the deal, with Musk tweeting "the bird is freed". Keeps the citation and content, without the concerns of undue weight on the block quote. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal. Freoh (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this too. - MountainKemono (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I made this change as there hasn't been any disagreement yet, to try and keep this moving towards resolution. If there is strong opposition that hasn't been voiced, others are free to revert and continue the discussion. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Jolly good, there is no wrong with being bold as they say. - MountainKemono (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Second. 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC) QRep2020 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Note I removed a couple more tweets just now about trump and about musk stepping down. If we are not adding tweets about the acquistion as they are undue, it seems the others are probably even less due. Maybe logical WP:NOTDIR of musk and other's tweets. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    I've WP:BOLDly restored the stepping down poll, as that actually seems notable and central to the whole Twitter–Musk saga. The Trump poll removal, I endorse. This discussion was specifically about the "bird is freed" tweet, there was no consensus for prohibiting all kinds of tweets, which is why the "I made an offer" tweet is still there. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds good. I myself do support the inclusion of acquisition related tweets (bird is free, etc). Was wrongly thinking that we were banning tweets from the article. I did have a look for others and tried to remove them, but I guess I missed that one. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper labeling

Generally speaking, the use of adjectives is always a challenge to neutrality and imho a bad practice. So why are only some newspapers labeled as "conservative" or "evangelical"? Why is not the NYT labeled as "left-wing" and the WaPo as "Bezos-owned"? My suggestion would be to drop the labeling altogether. 2001:B07:ADD:C4B2:444B:5AB9:46AF:46C0 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, makes more sense ! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Lead Section is poorly sourced

Although the whole paragraph is poorly sourced but this sentence in particular is without any kind of backing : "his heavy-handed approach to content moderation".


Which source mentions his approach to content moderation as "heavy-handed" ?


Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. Freoh added this earlier today, and we were just discussing whether this was appropriate in this section above. Since there appears to be consensus to remove heavy-handed, I'll do that now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you !! Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Does Musk own all shares now?

The introduction says "Twitter's board ... unanimously accepted Musk's buyout offer of $44 billion on April 25. " I'm not sure what buyout means here, and the Buyout article is a bit ambiguous. Are there shareholders other than Musk, or does he own 100% of Twitter's shares? Mateussf (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

He owns all of the shares: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-29/elon-musk-twitter-deal-how-much-did-elon-pay/101593622 QRep2020 (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously not; it's private equity, with other investors owning shares. The only difference is that there is no public secondary market. DFlhb (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that this is obvious to all Wikipedia readers, and it seems like it would be worth clarifying if you can find a good source, but this is outside of my area of expertise. Freoh (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I believe it is public news that Jack Dorsey rolled his shared into the new enterprise, thus we know that Musk doesnt own all. I believe other shareholders were made the same offer as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that this would be worth clarifying in the article, especially because some sites explicitly say 100% [2] [3]. I don't have the time or financial expertise to figure out the best way to word it, though. Freoh (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
In this context, "buyout" is used as a synonym of "acquisition" and "deal" and "purchase" and "takeover", just so we're not repeating the same word over and over again a hundred times in the article. We can switch to a different synonym (one of the four I listed) if editors believe it would reduce confusion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on the buyout/acquisition/deal/purchase/takeover terminology. I just feel like this article could be a little bit clearer on the specific concrete effects of the buyout. What percentage of Twitter's shares does Musk own? How much of Twitter's profits go to him? Who exactly did he buy the company from? What legal power over Twitter employees does Musk get from this buyout? What exactly is the legal relationship between Twitter and Musk's other companies now? What happens to Musk if Twitter flops? I don't know if all of this information is necessarily covered in good sources, but I feel like this is some basic information that a general reader might expect to see on this page, and some of the more technical details could be made more accessible to an audience unfamiliar with how finance works. Freoh (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we don't have to answers to half of those questions, but of course editors are welcome to search for them online. If they succeed in finding RS's that discuss them, I'm open to adding them in, but right now there's nothing we can do without any sources. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM also applies to some of this nonsense. If you have sources for something discuss it, but dont bring this nonsense rhetoric here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Resignation poll

Is that much detail truly necessary for this section? Things like this "Musk responded "interesting" to unfounded theories that the result of the resignation poll had been influenced by bots" feel clearly non-neutral in their wording and don't really bear any impact on anything, considering Musk did announce he'd be stepping down after the poll. As it is, this reads like a suggestion that he may not obey the poll. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

How about After this result, Musk signaled that he would restrict future polls on major policy changes to Twitter Blue subscribers.? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I had thought there was a more direct refusal that got reneged on, but there's reason to have some skepticism that the poll and the decision to step down are directly related. I think we need some level of context between points A and B. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Without a reliable sources, we cannot draw connections ourselves. Fact A: Musk did a poll, majority wanted him to step down. Fact B: Musk said "interesting" in response to the bot theory. That's all the information we have, and that's all the information we are presenting. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk/Archive_1&oldid=1135040541"